Scientific controversy and asbestos: making disease invisible

Our plain-English summary of Scientific controversy and asbestos: making disease invisible, by L. Braun, A. Greene, M. Manseau, et al (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2003).

The study

• Authors: L. Braun, A. Greene, M. Manseau, R. Singhal, S. Kisting, N. Jacobs
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Published: 2003;9(3):194-205
• Type of article: Review
• Cited by: 8 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Despite irrefutable evidence that asbestos causes asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma, asbestos mining, milling, and manufacturing continue. The authors discuss three scientific debates over the roles of fiber types, viruses, and genetics in the development of mesothelioma. While these controversies might appear internal to science and unconnected to policies of the global asbestos industry, they argue that scientific debates, whether or not fostered by industry, play a central role in shaping conceptualization of the problem of asbestos-related disease. In South Africa, India, and elsewhere, these controversies help to make the disease experience of asbestos-exposed workers and people in asbestos-contaminated communities invisible, allowing the asbestos industry to escape accountability for its practices.

In plain English

This article is an essay, not a study that collected new data on patients or workers. The authors described the social setting of asbestos-related disease in South Africa, which has deposits of chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite, and in India, two countries where asbestos products were still widely used. They then analyzed three scientific debates about what causes mesothelioma. The first was the "amphibole hypothesis": the claim that only amphibole fibers, not chrysotile, cause mesothelioma. The second was the idea that SV40, a monkey virus that contaminated some polio vaccines in the 1950s, plays a role. The third was genetic susceptibility. Their only count of their own was a Medline search that found 61 publications on SV40 and mesothelioma from 1994 to 2002: 35 primary research articles and 26 reviews or commentaries. The authors argued that scientists with close ties to industry promote the amphibole hypothesis. They also argued that SV40 and genetic studies made only cursory attempts to assess asbestos exposure. The authors concluded that these debates undermine international efforts to hold the asbestos industry accountable for its practices.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: essay (analytical commentary); not an original study of patients or workers
• Who was studied: No study population. The essay discusses asbestos-exposed workers and communities in South Africa and India, and published scientific debates about mesothelioma.
• Exposure: Asbestos in general, including the chrysotile and amphibole (amosite, crocidolite) types found in South Africa. The essay also discusses two other proposed factors in mesothelioma, SV40 virus and genetic susceptibility.
• Main results:
  • A Medline search for "SV40 and mesothelioma" found 61 publications from 1994 to 2002: 35 primary research articles and 26 reviews or commentaries.
  • The authors argued that the amphibole hypothesis, the claim that only amphibole fibers and not chrysotile cause mesothelioma, is promoted by scientists with close ties to industry and the state.
  • The authors argued that studies proposing SV40 or genetic causes of mesothelioma made only cursory attempts to assess asbestos exposure.
  • Against the SV40 hypothesis, the authors noted, citing a personal communication, that most South Africans were never vaccinated for polio.
  • The authors criticized a family report that suggested genetic susceptibility to mesothelioma. They pointed out that the mother and two children with mesothelioma had a high probability of asbestos exposure.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that, by shifting the focus of disease to the individual, proponents of the SV40 and genetic hypotheses undermine international efforts to hold the asbestos industry accountable and make the disease experience of exposed people invisible.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The authors stated that their chosen terms, "industrialized" and "less industrialized", have the serious limitation of privileging the economic over other systems of domination.
  • The authors stated that they did not address the potential liability of vaccine manufacturers in the SV40 debate.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Asbestosis, Mesothelioma.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Lung Cancer, Mesothelioma.

Related studies

• Asbestos-related morbidity in India — T.K. Joshi, R.K. Gupta (2003)
• Asbestos-related disease in South Africa: the social production of an invisible epidemic — L. Braun, S. Kisting (2006)
• Asbestos: old foe in 21st century developing countries — L.V. Harris, I.A. Kahwa (2003)
• Cape Plc: South African mineworkers' quest for justice — R. Meeran (2003)
• Asbestos: scientific developments and implications for public policy — B.T. Mossman, J. Bignon, et al. (1990)
• The asbestos war — L. Kazan-Allen (2003)

Browse more research in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, or return to medical research.