| |
Epi Wit & Wisdom Resources
An Epidemiology
Career in the Chemical Industry
Ralph
Cook, M.D. (Adapted from a presentation
at the recent SER meeting)
An epidemiology career in
industry usually combines teaching, research and administration.
However, there are some important differences between the university
and industry settings.
As a teacher in industry, your
students are more varied, and sometimes more hostile. They are fellow
employees concerned about the possible adverse health effects of their
personal occupational exposures; scientists in allied professions,
such as clinical medicine and toxicology, trying to understand the
biological properties of various agents; industrial managers seeking
to integrate epidemiology into their business decisions; lawyers
wishing to discover the strengths and weaknesses of the field, to
discover points of attack or defense; and reporters searching for a
story. Your charge as an industrial epidemiologist will be to teach
the discipline; to present your research findings; and to interpret
those of others for this whole heterogeneous audience, often
simultaneously. And, once lawyers and reporters become interested in
an issue, you will be operating in an adversarial arena.
Dow Chemical
At Dow, the result of each of
our studies goes through technical review and then is presented
internally to interested management and employee groups, before we go
public with the findings. We then submit a research report to a
technical journal or present at a professional meeting. In some cases
we are required to comment to the press or, by law, to testify or
submit preliminary findings to a Federal agency. In a sense, each of
these is a form of teaching.
The presentation of our research
internally poses little problem when we are dealing with possible
biologically plausible acute effects, for example, a drop in serum
cholinesterase among those employed in the production of certain
pesticides. The solution is obvious and, once implemented, can be
readily monitored for success.
Things become a bit more
complicated when the outcome is a chronic disease or the results lack
accepted supportive proofs of cause-and-effect. With chronic disease,
communications become a logistical nightmare, and tentative hypothesis
generating interpretations we all use with serendipitous findings are
unacceptable. The employees, management and others want a definitive
yes or no answer to the question, “Is this a real problem caused by
occupational exposures to a specific chemical?” And, they want the
answer now. In fact, by law, you are essentially required to make that
decision; but I’ll get back to this in a moment.
If the answer to the first
question about cause and effect is yes, it will be followed by a
second: “What is a safe level of exposure?” Since we are usually
working with ordinal exposure data, and this question requires an
answer with interval data characteristics, it is next to impossible to
answer unless you can integrate your epidemiology with strong medical,
toxicology and industrial hygiene programs.
Researcher Role
In your second role, that of a
researcher, you will not only conduct your own research, you also will
be expected to have the capability of critically evaluating the
research of others. Currently, most occupational epidemiology finds
expression as cohort mortality studies. That is, a short-term artifact
caused by the availability, or perhaps I should say the relative lack
of availability, of data. In the future, mortality will be only one of
a broad spectrum of outcomes that will be methodically evaluated. If
you read the literature, you will realize that many industries are
developing comprehensive computer systems that will integrate
industrial hygiene, medical surveillance, morbidity and mortality
data. When, not if, these systems become operational, the research
opportunities for industrial epidemiologists will be mind boggling,
not only in the area of occupational disease, but also in the broader
category of general preventive health. The research will be driven by
societal expectations and growing health care costs.
I view the critical evaluation
of epidemiology reports as a combination of teaching and research.
This can be an exciting exercise in industry because you usually have
to do it under severe time constraints.
Administrator Role
In the third role, that of an
administrator, you will be asked to set priorities, recruit new
talent, and grapple with a myriad of new laws--some of which will
conflict with your research objectives. The trick as an administrator
is to develop a program that can handle not only the short-term
issues, but also have long-range objectives, and have a continuity of
purpose. These may sound like so many pretty words, but let me assure
you this is one of my major problems at the present time. Because the
chemical industry is so visible, so often cast in the news media as a
“heavy,” I am continually dealing with crises. Each one of these,
whether or not it has any merit from a biological perspective, demands
expenditure of time, money and personnel resources. I have to make
sure we don’t waste energy jousting at windmills; that each time we
attack a public relations crisis, we are also addressing one of our
long-range public health objectives. In part, these objectives are
shaped by societal expectations as manifested by various laws and
regulations. The irony is that many of these laws are
counterproductive. They are formulated by public officials who simply
don’t understand epidemiology.
EPA Law
One of my favorites is the EPA’s
Toxic Substance Control Act; more specifically, Section 8(e) under
TSCA. It states, and I quote:
“Any person who manufactures,
processes, or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture
and who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion
that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury
to health or the environment, shall immediately inform the
Administrator of such information unless such person has actual
knowledge that the Administrator has been adequately informed of such
information.” A violator is subject to a fine of up to one year in
jail or $25,000.
I support public disclosure of
scientific information; but I’m still wrestling with the terms
“reasonably supports” and “substantial risk.” If you get a job in the
chemical industry, you will face a similar quandary. Where in the
spectrum of interpretations does one cross the line? And when? Most
epidemiology tends to be a relatively slow process. The investigator
gathers data; analyzes it; adjusts for confounders; re-analyzes the
data; writes a report; subjects it to peer review; makes modifications
based on the peer review; and submits it for publication. Think back
upon your own research. The process by which you came to your
conclusions probably was an evolutionary one that took place over a
period of months. This law requires you to determine when a mythical
“prudent individual” with your intelligence and training would have
crossed that often nebulous line. It requires you to make that
decision because from that point you have only 15 days in which to
write a report and submit it to the Administrator.
This law does not require
epidemiology research, nor does it penalize those who decide not to do
it. Instead, it places at jeopardy only those who specifically set up
programs that look for new problems. It is my opinion that it has
significantly impeded the growth of new epidemiology programs in
American industry.
In Summary
To summarize, an epidemiology
career in the chemical industry can challenge you to the limit of your
teaching, research and administrative skills. In spite of the many
burdensome laws that are or will be promulgated, I think more
companies will be developing in-house epidemiology programs. If you
decide to look for a job in the chemical industry, understand what
your duties will be, who you will be working with and reporting to,
the extent of the resources that will be made available to you, and
the flexibility you will have in pursuing your research objectives. If
all of these appear satisfactory, and you feel you work well under
pressure, come on in the water’s fine.
Published September
1982
|
|
