This article analyzes the consequences of the increasing reference to scientific expertise in the decision and implementation process of occupational health policy. Based on examples (exposure limits and attributable fractions) taken from an interdisciplinary seminar conducted in 2014 to 2015 in France, it shows how the measurement or regulation of a problem through biomedicine-based tools produces blind spots. It also uses a case study to show the contradictions between scientific and academic aims and public health intervention. Other indirect implications are also examined, such as the limitation of trade unions’ scope for action. Finally, the article suggests launching a broad political debate accessible to nonspecialists about collective occupational health issues—a dialogue made difficult by the rise of the afore-mentioned techno-scientific perspective.
SpectorMKitsuseJI.Constructing social problems.
Menlo Park:
Cummings, 1977.
2.
GilbertCHenryE.Defining social problems: tensions between discreet compromise and publicity. Rev Fr Sociol (English)2012;
53: 31–54.
3.
HenryE.The new dynamics of knowledge and the persistence of power relations: the limited impact of important transformations in occupational health expertise. Rev Fr Sci Polit (English)2011;
61: 25–43.
4.
CounilEHenryE.Is it time to rethink the way we assess the burden of work-related cancer?Curr Epidemiol Rep2019;
6: 138–147.
5.
JasanoffS.The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers.
Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1990.
6.
GibbonsMLimogesCNowotnyH, et al. The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.
London:
SAGE Publications, 1994.
7.
PestreD.Regimes of knowledge production in society: towards a more political and social reading. Minerva2003;
41: 245–261.
8.
ProctorRN.Golden holocaust: origins of the cigarette catastrophe and the case for abolition.
Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2011.
9.
MarkowitzGERosnerD.Deceit and denial: the deadly politics of industrial pollution.
Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2002.
10.
McCullochJTweedaleG.Defending the indefensible: the global asbestos industry and its fight for survival.
New York:
Oxford University Press, 2008.
11.
MichaelsD.Doubt is their product: how industry’s assault on science threatens your health.
New York:
Oxford University Press, 2008.
12.
OreskesNConwayEM.Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming.
New York:
Bloomsbury Press, 2010.
13.
HessDJ.Undone science. Social movements, mobilized publics, and industrial transitions.
Cambridge:
MIT Press, 2016.
14.
GrandjeanPEriksenMLEllegaardO, et al.
The Matthew effect in environmental science publication: a bibliometric analysis of chemical substances in journal articles. Environ Health2011;
10: 1–8.
15.
PaullJM.The origin and basis of threshold limit values. Am J Ind Med1984;
5: 227–238.
16.
SellersCC.Hazards of the job: from industrial disease to environmental health science.
Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1997.
17.
HenryE.License to expose? Occupational exposure limits, scientific expertise and state in contemporary France. In: BoudiaSJasN (eds) Toxicants, health and regulation since 1945.
London:
Pickering and Chatto, 2013, pp. 89–102.
18.
HenryE.L’importation des valeurs limites d’exposition professionnelle en France: convergence transnationale ou redéfinition du rôle de l’État et des modes d’intervention publique? In: BoudiaSHenryE (eds) La Mondialisation des risques. Une histoire politique et transnationale des risques sanitaires et environnementaux.
Rennes:
Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2015, pp. 181–196.
19.
CastlemanBIZiemGE.Corporate influence on threshold limit values. Am J Ind Med1988;
13: 531–559.
20.
RoachSARappaportSM.But they are not thresholds: a critical analysis of the documentation of threshold limit values. Am J Ind Med1990;
17: 727–753.
21.
SellersCC.Discovering environmental cancer: Wilhelm Hueper, post-World War II epidemiology, and the vanishing clinician’s eye. Am J Public Health1997;
87: 1824–1835.
22.
HenryE. Governing Occupational Exposure Using Thresholds: A Policy Biased Toward Industry. Sci Techno Hum Val. May 2021. doi:10.1177/01622439211015300
23.
BoullierHHenryE. Toxic Ignorance: when regulatory procedures and industrial knowledge jeopardise the assessment of industrial chemicals. Sci Cult. Under review.
24.
GaleyLAudignonSWitschgerO, et al.
What does ergonomics have to do with nanotechnologies? A case study. Appl Ergonom2020;
87: 103116.
25.
HenryE.Ignorance scientifique et inaction publique. Les politiques de santé au travail.
Paris:
Presses de Sciences Po, 2017.
26.
RoseG.Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J Epidemiol1985;
14: 32–38.
27.
RoseG.The strategy of preventive medicine.
Cambridge:
Oxford University Press, 1992.
28.
LevinM.The occurrence of lung cancer in man. Acta Unio Int Contra Cancrum1953;
9: 531–541.
29.
DollRPetoR.The causes of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today. J Natl Cancer Inst1981;
68: 1192–1308.
30.
ParascandolaM.Causes, risks, and probabilities: probabilistic concepts of causation in chronic disease epidemiology. Prev Med2011;
53: 232–234.
31.
CounilE.Le travail comme analyseur des tensions dans la construction épidémiologique de causes et de responsabilités. Sociologie du travail2019;
61, 2 Apr-Jun 2019, DOI:10.4000/sdt.18116.
32.
BetansediC-OVaca VasquezPCounilE.A comprehensive approach of the gender bias in occupational cancer epidemiology: A systematic review of lung cancer studies (2003-2014). Am J Ind Med2018;
61: 372–382.
33.
RockhillBNewmanBWeinbergC.Use and misuse of population attributable fractions. Am J Public Health1998;
88: 15–19.
34.
PooleC.A history of the population attributable fraction and related measures. Ann Epidemiol2015;
25: 147–154.
35.
KriegerN.Health Equity and the Fallacy of Treating Causes of Population Health as if They Sum to 100. Am J Public Health2017;
107: 541–549.
36.
ParkinDM.Cancers attributable to occupational exposures in the UK in 2010. Br J Cancer2011;
105: S70–S72.
37.
RothmanKJGreenlandS.Causation and causal inference in epidemiology. Am J Public Health2005;
95: 144–150.
38.
BerlivetL.Argumentation scientifique et espace public. La quête de l’objectivité dans les controverses autour des “risques de santé”. In: FrançoisBNeveuE (eds) Espaces publics mosaïques. Acteurs, arènes et rhétoriques, des débats publics contemporains.
Rennes:
Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 1999, pp. 185–208.
39.
LevineB.What does the population attributable fraction mean?Prevent Chron Dis2007;
4: A14.
40.
Thébaud-MonyA.Construire la visibilité des cancers professionnels: Une enquête permanente en Seine-Saint-Denis. Revue Française Des Affaires Sociales2008;
3: 237–254.
41.
SoerjomataramIShieldKMarant-MicallefC, et al.
Cancers related to lifestyle and environmental factors in France in 2015. Eur J Cancer2018;
105: 103–113.
42.
HutchingsSRushtonL.Toward risk reduction: predicting the future burden of occupational cancer. Am J Epidemiol2011;
173: 1069–1077.
43.
WhiteMCPeipinsLA, Watsonet al.
Cancer prevention for the next generation. J Adolesc Health52: S1–S7.
44.
ProctorR.Cancer wars: how politics shapes what we know and don’t know about cancer.
New York:
Basic Books, 1995.
45.
BlotWJTaroneRE.Doll and Peto’s quantitative estimates of cancer risks: holding generally true for 35 years. J Natl Cancer Inst2015; 107 (4):djv044. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv044. PMID: 25739419.
46.
TweedaleG.Hero or villain?–Sir Richard Doll and occupational cancer. Int J Occup Environ Health2007;
13: 233–235.
47.
FoxJAdelsteinM.Occupational mortality: work or way of life?J Epidemiol Community Health1978;
32: 73–78.
48.
CloughertyJESouzaKCullenMR.Work and its role in shaping the social gradient in health. Ann N Y Acad Sci2010;
1186: 102–124.
49.
AhonenEQFujishiroKCunninghamT, et al.
Work as an inclusive part of population health inequities research and prevention. Am J Public Health2018;
108: 306–311.
50.
VaccarellaSLortet-TieulentJSaracciR, et al. Reducing social inequalities in cancer: evidence and priorities for research. IARC Scientific Publication No. 168, Lyon, France, IARC, 2019. Available from: http://publications.iarc.fr/580, 2019.
51.
MessingK.Pain and prejudice: what science can learn about work from the people who do it. Toronto, Between the Lines, 2014.
52.
PézeratH, et al. (2012) De l’alerte à la condamnation en faute inexcusable. Une épidémie de cancers du rein chez les travailleurs d’une entreprise de l’industrie chimique. In: Thébaud-MonyA, et al. (eds) Santé au travail: approches critiques.
Paris:
La Découverte, 2012, pp. 313–331.
53.
RichardSCarretteMNBeroudC, et al.
High incidence of renal tumours in vitamins A and E synthesis workers: a new cause of occupational cancer?Int J Cancer2004;
108: 942–944.
54.
IwatsuboYBenezetLBoutou-KempfO, et al.
An extensive epidemiological investigation of a kidney cancer cluster in a chemical plant: what have we learned?Occup Environ Med2014;
71: 4–11.
55.
SinksT.Screenings and clusters: a cancer cluster in a chemical plant. Occup Environ Med2014;
71: 2–3.
EpsteinS.Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge.
Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1996.
58.
CallonMLascoumesPBartheY.Acting in an uncertain world.
Cambridge:
MIT Press, 2009.
59.
BrownP.Toxic exposures: contested illnesses and the environmental health movement.
New York:
Columbia University Press, 2007.
60.
IrwinA.Citizen science: a study of people, expertise, and sustainable development.
London:
Routledge, 1995.
61.
KimuraAHKinchyA.Science by the people: Participation, power, and the politics of environmental knowledge.
New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press, 2019.
62.
MerglerD.Worker participation in occupational health research: theory and practice. Int J Health Serv1987;
17: 151–167.
63.
EakinJ.Towards a ‘standpoint’ perspective: health and safety in small workplaces from the perspective of the workers. Policy Pract Health Saf2010;
8: 113–127.
64.
CounilEHenryE.Frontières disciplinaires et tensions entre savoirs académiques et connaissances issues du terrain dans la production de savoir et d’ignorance en santé et travail. Pistes - Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé[Online], 2018, 20–1, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/pistes.5631
