Ergonomics experts boycotting conference to AGAIN just 'study' workplace ergonomics rules.

[Guest guest]

It looks like at least the workplace ergonomics community is realizing that

'studying' problems, to the current administration, is their way of putting

off dealing with them indefinitely.

Are we seeing a pattern here?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0126-06.htm

Leading Scientists Accuse Government of Distorting Science for Political

Ends

Ergonomic experts boycott conference

by Kohn

For more than two decades, Barbara Silverstein has studied work-related

injuries. Among her many subjects have been nurses, meatpackers, truckers,

foundry workers, autoworkers, poultry processors and loggers.

So was she happy when the federal government decided to sponsor a two-day

symposium on workplace ailments?

Quite the contrary.

" It's an incredible waste, " said Silverstein, an epidemiologist who works

for the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries.

She's not the only scientist who feels that way: 11 of the country's leading

ergonomists are boycotting the meeting, which begins tomorrow. They accuse

the Bush administration of distorting science for political ends.

The highly unusual action has set off a harsh dispute between the

administration and the researchers, who say more than enough evidence exists

linking work to a variety of injuries.

They accuse industry and the administration of trying to avoid a debate over

workplace regulations by questioning accepted ergonomic research. " It's a

stall tactic, " Silverstein said.

In a letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which is

sponsoring the meeting, the 11 scientists say it will only rehash questions

that have been exhaustively researched and resolved.

" We were invited to participate in a symposium that isn't necessary, "

Wegman, dean of the School of Health and Environment at the University of

Massachusetts Lowell.

Visscher, OSHA's deputy administrator, defended the meeting, saying it

will cover new ground. " Time passes. There's new stuff coming in all the

time, " he said.

The boycott is the most recent round in a continuing fight over

workplace-safety standards. Most ergonomic scientists, unions and

workplace-safety advocates argue that some types of work and a variety of

musculoskeletal injuries are clearly linked.

But many business and industry groups, the Bush administration, and a few

scientists say the link remains unproven.

" There's got to be a certain level of proof before the government steps in.

We're not there yet, " said Randel , vice president for labor issues

at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The stakes are enormous. Each year, at least 1 million Americans suffer

significant work-related injuries, according to a 2001 report by the

National Academies of Science.

These injuries, including wrist and hand problems among computer users and

back, knee and shoulder ailments in construction workers and nurses, cost

the economy about $50 billion a year, the report said.

Public health groups have long argued that federal ergonomic rules - the

so-called ergonomic standard - would significantly reduce these injuries.

But many industries oppose the rules, arguing that they lack any objective

basis.

By focusing on what is portrayed as a scientific dispute, opponents of

regulation effectively block any action, critics argue.

" It reminds me of the tobacco controversy of 40 years ago, " said Dr. Bradley

Evanoff, a professor of occupational medicine at Washington University in

St. Louis, who studies injuries in nurses and hospital orderlies.

'Paralysis by analysis'

From industry's perspective, this strategy makes sense, opponents say. For

many companies, any delay in carrying out ergonomic changes could save

millions.

The OSHA meeting may be part of that strategy, said boycotter Don Chaffin, a

University of Michigan industrial engineer, who has studied ergonomics for

more than three decades.

" If enough people get up and say, 'We need to know more, we need to know

more,' we'll end up with another comprehensive review. It's called paralysis

by analysis, " said Chaffin, who designs worker-friendly environments for

large auto, aircraft and trucking companies, as well as the Army.

This isn't the first time the Bush administration has angered the scientific

community. Critics in several disciplines have accused the White House of

censoring scientific reports that conflict with its policies, packing

federal advisory committees with industry-friendly researchers and

obstructing research that could lead to new or tougher regulations.

But this dispute has become nasty, at least by the courteous standards of

science. Last month, OSHA director L. Henshaw questioned the

boycotters' professionalism. " The good scientists will engage in the process

and behave like responsible people, " Henshaw told Inside OSHA, a newsletter

that reports on the agency.

But even some of the symposium's supporters praise the critics' credentials.

Among them is Dr. Bernacki, director of Health, Safety and

Environment at the s Hopkins University, who helped plan the OSHA

symposium; he called its critics " very good " scientists.

Bernacki is a member of the National Advisory Committee on Ergonomics, a

15-person group assembled by OSHA in 2002. The group invited participants to

the symposium to present " data-driven scientific research " on the

relationship between the workplace and musculoskeletal disorders.

Critics note that since 1997, three comprehensive reports have found such a

link - one sponsored by OSHA's research arm and two by the National Academy

of Sciences at the request of Congress.

Most of the boycotters worked on at least one of the three reports. The

latest NAS review, almost 500 pages long, not only found a clear link, but

concluded that prevention programs could decrease work-related injuries.

In November 2000, President Bill Clinton issued regulations requiring

companies to set up ergonomic workplace safety programs. But in one of its

first major acts, the incoming Republican-majority Congress enacted a law

invalidating the rules.

Under Bush, OSHA has focused on encouraging industry to create safer

workplaces rather than on regulation. Critics suspect OSHA will use this

week's symposium to further that agenda and conclude that the work-injury

link is still too murky to warrant action.

" I think it's a political show, not a scientific meeting, " said one

boycotter, a university researcher who spoke on condition of anonymity, in

part because he feared his federal grants might be denied. " It's using

science in a very cynical way. "

Bernacki defended the committee's independence, although he conceded that it

did include some " hard-nosed business types. "

Pro-business interests

But boycotters say NACE is stacked against regulation. " By and large,

everyone on the committee was selected because of their opposition to the

ergonomic standard, " said University of California, San Francisco

bioengineer Rempel, who organized the boycott.

Committee members include Willis Goldsmith, a lawyer who worked on

ergonomics issues for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Dr. Morton Kasdan, a

Louisville hand surgeon who has testified for employers in workers

compensation cases and has argued that musculoskeletal pain is often caused

by depression.

Another member is Koskan, the director of risk control for Supervalu,

a Minneapolis-based supermarket conglomerate cited by OSHA last year for

ergonomic violations.

Despite the protest and absence of top scientists, the meeting will go on as

planned, said committee Chairman Kerk, a biomechanics researcher at

the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. " We've gotten some

excellent submissions, and we are going to have an excellent symposium. "

Copyright © 2004, The Baltimore Sun