Burden of Proof: The Debate Surrounding Aerotoxic Syndrome.

IF 0.7 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Journal of Contemporary History Pub Date : 2022-10-01 Epub Date: 2022-01-28 DOI:10.1177/00220094221074819
Stephen E Mawdsley
{"title":"Burden of Proof: The Debate Surrounding Aerotoxic Syndrome.","authors":"Stephen E Mawdsley","doi":"10.1177/00220094221074819","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since the 1980s, some commercial airline pilots and flight crews in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia began to report an illness they believed was caused by exposure to contaminated cabin air. Despite a body of scientific research and health activism calling for this condition, termed Aerotoxic Syndrome (AS), to be classified an occupational illness, it has not been accepted as a clinical entity because its causation remains contested. This article contends that debates over the recognition of AS have been shaped by the politics of science and what can be considered evidence of a causal link; the burden of proof lay with survivors and their allies rather than with airlines and manufacturers. The history of AS shows the challenges of reacting to health risks in a global industry that provides an important form of transportation, and enjoys considerable political and economic influence. It also reveals that at the heart of commercial jet air travel remains an unresolved public health issue, and those who claim to be suffering from AS expected prompt recognition, reform and assistance in light of scientific research and personal testimony, as well as a range of chemical, medical, legal and air safety reports.</p>","PeriodicalId":51640,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9452852/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220094221074819","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Since the 1980s, some commercial airline pilots and flight crews in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia began to report an illness they believed was caused by exposure to contaminated cabin air. Despite a body of scientific research and health activism calling for this condition, termed Aerotoxic Syndrome (AS), to be classified an occupational illness, it has not been accepted as a clinical entity because its causation remains contested. This article contends that debates over the recognition of AS have been shaped by the politics of science and what can be considered evidence of a causal link; the burden of proof lay with survivors and their allies rather than with airlines and manufacturers. The history of AS shows the challenges of reacting to health risks in a global industry that provides an important form of transportation, and enjoys considerable political and economic influence. It also reveals that at the heart of commercial jet air travel remains an unresolved public health issue, and those who claim to be suffering from AS expected prompt recognition, reform and assistance in light of scientific research and personal testimony, as well as a range of chemical, medical, legal and air safety reports.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
举证责任:围绕空气中毒综合症的争论。
自20世纪80年代以来,美国、英国和澳大利亚的一些商业航空公司的飞行员和机组人员开始报告一种疾病,他们认为这是由于接触受污染的机舱空气引起的。尽管许多科学研究和健康活动人士呼吁将这种被称为空气中毒综合征(AS)的疾病归类为一种职业病,但由于其病因仍有争议,它尚未被接受为临床实体。本文认为,关于承认AS的争论是由科学政治和什么可以被认为是因果关系的证据所塑造的;举证责任落在幸存者和他们的盟友身上,而不是航空公司和制造商。航空运输的历史表明,在一个提供重要运输形式并享有相当大的政治和经济影响的全球行业中,应对健康风险所面临的挑战。报告还显示,商业喷气机航空旅行的核心问题仍然是一个未解决的公共卫生问题,那些声称患有这种疾病的人期望根据科学研究和个人证词以及一系列化学、医疗、法律和航空安全报告迅速得到承认、改革和援助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
期刊最新文献
Dual Narratives of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict in Court: Shaping the Perception of International Terrorism Learning the Ropes of Life in Shanghai: Jewish Refugee Children in Second World War China Uncovering the Opium Crisis: The Poison of Turkish–American Relations in the 1960s and 1970s Petitioning and Ghana's National Reconciliation Commission: Good Citizens, Bad Citizens, and Performing the Moral Economy Childhood, Experience, Encampment: The Case of Italian-Speaking Refugees in Austria–Hungary During the First World War
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1