Storylines of research on resource extraction and health in Canada: A modified metanarrative synthesis

Our plain-English summary of Storylines of research on resource extraction and health in Canada: A modified metanarrative synthesis, by B. Brisbois, D. Hoogeveen, S. Allison, et al (Social Science & Medicine, 2021).

The study

• Authors: B. Brisbois, D. Hoogeveen, S. Allison, D. Cole, T.M. Fyfe, H.G. Harder, M.W. Parkes
• Journal: Social Science & Medicine
• Published: 2021;277:113899
• Type of article: Review
• Cited by: 11 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Patterns of research on resource extraction's health effects display problematic gaps and underlying assumptions, indicating a need to situate health knowledge production in the context of disciplinary, corporate and neocolonial influences and structures. This paper reports on a modified metanarrative synthesis of 'storylines' of research on resource extraction and health in the Canadian context. Peer-reviewed articles on mining or petroleum extraction and health published between 2000 and 2018 and dealing with Canadian populations or policies (n = 87) were identified through a systematic literature search. Coding identified main disciplinary traditions, methodologies and approaches for judging high-quality research. Underlying assumptions were analyzed in terms of models of health and well-being; resource extraction's political economic drivers; and representations of Indigenous peoples, territories and concerns. Findings included a preponderance of occupational and environmental health studies; frequent presentation of resource extraction without political economic antecedents, and as a major contributor to Canadian society; sustainable development aspirations to mitigate health impacts through voluntary private-sector governance activities; representations of Indigenous peoples and concerns ranging from complete absence to engagement with legacies of historical trauma and environmental dispossession; and indictment of corporate (especially asbestos industry) and government malfeasance in a subset of studies. Canada's world-leading mining sector, petroleum reserves and population health traditions, coupled with colonial legacies in both domestic and overseas mining and petroleum development, make these insights relevant to broader efforts for health equity in relation to resource extraction. They suggest a need for strengthened application of the precautionary principle in relation to resource extraction; nuanced attention to corporate influences on the production of health science; more profound challenges to dominant economic development models; and extension of well-intentioned efforts of researchers and policymakers working within flawed institutions.

Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

In plain English

This was a review of published research, not a study of patients or workers. The authors used a method called a modified meta-narrative synthesis to examine 87 English-language peer-reviewed articles on mining or petroleum extraction and health in Canadian populations or policies, published from January 2000 to June 2018. They did not pool health results. Instead, they coded each article's field, methods and underlying assumptions, and identified five main 'storylines'. Not every article fit neatly into one storyline, and many fit more than one. Occupational health and safety was the most common field, with 39 articles. A cluster of 12 'engaged asbestos' articles criticized Canada's asbestos industry and its supporters. All of these called for a ban on asbestos production and exports, usually explicitly, and none mentioned Indigenous peoples. Overall, 58 of 87 articles made no mention of Indigenous peoples. Of 11 environmental health studies, 9 dealt with possible exposure of Indigenous communities, and seven of these concluded that the concerns behind the study were unfounded. The authors concluded that the perceived inevitability of resource extraction should be challenged. They noted that they did not appraise study quality.

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: Review of published literature using a modified meta-narrative synthesis (a qualitative method that groups research into 'storylines' by field, methods and underlying assumptions)
• Who was studied: 87 English-language peer-reviewed articles dealing with Canadian populations or policies, published January 1, 2000 to June 18, 2018, drawn from systematic database searches
• Exposure: Research on resource extraction, defined as mining and petroleum extraction (including the asbestos industry). Studies of refining or processing were excluded.
• Main results:
  • The authors identified five main storylines. A typology into which all 87 articles could be neatly assigned proved elusive, and individual articles often fit more than one storyline.
  • Occupational health and safety was the most common field (39 articles). It was followed by 12 'engaged asbestos' articles, then environmental health (11), population and public health (11), interdisciplinary environmental or social sciences (7), labour history (4) and geography (3).
  • The 12 engaged asbestos articles argued for bans on asbestos or detailed corporate, government or scientific malfeasance related to asbestos. All of them advocated a ban on asbestos production and exports, usually explicitly.
  • 58 of the 87 articles made no mention of Indigenous peoples. This included all but 2 of the 39 occupational health and safety articles and all of the engaged asbestos articles.
  • 9 of the 11 environmental health studies involved possible exposure of Indigenous communities to toxic substances. Seven of these 9 concluded that the exposure concerns motivating the study were scientifically unfounded.
  • A 'routine science' storyline was found in 29 of 39 occupational health and safety articles and in 10 of 11 environmental health articles.
  • Celebratory portrayals of resource extraction (an 'economic cheerleading' storyline) were found in 8 of 11 environmental health articles, and less prominently in other fields.
  • A 'wrongdoing' storyline about corporate or state misconduct had two main variants: one covering a range of extraction settings, and one focused narrowly on the asbestos industry.
  • The authors judged that virtually all 87 articles assumed that expanding resource extraction is inevitable.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the legitimacy or perceived inevitability of resource extraction needs to be challenged and new development paths imagined.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • Only English-language peer-reviewed literature was included, leaving out a wide range of other literature.
  • The authors did not appraise the quality of the reviewed papers or summarize their results into a single overarching narrative for public health decision-making. They also did not comprehensively track funding sources.
  • Storylines were identified from the text of the articles, which often show underlying assumptions only indirectly. Omissions in an article do not necessarily mean its authors ignored that information elsewhere.
  • Bias due to industry-related conflicts of interest was not assessed quantitatively.
  • Limiting the review to an 18-year period limited consideration of how research traditions have changed over time.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Precautionary Principle.

Related studies

• Preclinical Models and Resources to Facilitate Basic Science Research on Malignant Mesothelioma - A Review — B.W. Johnson, K. Takahashi, et al. (2021)
• Canada, chrysotile and cancer: Health Canada's Asbestos International Expert Panel report — L.T. Stayner (2008)
• Health advocates assail Canada's asbestos stance — R. Collier (2008)
• Results of recent experimental research on the carcinogenicity of natural and modified asbestos — F. Minardi, C. Maltoni (1988)
• Comparison of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria, and PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors for evaluation of tumor response to chemotherapy and prognosis prediction in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma — K. Kitajima, M. Maruyama, et al. (2020)
• Asbestos in Canada: the end is in sight — T.L. Guidotti (2012)

Browse return to medical research.