In those early days of computerized data retrieval, a researcher who provided enough background information could have an online search performed, usually by a librarian. If the article in question had been indexed, a copy might be obtained. To make such a request, the industrial hygienist would generally need to know that a relevant document existed or provide appropriate keywords that might unearth unknown research reports. The various data search services included different publications in their search groups, and none were comprehensive. Therefore, even into the mid-1990s, it was most common for OEHS professionals to keep a few key technical reference volumes available as their primary sources of information for evaluating occupational exposure concerns and recommending appropriate protective measures.

After the turn of the century, the volume of data increased exponentially, with more created every few years than had been created throughout recorded history. Today, data can be directly transmitted from sampling locations to laboratories—a wonderful convenience, but one that introduces the possibility of massive errors if initial data are entered incorrectly (for example, reporting the wrong size particle for a selective sampler).

This abundance of data makes fact checking both harder and easier. In 2021, we can find immediate answers to almost any question through the internet, but unfortunately, the answers that are most readily available often have, at best, a tenuous relationship to scientific rigor.

DATA ANALYSIS All professionals develop a set of principles that guide their approach to data analysis. While many sources on sampling design exist, most professionals often need to make decisions with incomplete or less-than-ideal information. It is therefore not unusual to find that, as new data become available, recommended precautions need to be revised.

The history of industrial hygiene is replete with examples of workplace risks identified only after sampling technology or epidemiological analysis had advanced enough that the issue could be detected. The management of this ambiguity becomes an ethical issue when decisions are made regarding how to address previous reporting that proves, upon later analysis, to have been incorrect or insufficient. The following hypothetical scenario illustrates a potential ethical dilemma related to use of data and other information.

DID IKE MAKE PROPER NOTIFICATION? Ike is a relatively new CIH who works on a large team at a major chemical company, where he has been praised for his handling of a major exposure concern. The company’s main production facility had been painted with a chemically resistant coating that had deteriorated over time. It was not uncommon for employees to encounter flaking debris from the coating in many areas of the facility, including the cafeteria. Since, in its unreacted state, the coating was known to include potential sensitizers, Ike was assigned to evaluate the situation and recommend appropriate action.

Ike collected coating samples for analysis. Air sampling identified the potential for inhalation of some of the debris, but laboratory analysis indicated that the cured material would not break down and the sensitizer of concern presented no apparent risk in its present form. Ike presented the data to company leadership and potentially affected employees. He recommended treating the material as a nontoxic dust and recoating deteriorated areas with an inert material. This recommendation was accepted and proved popular with company leadership since, while expensive, recoating was much less costly than stripping the coating from walls throughout the facility.

Now, almost a year after the project was completed, Ike receives an urgent call from the analytical lab. They have discovered that they used incorrect reagents for analysis, based on an error in the electronic form Ike had submitted with the samples. Upon reanalysis, they have discovered that the sensitizer did, in fact, leach from the old cured coating and that, in rare cases, exposure could cause serious concerns for particularly sensitive individuals.

Since the new inert coating was shown to be protective, and Ike has not, to this date, received any reports of illness potentially related to exposure to the original coating, he decides to take no further action.

For discussion: Does Ike have an obligation to communicate this new information? What is his ethical obligation if he informs his management but they choose to only monitor the situation? Does the statistically low probability of harm make a difference? What guidance can you draw from the code of ethics (PDF) to assist your evaluation of Ike’s decision?