Ethical issues for industrial hygienists: Survey
results and suggestions
Goldberg, Laura A; Greenberg, Michael R
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT
Members of the New Jersey Section of the American Industrial Hygiene Association were surveyed in order to
determine their observations of unethical behavior, their perceptions of causes of ethical misconduct, and their
reaction to methods of preventing unethical behavior. A total of 26.3% usable responses were received. At least one
observation of deliberate overstatement of positive and understatement of negative results, refraining from reporting
unethical conduct, failure to share credit on a publication, and holding back findings to avoid negative results were
reported by more than 1/4 of the respondents. Plagiarism, data destruction, and data fabrication were reported by
23%, 15%, and 17% of respondents, respectively. More than 45% of the respondents attributed these behaviors to
on-the-job pressure, pressure caused by economic implications of the result, and a lack of experience.
FULL TEXT
All members of the New Jersey Section of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) were surveyed to
determine their observations of unethical behavior, their perceptions of causes of ethical misconduct, and their
reaction to methods of preventing unethical behavior. A total of 26.3% usable responses were received. At least one
observation of deliberate overstatement of positive and understatement of negative results, refraining from reporting
unethical conduct, failure to share credit on a publication, and holding back finds to avoid negative results were
reported by more then 25% of respondents. Plagiarism, data destruction, and data fabrication--three clearly
unethical behaviors--were reported by 23%, 15%, and 17% of respondents, respectively. More than 45% of
respondents attributed these behaviors to on-the-job pressure, pressure caused by economic implications of the
result, and lack of experience. Respondents strongly supported educational programs and codes of ethics and
opposed government regulatory programs. Suggestions are offered to the industrial hygiene profession for
managing professional misconduct.
What is the range and magnitude of unethical behavior observed by industrial hygienists among their peers? What
do these applied scientists believe are the causes for and solutions to misconduct in their field? Publicity concerning
plagiarism, data fabrication, and other serious scientific fraud has led to prescriptions of proper conduct for academic
health science researchers.(1) However, the extent of wrongdoing in the applied health risk sciences has not been
examined, nor have health scientists been asked to suggest ways of preventing impropriety. This paper attempts to
establish a data set about ethical behavior based on the direct observations (rather than hearsay or anecdotes) of
industrial hygienists. More important, the paper attempts to address possible solutions.
METHODS
Industrial hygienists were asked to indicate their direct knowledge of misconduct, their perceptions of its causes, and
their reactions to methods of preventing unethical behavior. A review of the related literature revealed no existing
survey instrument concerning the risk sciences. A questionnaire was developed based on the literature, discussion
with risk scientists in focus groups,(2) and recommendations of other individuals in the field. Ultimately the authors
wanted to compare the results of several disciplines; therefore, they developed an instrument suitable for a range of
risk sciences, from applied science to academic research and from health sciences to social sciences. The surveys
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 1 of 7
distributed to the industrial hygienists were slightly modified to reflect the distinctions of that discipline. A nearly
identical questionnaire was distributed to members of the Society for Risk Analysis and the Association of
Environmental and Resource Economists.
The confidential survey asked respondents about unethical behaviors, misconduct prevalence, preventive
measures, and demographic variables. The core of the instrument was a list of 24 questionable behaviors, 11
possible causes of ethical dilemmas and 15 approaches to misconduct prevention. A copy of the survey instrument
is included as an appendix. (Appendix omitted) The first section asked respondents to rank how often they had
personally observed or had direct knowledge of one of 24 actions, which extended from merely questionable
conduct to obvious wrongdoing. Respondents were asked to choose from a range of 1-4; 1 was "never observed," 2
was "not sure if observed," 3 was "observed once," and 4 was "observed more than once."
A broad spectrum of possible misconduct behaviors was included in order to cast as wide a net as possible in
developing empirical data. No definitive list of unethical behavior exists. Behaviors appear in this instrument because
they have been labeled unethical under certain conditions by some people. Of the 24 behaviors, a consensus exists
that some are obviously corrupt--plagiarism, data destruction, and data fabrication, for example. Other behaviors,
such as releasing results before peer review, may be considered merely questionable by certain readers and
legitimate by others. In other words, appearance of a behavior on this list does not mean that there is agreement
that it is unethical.
Another principal section of the survey asked respondents to rate the importance of the possible misconduct causes
on a scale of 1-9 where 1 was "not at all important," 5 was "somewhat important," and 9 was "extremely important."
Respondents were also asked to rate the effectiveness of 15 possible solutions on a scale of 1-9. Again, 1 was "not
at all effective" and 9, "extremely effective." The approaches ranged from intrusive government audits to more
passive efforts, such as education and hotlines.
Lastly, in order to supplement the quantitative data, the authors asked respondents for comments on such topics as
what their most memorable experience with misconduct was.
The instrument was reviewed internally by public health, risk assessment, planning, law, and ethics faculty. It was
then reviewed by outside associates. Donna Capizzi, past president of the American Industrial Hygiene Association
(AIHA) New Jersey Section, also examined the questionnaire.
The New Jersey Section of AIHA supplied the authors with a complete list of their 534 members, to whom the
questionnaire was mailed on November 27, 1991. Although the survey sample included only those individuals
currently members of the AIHA New Jersey Section, some actually resided in other states. Consequently, 77
surveys were mailed to addresses in New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, California,
Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Michigan, and Virginia.
Approximately two months were allowed, until January 22, for returns to be collected; 148 (27.3%) replies were
received. Two surveys could not be used: one was incomplete, the other was returned too late. Three other
individuals responded with comments but declined to answer the questionnaire; one of these respondents objected
to the survey. A total of 143 (26.3%) usable responses constituted the database. This rate was on the high end of
response rates for mailback surveys and was better than expected, given the sensitivity of the subject.(3)
The results were analyzed by ranking frequencies of responses. In examining behaviors, the authors tabulated the
number of individuals who had observed each wrong-doing once or more (3 or 4 on a 1-4 scale). Similarly, the
authors measured the frequency with which each cause was reported to be extremely important (7-9 out of a 1-9
scale) and each preventive approach was reported extremely effective (7-9 out of a 1-9 scale). Then these results
were ranked in tables for comparison. In addition to quantitative results, many respondents added comments about
their experiences or concerns about unethical behavior in industrial hygiene.
In addition to the absence of a definitive list of unethical behaviors, noted above, there are five limitations to the
survey. First, the responses may not be representative of industrial hygienists throughout the United States, since
the survey focused on the membership of the New Jersey Section.
Second, it is possible that some of the questions are more appropriate for industrial hygienists who are academics
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 2 of 7
than industrial hygienists working in other settings. Indeed, 6 of the 24 behaviors are more relevant to academics:
(1) failure to share credit on another's proposal; (2) borrowing from another's proposal; (3) release of results before
peer review; (4) failure to share sources of support; (5) deliberately voting against a competitive proposal; and (6)
deliberately delaying peer review. Questions that are not relevant to respondents may lower the response rate but
should not bias the responses to the more relevant questions.
Third, several colleagues questioned the representativeness of the responses. They felt that only people with "tales
to tell" would respond. In other words, respondents would be biased towards those who have observed and feel
strongly about unethical behavior. Yet it can be argued that respondents who committed or know of unethical acts
would not respond even to an anonymous questionnaire and that defenders of science would want to respond that
they had not observed unethical behavior. In reality, there is no way of knowing from one survey if these data are
biased to identify or to overlook unethical conduct.
Further, because this survey is one of the first of its kind, there is little standard by which its results for industrial
hygienists can be compared. Are they more vulnerable to ethical misconduct than other risk scientists, or more
generally, than other professionals? Are they less vulnerable? Industrial hygienists were asked whether they
believed those in their group were more or less likely to commit unethical acts than other professionals. However,
this does not provide the insight of other scientists into their own disciplines. As mentioned above, two other groups
were also surveyed, environmental-resource economists and risk assessors. The results of these surveys are as yet
unpublished; a comparison of these fields in greater depth will be made when the results to all three surveys are
complete. Until then, it is not possible to say that some problems are so prevalent among industrial hygienists, in
comparison to other groups, that special attention is needed.
Lastly, respondents were asked to report only actions they had personally witnessed. However, false reporting is a
potential problem with this survey, as it is with every survey. It is possible that some respondents could be swayed
by their strong feelings on these issues--for example, they may have indicated that they had witnessed plagiarism
because they believe that it exists, not because they had personal knowledge.
BEHAVIOR
Among respondents, overstatement of positive and understatement of negative results was ranked the most
frequent form of misconduct, observed by more than one-third of respondents. Failure to share credit on a patent
was the least observed (2.4%). Table I shows that five behaviors were witnessed by more than one quarter of
respondents; in order from highest to lowest, they were overstatement of positive and understatement of negative
results; refraining from reporting an incident; failure to share credit on a publication; deliberate failure to
acknowledge data limitations; and holding back findings to avoid negative results. (Table I omitted)
Less than 10 witnessed the following behaviors (in order from highest to lowest): failure to disclose sources of
support, changing definitions after the fact, failure to inform subjects of a procedure's invasiveness, voting against a
competing proposal, delaying another's peer review, and failure to share patent credit. Although individuals may
differently characterize a particular behavior's degree of impropriety, the highest ranking misconducts seemed
relatively mundane: overstatement of results (35.7%) and refraining from reporting an incident (29.5%) ranked one
and two, respectively.
Some overtly unethical behaviors ranked fairly high, however. For example, withholding findings with negative
impacts (#5, 25.4%) and plagiarism (#6, 23.1%) were observed by more than 20%.
Other blatant behaviors had lower rankings. Data fabrication ranked #13 (17.3%) and data destruction ranked #15
(15.2%). Also ranking low were some questionable behaviors, such as delaying another's peer review, and changing
definitions after the fact.
CAUSE
The top two causes of ethical dilemma, according to the respondents, were on-the-job pressure and pressure
caused by economic implications; both were cited as extremely important by over 50% of respondents. Lack of
experience (46.7%) was ranked third (Table II). (Table II omitted)
Responding industrial hygienists ranked poor implementation of design (34.9%), lack of communication skills
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 3 of 7
(33.1%), and pressure not related to their job (15.2%) as the three lowest factors of extreme importance.
In addition to the quantitative results, the written comments of a number of respondents focused on three other
causes: competition with "fly-by-night" testing companies, conflicts of interest, and the general ethical shortcomings
of individuals and/or society beyond the boundaries of science.
The first cause, competition with unqualified or unethical competitors, could be considered a more specific
subcategory of pressure because of economic implications. It is noted here because it was the subject of many
comments. One respondent described personal experience. "I worked with an environmental consulting company
which was very meticulous and did everything very deliberately, thoughtfully, and by the books. We had to get out of
the asbestos business because our competitors had no respect for proper protocols or standards, and we were
outpriced 50-75%." Wrote another individual, "Having to compete with these impostors has caused severe
limitations in our ability to make a living, and thus increases potential for unethical behavior."
Despite the fact that knowingly entering a conflict of interest situation was a behavior witnessed by only 10.8% of
respondents, many writers noted it is structurally inherent to the industrial hygienist's job and is a cause of ethical
misconduct. Commented one respondent, "Specific client needs may overshadow the health of employees. There
may be! pressure from the! client to exclude certain recommendations or to withhold information." Another wrote,
"One often feels one is bought by the entity that pays for our service." Other respondents noted that this
contradictory relationship at times led to accusations of malfeasance, even where none existed.
Some respondents wrote that they believed general ethical shortcomings of the individual and society were also a
cause of misconduct in the workplace. Said one person "I have no reason to believe they are any different in IH than
in other areas. As Mark Twain said--'Just to know that a person is a human being is bad enough." "Professional
ethics represent only the professional side of individuals. With the exception of an individual or special case, lack of
professional ethics is just one facet of an unethical person," wrote a respondent. Yet another industrial hygienist
said, "Ethics is a learned practice of life starting from the day you are born. If parents are not good role models,
children will usually lack ethics. Also peer pressure and national role models have a great influence." Said a fourth,
"We can't ask IHs (or any professional) to be more ethical than the rest of society."
PREVENTION
Respondents held four prevention practices to be most useful; three of those solutions focused on ethics education.
In descending order they were discussing ethical context of scientific issues in existing classes; developing codes of
ethics for all types of risk scientists; offering short courses at professional meetings; and requiring industrial hygiene
students to take ethics classes emphasizing role playing (Table III). (Table III omitted) This is despite the low ranking
by industrial hygienists of poor ethics training as a cause. Government regulation of research design was rated
lowest. In fact, the most unpopular preventive methods among the industrial hygienists were any type of government
regulation and ethical hotlines. The exception to this was an ethical hotline offered by a professional organization,
which was ranked fifth by respondents (31.8%). This tendency to favor a professional organization for the hotline
may be associated with the practical, business related nature of industrial hygienists' research.
The written comments of the respondents frequently indicated another preventive approach--required licensing or
certification of industrial hygienists. Some wrote that this should be done by a professional organization; some
wanted government to take this role; many did not indicate which would be more appropriate. A number of
respondents related their desire for licensing to the existence of fly-by-night operations (see "Causes" section
above).
Respondents' comments were at times pessimistic about the possibility of developing preventive approaches. Some
commented that if wrongdoing were the product of character flaws or poor social morts, little could be done to
prevent it after people reached a certain age. Said one person, "I believe 'ethics' or moral values are learned early in
life, not as adults. If individuals who become industrial hygienists do not have the proper moral grounding from
childhood, 'hotlines' and short courses can do very little."
DISCUSSION
Industrial hygienists do witness ethical misconduct among their colleagues, according to the results of this survey.
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 4 of 7
Although the nature and magnitude of that wrongdoing may vary, these results show that in some cases it is serious:
more than one in five survey respondents witnessed plagiarism by their peers, for instance. Most respondents felt
that this was the result ofjob, economic, or professional pressures, as well as lack of experience.
Ethical misconduct is an increasingly inflammatory issue for risk and health scientists. However, concern for amoral
behavior in health and related sciences should not be dismissed as merely a "pop" issue or another "externally
imposed distraction."(4) It is not a new issue; concern has been rising for the past two decades, according to some
authors.(5,6) Nonetheless, recent furor over well-publicized cases of scientific fraud gives risk scientists an
opportunity to reinspect their ability to control the quality of the work of themselves and their peers.
This opportunity should not be squandered. First, ethical misconduct calls into question the self-regulation-according to moral and technical norms--that lies at the root of the scientist's search for impartial truth.(7) Second,
partially because of science's objective tradition as well its mystique to laymen, scientists enjoy a position of special
trust with the general public and the media.(8), Ethical misconduct threatens this relationship. Last, increasing public
accountability of science demands that these professionals investigate their vulnerability to ethical dilemmas. Says
Francis, "Congress has also been concerned over scientific misconduct with respect to government-funded research
and the ability of the scientific community to adequately police itself....The contract between science and the State is
being redefined and renegotiated because of the public demand for scientific accountability."(7) Or, as put more
simply by a recent article in Science, "Can science satisfy legislators such as Representative! John Dingell that it is
capable of regulating its own conduct?"(9)
For these reasons, it is important to forward research of ethical misconduct. Three steps should be taken. First,
more data should be collected from a variety of risk-science organizations. Comparisons of these survey results
should be made. It can then be determined if variations in reporting of impropriety vary with discipline, employer
(company, university, government), and academic credentials. At that time, it will also be known if industrial hygiene
needs specialized attention in regard to certain ethical dilemmas.
Second, there is a need for further investigation of causes and preventive approaches that were not included in the
instrument but which respondents repeatedly noted. These causes included conflicts of interest, competition with
unregulated and unscrupulous competitors, and general lack of individual or societal ethics. The popularity of
certification as apreventive approach should be examined.
Finally, personal interviews and focus groups would add depth to these findings. After the present series of surveys
is completed, the authors' goal is to develop, test, and help implement prevention methods that the survey
respondents believe will be effective.
In the mean time, two factors--the scientific tradition of self-regulation and the disaffection for government
intervention displayed by survey respondents--suggests that industrial hygienists should take steps now to detect
and prevent unethical behavior. According to the results of the preventive approach section, it appears that industrial
hygienists would prefer management of misconduct from their professional organizations and their teaching
institutions.
The authors make the following recommendations. First, the industrial hygiene profession should consider
intensifying its efforts to address these ethical dilemmas. The existing, relatively limited professional ethics code
should be re-examined with the goal of providing more detail. One respondent recommended that the code be more
widely distributed.
Small focus-group discussions, perhaps at national and regional meetings, also can be a useful way of identifying
ethical dilemmas, solutions, and roles for the individual and the AIHA. Next, the profession should consider providing
a hotline, or establishing a list of prominent members, who could be available for advice on ethical dilemmas. They
can also take other measures, such as offering seminars at annual meetings to discuss ethical dilemmas,
accumulating information about cases of ethical misconduct, and reporting this to members at meetings. Institutions
that train industrial hygienists should incorporate ethics into existing classes, offer new ethics classes, and give short
courses on ethical dilemmas for alumni and professionals. Finally, the possibility of required government or board
certification of industrial hygienists should be explored. Such certification should make industrial hygienists subject
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 5 of 7
to the code of ethics.
REFERENCES
1. Institute of Medicine, Committee on the Responsible Conduct of Research: The Responsible Conduct of
Research in the Health Sciences. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Science Press, 1989.
2. Greenberg, M.R., H. Spiro and R. McIntyre: Ethical Oxymora for Risk Assessment Practitioners. Accountability in
Res. 1:245-257(1991).
3. Drane, J. W.: Imputing Nonresponse to Mailback Questionnaires. Am. J. Epidemiol. 134(8):908-912 (1991).
4. Greenberg, M.R.: Commentary: Confronting Scientists' Normal Ethical Dilemmas. The Scietisr. 5:12 (1991).
5. Feinstein, A.R.: Fraud, Distortion, Delusion, and Consensus: The Problems of Human and Natural Deception in
Epidemiologic Science. Am. J. Med. 84:475478 (1988).
6. Fayerweather, W.E,, J. Hipginson, and T.L. Beauchamp: Industrial Epidemiology Forum's Conference on Ethics in
Epidemiology. New York: Pergamon Press, 1991. p.v.
7. Francis, J.R.: The Credibility and Legitimation of Science. Accountability in Res. 1(1):5-22 (1989).
8. Nelkin, D.: Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: W.M. Freeman, 1987.
9. Hamilton, D.P.: News &Commentary: Can OSI Withstand a Scientific Backlash? Science. 253:1084(1991).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank Donna Capizzi, past president of the New Jersey Section of the American Industrial
Hygiene Association, for her cooperation. The authors would like to thank the editor and an anonymous reviewer for
their helpful comments. They would also like to thank the Environmental and Occupational Health Science Institute
for their encouragement and support of this research.
(a)Laura A. Goldberg Department of Urban Planning and Policy Development, Rutgers University and (b)Michael R.
Greenberg Department of Urban Studies and Community Health and Policy Division, Environmental and
Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Rutgers University, Livingston Campus, Lucy Stone Hall, New Brunswick,
NJ 08903.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
DETAILS
Subject:
Statistical analysis; Polls &surveys; Ethics; Associations; Occupational safety;
Professionals; Professional ethics; Behavior; Peer review; Scientists; Science;
Hygiene; Questionnaires; Plagiarism; Professional misconduct; Fabrication; Social
Business indexing term:
Subject: Occupational safety Professionals Professional ethics Professional
misconduct; Industry: 81391 : Business Associations 81392 : Professional
Organizations
Location:
New Jersey; United States--US
Company / organization:
Name: American Industrial Hygiene Association; NAICS: 813910
Classification:
9540: Non-profit institutions; 9190: United States; 9140: Statistical Data; 2410: Social
responsibility; 81391: Business As sociations; 81392: Professional Organizations
Publication title:
American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal; Akron
Volume:
54
Issue:
3
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 6 of 7
Pages:
127
Number of pages:
8
Publication year:
1993
Publication date:
Mar 1993
Publisher:
Taylor &Francis Ltd.
Place of publication:
Akron
Country of publication:
United Kingdom, Akron
Publication subject:
Occupational Health And Safety, Business And Economics--Labor And Industrial
Relations
ISSN:
00028894
CODEN:
AIHAA
Source type:
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication:
English
Document type:
PERIODICAL
Accession number:
00738465
ProQuest document ID:
236302726
Document URL:
https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/ethical-issues-industrial-hygienistssurvey/docview/236302726/se-2?accountid=35725
Copyright:
Copyright American Industrial Hygiene Association Mar 1993
Last updated:
2024-11-19
Database:
ProQuest One Academic
LINKS
Check Primo for Full Text, Request through Interlibrary Loan
Database copyright  2024 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Contact ProQuest
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 7 of 7