Corporate Crime and the Use of Science in the Case of Asbestos: Producing Harm Through Discursive Shields

Abstract

This article focuses on the normalization of victimization and harms caused by asbestos, a carcinogenic mineral fiber. To understand the role played by science in hiding the wounds and deaths caused by corporations, the article starts presenting the example of Brazil, where scientific discourse of foreign experts with industry ties are influencing regulation. From there, I examine the disputes for truth in six different medical journals through grounded theory. The results show that authors use some strategies to achieve credibility: avoiding to acknowlegde industry funding; constructing a specific meaning for the controversy about asbestos risks; and reflecting about the consequences os research misconducts. The ways of thinking about asbestos riks and harms are migrating through the international division of scientific labor, both to spread harm and to avoid liability of powerful agents.

Scientific Misconduct in Asbestos-related Occupational Health Studies: A Literature Review on the Impact of Intellectual Dishonesty to Scientific Research

“…Opposing them on the venue, there were representatives of asbestos factory workers. (13) At the time, the SFC made its decision to impose the ban, and the domestic market was contracting while exports were rising and accounting for 44% of Brazil's chrysotile production in 2016. India, Indonesia, Bolivia, Mexico, Vietnam, Malaysia, Ecuador, Colombia, El Salvador, Peru, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines are among the countries that import asbestos from Brazil.…”

“…Brazil was the third-largest exporter in 2018 and 2019, trailing only Russia and Kazakhstan in terms of exports, with 44 and 11 million dollars exported in each year. 13,14 Brazil first had reports of asbestos-related illnesses (ARD) in 1956. 13,15 Scientists have been concerned about a significant underreporting since the 1970s.…”

“…13,14 Brazil first had reports of asbestos-related illnesses (ARD) in 1956. 13,15 Scientists have been concerned about a significant underreporting since the 1970s. According to the opinions of former workers who were interviewed, even after the law that controlled the use of chrysotile asbestos and outlawed amphiboles asbestos in 1995, parties affected by the law did not always adhere to it.…”

“…According to the opinions of former workers who were interviewed, even after the law that controlled the use of chrysotile asbestos and outlawed amphiboles asbestos in 1995, parties affected by the law did not always adhere to it. 13,16 According to the Health Ministry's most recent epidemiological data, between 2011 and 2017, more than 700 Brazilians suffered and died from ARD. Underreporting is still a major concern, which makes it difficult to acknowledge asbestos as a public health risk.…”

“…Underreporting is still a major concern, which makes it difficult to acknowledge asbestos as a public health risk. 13,17 The relationship between industry science and Brazil's asbestos prohibition through time 'The only difference between a poison and a medicine, according to the Renaissance Swiss physician Paracelsus, is in the dose. The public is normally exposed to dosages that are insufficient to cause the ailments that are frequently linked to the product.…”