This paper examines the development of the concept of the hypersusceptible worker, as advanced by H. E. Stokinger and his associates. It is argued that this concept enabled industrial toxicologists to organize knowledge about workers' reactions to toxicity so as to sustain a professional and methodological ideology which reflects the relationship between industrial toxicology and capitalist industry. Moreover, it is argued that it is this aspect of hypersusceptibility, rather than its practical utility to specific corporations, that is most important. Constraints on implementation of screening programs based on the ideas of genetic hypersusceptibility are also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CalabreseE. J.Genetic screening for hypersusceptibles in industry. Med. Hypotheses7: 393, 1981.
2.
Genetic Screening and the Handling of High-risk Groups in the Workplace. Hearings before the House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science and Technology, October 14–15, 1981. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1981.
3.
OmennG. S.Predictive identification of hypersusceptible individuals. J. Occup. Med.24(5): 369–374, 1982.
StokingerH. E.MountainJ. T.Progress in detecting the worker hypersusceptible to industrial chemicals. J. Occup. Med.9: 537–542, 1967.
8.
StokingerH. E.MountainJ. T.ScheelL. D.Pharmacogenetics in the detection of the hypersusceptible worker. Ann. NY Acad. Sci.151: 968–976, 1968.
9.
StokingerH. E.ScheelL. D.Hypersusceptibility and Genetic Problems in Occupational Medicine-A Consensus Report. Presented at the 17th International Congress on Occupational Health, September 17–23, 1972, Buenos Aires. J. Occup. Med.15: 564–573, 1973.
10.
CautlierM.GervaisP.de TraverseP. M.FoumierP. E.CoqueletM. C.LoygneA. M.HoussetH.Variations hemoglobiniques l'ordre genetique en milieu professional. Arches Mal Prov. Med. Trav.29: 197–201, 1964.
11.
CalabreseE. J.Pollutants and High Risk Groups: The Biological Basis of Increased Human Susceptibility to Environmental and Occupational Pollutants. Wiley, New York, 1977.
12.
TurshenM.Why OCAW Members Should Know About Recombinant DNA Research. Health and Safety Report, OCAW, Denver, Colorado, 1980.
13.
ClutterbuckC.The new industrial gene screen. Science for People32: 4–6, 1976.
14.
BeckwithJ.Industrial genetic screening. Science for the People, March/April, 1980, pp. 20–22.
15.
YoxenE.Molecular biology and the possibility of a neo-eugenics movement. In Genmanipulation, edited by HerbigJ., Rowohlt, 1981.
16.
ResnickH.Letter. J. Occup. Med.15: 858, 1973.
17.
CooperW. C.Indicators of susceptibility. J. Occup. Med.15: 355–359, 1973.
18.
Wall Street Journal, March 23, 1978, p. 46.
19.
SeveroR.Genetic Screening at Du Pont: Editorial Writing at the Washington Post. Remarks prepared for delivery to the AAAS meeting in Toronto, Canada, January 8, 1981.
20.
YoungR. M.Science is social relations. Radical Science Journal5: 65–129, 1977.
21.
RussellD.Toxicology at work. Science for People43/44: 20–22, 1979.
22.
New York Times, February 5, 1980, p. 1.
23.
SmythH. F.Industrial hygiene in retrospect and prospect. Am. J. Ind. Hyg.24: 222–226, 1963.
24.
HatchT.Thresholds: Do they exist?Arch. Environ. Health22: 687–688, 1971.
25.
Proceedings of Conference on Pollutants and High-Risk Groups (sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), June 3–6, 1978. Environ. Health Perspect. 29: 152–175, 1979.
26.
HarasztiM.A Worker in a Workers' State. Pelican, 1977.
27.
Cited in HatchT.Permissible levels of exposure to hazardous agents in industry. J. Occup. Med.14: 134–137, 1972.
28.
RoschinA.V. Int. Labour Review110: 235–245, 1974.
29.
British Society for Social Responsibility in Science Work Hazards Group. Threshold limit values?Hazards Bulletin97, July 1977.
30.
StokingerH. E.Sanity in research and evaluation of environmental health: How to achieve a realistic evaluation in seven commandments. Science174: 662–665, 1971.
31.
DinmanB. D.“Non-concept” of “no-threshold”: Chemicals in the environment. Science175: 495–497, 1972.
32.
StokingerH. E.Concepts of thresholds in standard setting. Arch. Environ. Health25: 153–157, 1972.
33.
Johns-Manville Sales Corporation and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers AFL-CIO Local 1609—Grievance of no-smoking on company property rule. American Arbitration Case No. 71, 30013Z-76, 1976.
34.
SzeinbergA.AvinoamA.MyersA.ShebaC.RamotB.A hematological survey of industrial workers with enzyme-deficient erythrocytes. AMA Arch. Indust. Health20: 510–516, 1959.
35.
ResnickH.LappN. LeroyMorganW. K. C.Serum trypsin inhibitor concentrations in coalminers with respiratory symptoms. JAMA215: 1101–1105, 1971.
36.
LiebermanJ.Letter. JAMA216: 884, 1971.
37.
BristowL. R.The myth of sickle-cell trait. West. J. Med.121: 77–82, 1974.
38.
LehmanN.HuntsmanN.The hemoglobinopathies. In The Metabolic Basis of Inherited Disease, edited by StanbergJ. B.WyngaartenJ. B.FredricksonD. S., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1972.
39.
BeutlerE.BoggsD. R.HellerP.Hazards of indiscriminate screening for sickling. N. Engl. J. Med.285: 1485, 1971.
40.
NalbandianR. M.Mass screening programs for sickle-cell hemoglobin. JAMA221: 500, 1972.
41.
DjuricD.Postic-GrujinA.Graovac-LeposaricL.DeticV.YugoslaviaD.Disulfiram as an indicator of human susceptibility to carbon disulfide. Arch. Environ. Health26: 287–290, 1973.
42.
HaldaneJ. B. S.Heredity and Politics. Allen and Unwin, London, 1938.
43.
RamazziniB.De Morbis Artificum: Diatriba, 1700.
44.
Health and Safety at Work. Publication of the U.K. Health and Safety Executive, October 1980.
45.
DuncanK. P.Exposure limits—whose responsibility? In Recent Advances in Occupational Health, edited by MacdonaldJ. C., pp. 251–258. Churchill-Livingstone, London, 1981.
46.
JeffryC. R.Biology and Crime. Sage, New York, 1979.
