Mercenary Science and Asbestos

I have written recently about what’s called “mercenary science” and how it is used to keep unsafe products on the market. Today I’m going to talk specifically about how mercenary science has been used to deny the dangers of asbestos, known to cause the deadly lung cancer mesothelioma.

This story begins in 1972, when six major asbestos manufacturers formed the Asbestos Information Association. According to SourceWatch, the main purpose of the AIA was to counter, devalue or dismiss “the growing scientific evidence implicating asbestos in serious disease conditions.” The organization was managed by a public relations executive whose firm also worked on behalf of Big Tobacco.

Dr. Kenny Crump was a scientist who worked as a consultant for the AIA legal team. Dr. Crump testified against OSHA regulations proposed to reduce exposures to asbestos in 1984. Almost 20 years later, the EPA gave Crump and co-researcher Dr. Wayne Berman a contract to develop a mathematical model that would assess the risks of contracting cancer from various forms of asbestos. Crump and Berman concluded that chrysotile asbestos, the type most commonly used in the United States, probably does not increase a risk of asbestos cancer.

After the Crump and Berman findings were published, asbestos companies used them as a basis for asking courts to dismiss thousands of lawsuits filed by victims. Some asbestos companies in Texas filed a legal motion to have the Crump model adopted by state courts as the standard for all asbestos litigation in that state. Dr. Crump could not testify for his model because he represented the asbestos industry. Instead, the asbestos companies called on a scientist from Cambridge Environmental, a consulting firm that advertised its litigation services as “technical strategies for arguing the merits of the client’s case and for addressing the likely counter-arguments.” The Cambridge Environmental scientist confirmed Dr. Crump’s work.

But other researchers said the Crump and Berman findings were flawed. The authors of “Maximizing Profit and Endangering Health: Corporate Strategies to Avoid Litigation and Regulation” (Bohme et al., published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, October-December 2005) wrote (p. 341) that Crump and Berman had based their model on a discredited analysis funded by the asbestos industry. In fact, that research had been discredited by the scientist who performed it.

Bohme et al. continued, “While such laundering of data through a series of consultant reports can’t change scientific facts, it can influence judges, juries, regulatory agencies, and the press.”

As recently as 2008 Crump and Berman were presenting their model to the EPA for adoption. The EPA has not adopted the Crump and Berman standards, however. The EPA says,

“Despite the ongoing debate concerning health effects resulting from the different asbestos fiber types, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) considers the different mineral forms of asbestos to be known, human cancer-causing substances with a prolonged latency period of between 10 and 30 years between exposure and the onset of disease.”

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 27th, 2009 at 2:10 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.