Skip to main content
PMC home page
Environmental Health Perspectives logoLink to Environmental Health Perspectives
. 2002 May;110(5):437–444. doi: 10.1289/ehp.02110437

Social responsibility and research ethics in community-driven studies of industrialized hog production.

Steve Wing 1
PMCID: PMC1240831  PMID: 12003746

Abstract

Environmental health research can document exposures and health effects that result from inequitable relationships between communities of low income or people of color and the institutions that derive benefits (profits, federal and state funding or services, avoidance of wastes) from activities and policies that burden these communities. Researchers, most of whom work in relatively privileged institutions, are placed in situations of conflicting loyalties if they conduct research in collaboration with, or on behalf of, communities burdened by environmental injustices. These conflicts can threaten the self-interest of researchers and may raise social and ethical issues that do not typically arise in research projects that respond to the agendas of institutions. This article describes how we addressed issues of research ethics and social responsibility in environmental health research on industrialized hog production in North Carolina. Researchers and institutional review boards are not well prepared to address ethical issues when interests of entire communities, as well as individual research participants, are involved. Community-driven research partnerships can help address problems in research ethics and can enhance the social responsibility of researchers and their institutions.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (2.6 MB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brown P. Race, class, and environmental health: a review and systematization of the literature. Environ Res. 1995 Apr;69(1):15–30. doi: 10.1006/enrs.1995.1021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cole D., Todd L., Wing S. Concentrated swine feeding operations and public health: a review of occupational and community health effects. Environ Health Perspect. 2000 Aug;108(8):685–699. doi: 10.1289/ehp.00108685. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gamble V. N. A legacy of distrust: African Americans and medical research. Am J Prev Med. 1993 Nov-Dec;9(6 Suppl):35–38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Rose G. High-risk and population strategies of prevention: ethical considerations. Ann Med. 1989 Dec;21(6):409–413. doi: 10.3109/07853898909149231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Sandman P. M. Emerging communication responsibilities of epidemiologists. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44 (Suppl 1):41S–50S. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90174-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Schiffman S. S., Miller E. A., Suggs M. S., Graham B. G. The effect of environmental odors emanating from commercial swine operations on the mood of nearby residents. Brain Res Bull. 1995;37(4):369–375. doi: 10.1016/0361-9230(95)00015-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. St George D. M., Schoenbach V. J., Reynolds G. H., Nwangwu J., Adams-Campbell L. Recruitment of minority students to U.S. epidemiology degree programs. The American College of Epidemiology Committee on Minority Affairs. Ann Epidemiol. 1997 May;7(4):304–310. doi: 10.1016/s1047-2797(97)00020-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Thomas S. B., Quinn S. C. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 1932 to 1972: implications for HIV education and AIDS risk education programs in the black community. Am J Public Health. 1991 Nov;81(11):1498–1505. doi: 10.2105/ajph.81.11.1498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Wing S., Cole D., Grant G. Environmental injustice in North Carolina's hog industry. Environ Health Perspect. 2000 Mar;108(3):225–231. doi: 10.1289/ehp.00108225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Wing S., Richardson D., Armstrong D., Crawford-Brown D. A reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: the collision of evidence and assumptions. Environ Health Perspect. 1997 Jan;105(1):52–57. doi: 10.1289/ehp.9710552. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Wing S., Richardson D., Armstrong D. Reply to comments on "A reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island". Environ Health Perspect. 1997 Mar;105(3):266–268. doi: 10.1289/ehp.105-1469992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Wing S. Whose epidemiology, whose health? Int J Health Serv. 1998;28(2):241–252. doi: 10.2190/Y3GE-NQCK-0LNR-T126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Wing S., Wolf S. Intensive livestock operations, health, and quality of life among eastern North Carolina residents. Environ Health Perspect. 2000 Mar;108(3):233–238. doi: 10.1289/ehp.00108233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Health Perspectives are provided here courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

RESOURCES