제중원의 초기 의학 교육 - 80

醫史學 제8권 제1호 (통권 제14호) : 1- 11, 1999 K orean J M ed H is t 8 : 1- 11, 1999 © 大韓醫史學會 ISSN 1225- 505X

Great Debate on Environmental in the U.S .A . : A Historical Analy sis

KIM Ock - Joo* , CHO Sung - Il* * , and HWANG Sang - Ik * * *

Lead poisoning am ong children in poor district of old Am erican cities is a very American phenom enon.199) Lead poisoning has been the m ost prevalent of childhood toxicological diseases in America, but is easily preventable. T he m ain source of lead poisoning in children has been chips or dust of lead paint , which had long been used. A s early as 1894 in Brisbane, Au stralia, T urner and colleagues reported on cases of childhood lead poisoning due to lead- based paint . In the 1920s, m any European countries banned the use of lead- based paint , but in Am erica it continued to be used. Not until the 1970s did the Am erican governm ent began to take action again st the hazards of environmental lead. In the 1970s, the new Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA ) issued it s fir st regulations on lead emissions, and the Congress identified lead- based paint as a health hazard, and ordered that it no longer be used in federally subsidized hou sing. Nevertheless, lead remained on the painted w alls and w oodw ork of dw elling s, and m any children w ould continue to suffer from lead toxicity .200) Why did it take m ore than a half century to regulate environm ental lead pollution in America? A ccording to Graebner , the lead industries ex ercised enorm ous influence ov er the production and dissemination of knowledge about lead poisoning in the period from 1925 to 1965.201) T he prim ary lead- extracting and sm elting industry in America had

* Departm ent of History of Science, Harv ard University ** School of Public Health, Harvard Univer sity *** Departm ent of the History of M edicine and M edical Hum anities, Seoul National Univer sity College of M edicine; Corresponding Author (em ail ; hw [email protected] .ac.kr ) 199) In Britain , for ex ample, F actories Act for Prevention of Lead Poisoning w as legislated in 1883 to protect w orker s at factories dealing with lead. In 1923, the u se of lead paint to inner side of house w as banned. 200) T he New York T im es. Aug 26, 1990. 201) Graebner W . Hegem ony through science : inform ation engineering and lead toxicology 1925- 1965. In Rosner D, M arkowitz G (eds ). Dying for W ork : W orker s ' Safety and Health in T w entieth - Century America. Bloomington , IN ; Indiana Univ Press, 1987. KIM OJ, CHO SI, HWANG SI : Debate on Environmental Lead Poisoning - A Historical Analy

organized to control research findings on lead health hazards.202) T he Lead Indu stries A ssociation (LIA ), incorporated in 1928 funded lead poisoning research, influenced public opinion , and ex erted influence over the developm ent of public policy . In November 1930, just after a public health controver sy over leaded gasoline, LIA began to publish their journal, L ead, to advert to the public the u sefulness, the pow er , and even the beauty of lead. Such titles a "Lead Pipe ' s Great Record for New Belford ' s W ater Supply ," "Unusual Lead W ork on a Unique Hom e," "Lead F aced Building Blocks Economical and Attractive," and finally "U se of T etraethyl Lead Growing Rapidly ," in which LIA boasted of the increasing amount of lead used annually for leaded gasoline. At the bottom of the back page of the journal, they say , "T he Lead Industries A ssociation invites inquires on any subject relating to lead and will be glad to cooperate in the solution of your problem ." LIA w as not the only organization to prom ote positiv e attitudes to the u se of lead. Individuals such as Robert Kehoe, Charles Kettering , and private organizations like the M ellon Institute, and the Kettering F oundation , which w ere also funded by big indu stries, contributed to determine Am erican s ' attitude to the lead hazard.203)

Dr. He rbe rt Needle ma n a nd low leve l lead toxicity

In 1979 Dr . Herbert Needlem an, a pediatrician and psychiatrist at Harvard M edical School, published a paper in New England Journal of M edicine, which becam e a landm ark in the history of lead poisoning research. T he paper show ed that schoolchildren who had elevated, but not actually toxic, levels of lead in their teeth did significantly poorer in classroom and had m easurably low er IQs than those with low lead levels.204) Using tooth lead m easurem ent as a biom arker of chronic lead exposure, Needlem an et. al. show ed that lead exposure w as associated with m easurably low er IQs and significantly poorer perform ance in a classroom activity among school children . T his association w as apparent at doses below the lev els known to produce clinical toxicity . T his w ork received con siderable attention from both the m ass m edia and professional journals. T he implication of Needlem an ' s study w as that even low dose of lead in children could result in distinct neurophy siological deficit s. Giv en the high prev alence of environmental lead exposure, this could be a trem endou s impact in the population level. Since blood lead level do not represent as cumulated lead in the body , Needlem an also

202) F or the history of m anipulating activities of the Lead Indu stries A ssociation over the public health science and policies, see Rosner D, M arkowitz G. A 'Gift of God ' ? T he public health controver sy over leaded gasoline during the 1920s. Am J Public Health 1985 ; 75 : 344- 352; Graebner W . ibid; Baldwin D. Heavy M etal. Common Cause M agazine 1992 F all ; 14- 18 203) Graebner W . ibid. note 3. 204) Needlem an HL, Gunnoe C, Leviton A , Reed R, Peresie H , M aher C, Barrett P . Deficit s in psychologic and classroom perform ance of children with elevated dentine lead levels. New England Journal of M edicine 1979 ; 300(13) : 689- 695 醫史學 제8권 제1· 2호 (통권 제14호) 1999년

established the use of the lead level in teeth as a useful indication of the total amount of lead exposure in the body . T w o year s after Needlem an ' s article appeared, Claire Ernhart, a psychologist now at Case W estern Reserve Univer sity , and her colleagues criticized Needlem an ' s conclusion . In 1974 Ernhart had published research in which she reported that lead w as associated with low er IQ in a group of Long Island black preschooler s.205) In 1981, how ever , she withdrew her own previou s conclu sions, and suggested that there w ere seriou s m ethodological flaw s in the Needlem an ' s paper.206) Ernhart wrote that Needlem an ' s studies showing positive relation s betw een low lead level and decrease of developmental statu s had m ethodological w eakness. In particular she criticized Needlem an ' s 1979 paper , "both because it received m ass m edia attention and becau se a serious attempt w as m ade to consider methodological issues."207) She listed (a) inadequate marker s of exposure to lead, (b ) insensitive m easures of perform ance, (c) biased selection of subject s, and (d) inadequate identification and handling of other confounding v ariables that affect developm ent . Stressing the fourth, she said that parental intelligence w as a m ajor correlate of children ' s intelligence, but few scholars reporting positive effects had con sidered the parenting effect . She concluded, "If there are, in fact , behavioral and intellectual sequelae of low levels of lead burden ... these effect s are minim al."208) Shortly after publication of her paper , Ernhart becam e a grantee of the International Lead Zinc Research Organization (ILZRO), receiving $ 375,000 for next seven year s. Alm ost all the paper s she wrote with the grant from ILZRO stressed that the adver se health effects of lead w ere minim al.209) When there w as a m ove to put lead back in

205) Perino J, Ernhart CB. T he relation of subclinical lead level to cognitive and sen sorim otor impairment in black preschooler s. Journal of Learning Disabilities 1974 ; 7 : 616- 620 206) Ernhart CB, Landa B, Schell NB. Subclinical levels of lead and developm ental deficit — a multiv ariate follow - up reassessm ent . Pediatrics 1981 ; 67(6) : 911- 919 207) ibid. p.911. 208) ibid. p.918. 209) Ernhart CB. Lead levels and confounding variables. Am erican Journal of P sychiatry 1982 ; 139 : 1524; Ernhart CB, W olf AW , Sokol RJ, Brittenham GM , Erhard P . F etal lead exposure : antenatal factor s. Environm ental Research 1985 ; 38(1) : 54- 66; Ernhart CB, Landa B, W olf AW . Subclinical lead level and developmental deficit : re- analy ses of data. Journal of Learning Disabilities 1985 ; 18(8) : 475- 479; Ernhart CB, W olf AW , Kennard MJ, Erhard P , Filipovich HF , Sokol RJ. Intrauterine exposure to low levels of lead : the status of the neonate. Archiv es of Environm ental Health 1986 ; 41(5) : 287- 291; Ernhart CB, M orrow - T lucak M , M arler MR, W olf AW . Low level lead exposure in the prenatal and early preschool periods : early preschool dev elopm ent. Neurotoxicology & T eratology 1987 ; 9(3) : 259- 270; Ernhart CB, M orrow - T lucak M , W olf AW . Low level lead exposure and intelligence in the preschool year s. Science of the T otal Environm ent 1988 ; 71(3) : 453- 459; KIM OJ, CHO SI, HWANG SI : Debate on Environmental Lead Poisoning - A Historical Analy

gasoline, she testified for LIA , claiming that there w as no valid reason in term s of health to ban its u se.210) In 1982 and 1983, EPA conducted a w orkshop to prepare a revision of the air lead standard. Needlem an, Ernhart , and , another psychologist , w ere asked to participate. Since Ernhart criticized Needlem an ' s w ork, and so did Needlem an at the panel, the officer decided to evaluate the tw o studies to determine if they have any flaw . Needlem an reanalyzed his data in respon se to the Committee ' s recommendation and reported it to EPA ' s Office of Policy Analy sis, which accepted it as confirming the published findings on significant associations betw een elev ated dentine lev els and decrem ent s in IQ.211) In 1990, the battle betw een Needlem an , and Ernhart and Scarr took a new turn .212) W hile Needlem an participated in a suit brought under the Superfund Act against three lead m anufacturers, Ernhart and Scarr w ere expert witnesses for the lead industry . T o prepare the case, they visited Needlem an to ex amine his data. After tw o- day examination , Ernhart and Scarr wrote a lengthy docum ent accu sing Needlem an of unscientific behavior . In M ay 1991 the document w as forw arded to the National In stitute of Health— the Office of Scientific Integrity (NIH— OSI) by David Genesson, an attorney for the law firm of Hunton and William s, representing the Ethyl Corporation of Am erica and EI DuPont , contesting the regulation of lead additives in federal court and before EPA and the F ederal T rade Commission. Ernhart and Scarr ' s criticism on Needlem an ' s w ork included the following three

Ernhart CB, M orrow - T lucak M , W olf AW , Super D, Drotar D. Low level lead exposure in the prenatal and early preschool periods : intelligence prior to school entry . Neurotoxicology & T eratology 1989 ; 11(2) : 161- 170; Ernhart CB, Greene T . Low - level lead exposure in the prenatal and early preschool periods : language developm ent. Archiv es of Environm ental Health 1990 ; 45(6) : 342- 354 210) Ernhart CB. T estim ony before the Environm ental Protection Agency . April 15, 1982. Needlem an HL. Salem com es to the National Institutes of Health : notes from inside the crucible of scientific integrity . Pediatrics 1992 ; 90(6) : 977- 981 211) Needlem an HL, Geiger SK, Frank R. Lead and IQ scores : a reanaly sis. Science 1985 ; 227(4688) : 701- 704 212) Description s about the whole process are available in following paper s. Although the description s about things occurred should hav e been the sam e, the interpretation s of each camp are quite different, and often opposite. Ernhart CB, Scarr S , Geneson DF . On being a Whistleblow er : T he Needlem an Case. Ethics and Behavior 1993 ; 3(1) : 73- 93; Ernhart CB. Deliberate misrepresentation . P ediatrics 1993 ; 91 : 171- 173; Needleman HL. Salem comes to the National Institutes of Health : notes from inside the crucible of scientific integrity . Pediatrics 1992 ; 90(6) : 977- 981; Needlem an HL. A reply to Scarr and Ernhart . Pediatrics 1993 ; 91(2) : 519- 521; Scarr S . A whistleblow er ' s perspective on the Needleman case. P ediatrics 1993 ; 91(1) : 173- 174 醫史學 제8권 제1· 2호 (통권 제14호) 1999년

point s.213) Fir st , Needlem an did not properly control for confounding variables; secondly , he ex cluded data — Needlem an selected cases in biased fashion . T hirdly , Needlem an u sed multiple test s that could hav e led to positive association s on the basis of chance. Although the criticism s appear disagreement s about research methods, rather than m atter s of scientific misconduct , NIH— OSI ordered the Univer sity of to inv estigate whether there w as scientific misconduct involved in Needlem an ' s research . W hile the proceedings w ere going on, Needlem an appealed to the preliminary Inquiry P anel. He argued that the charges w ere raised initially by tw o individuals who had been supported by the lead indu stry , and that they had been raised in 1985 and dismissed by EPA . He also noted that his w ork had been replicated m ore than tw elve tim es since it s publication , and that he had shared his data with other scientists in the past . T o Needlem an ' s disappointment , the preliminary Inquiry Panel stated that it "found no evidence of fraud, falsification , or plagiarism ," but added that it "is not able at this time to exclude the possibility rule of scientific misconduct in term s of misrepresentation."214) It , therefore, recomm ended a full investigation . While the investigation w as being arranged, Needleman requested an open , public hearing. Since an open hearing had never occurred at the univ er sity , he w ent to the F aculty A ssembly of the univer sity and requested support for his dem and for an open hearing. T he F aculty Senate voted unanim ously for an open hearing . Six eminent health scientists spon sored a petition to the Chancellor , which had alm ost 400 scientist s ' signatures. T he Univ er sity Pitt sburgh finally agreed to open hearing , the fir st in it s history .

"A ra re public hea ring on cha rges of scie ntific misconduct"2 15)

With great reluctance, Ernhart and Scarr attended the open hearing on April 14, 1992. Scientist s, local and national press, faculty m ember s filled the hearing room . After the accuser s ' opening rem arks on their criticism about Needlem an ' s w ork, a half- dozen witnesses testified on Needlem an ' s behalf, while Ernhart and Scarr brought no witnesses. T he witnesses testified to the validity , accuracy , and importance of Needlem an ' s w ork. Joel Schw artz, then a senior scientist at EPA and currently professor at the School of Public Health, Harvard University , reanalyzed Needlem an ' s 1979 data and show ed that even if all the confounding variables and all the ex cluded subject s w ere included in the analy sis, the result s w ould be essentially identical to those Needlem an published in 1979.216)

213) Ernhart CB, Scarr S , Geneson DF . ibid. pp.77- 78. 214) Needlem an HL. Salem com es to the National In stitutes of Health : notes from in side the crucible of scientific integrity . P ediatrics 1992 ; 90(6) : 977- 981 215) T he New York T imes. April 15, 1992. 216) P alca J. Lead researcher confront s accuser in public hearing. Science 1992 ; 256 : 437- 438 KIM OJ, CHO SI, HWANG SI : Debate on Environmental Lead Poisoning - A Historical Analy

T aking advantage of having the hearing open, Needlem an threw his accu ser s incisiv e and challenging questions on the credibility of the accu ser s ' w ork and on their m otivation for attacking his w ork , suggesting it be based on their sympathy with the lead indu stry or on som e long standing per sonal bias against him . While William Cooley , chairm an of the investigation panel, allow ed Needlem an to proceed with his questions, he told Ernhart and Scarr that they did not have to answ er the questions. During the hearing, Ernhart and Scarr appeared to be reluctant to answ er to Needlem an ' s question s. Later , Ernhart and Scarr expressed their regret at attending the hearing : they claim ed that the hearing w as in sulting and abu siv e to them .217) T o the eyes of one reporter for T he N ew Y ork T im es , the conflict betw een the tw o camps rose "to the level of archetypal confrontation over the use of science because Dr . Ernhart has been supported in her w ork by the lead industry , which has fought the conclusion that lead is harmful, while Dr . Needlem an becam e an inspiration of the anti- lead legion s and testified regularly on behalf of plaintiffs who said they had been harm ed by lead."218) During and after the tw o- day hearing, one of the hottest issues w as whether Ernhart and Scarr w ere employees of the lead industries or not. In successiv e articles after the hearing, Ernhart and Scarr said that they w ere not , and that kind of statem ent by Needlem an w as a slander .219) F or his part, Needlem an presented half- dozen evidences that they w ere people of lead industries.220) Fir st of all, Ernhart received at least $ 375,000 from ILZRO since 1981, and half of her salary derived from that source. Needlem an successfully refuted Ernhart ' s statem ent that she began to raise questions about Needlem an ' s w ork in 1980, but w as not funded by ILZRO until 1983, so that there w as no w ay that her opposition could be due to an ILZRO grant . In her deposition in the case of lead poisoning when she attended as expert witness in 1988, Ernhart said that she fir st applied to the lead industry for financial support in 1981 with the paper being in press in 1980. W ithin a year of publicly attacking Needlem an ' s w ork and retracting her positive finding , Ernhart applied to the lead indu stry organization for support . In 1983, Ernhart testified for LIA against the need to keep lead out of gasoline. Scarr also had appeared as an expert defen se witness in several suit s for three former mine- owner s and for the defen se in a landm ark suit against six paint companies in . Right after the hearing , several presses reported their observation . After tw o m onth , on 20 M ay 1992, the Hearing Board found no evidence of scientific misconduct . Reporting the rare public hearing on charges of scientific misconduct , a writer for S cience tran smitted Needlem an ' s concern that the misconduct investigation "w ould take a research debate and turn it into a blood sport ," and show ed his cynicism about

217) Scarr S . A whistleblow er ' s per spective on the Needlem an case. Pediatrics 1993 ; 91(1) : 173- 174 218) T he New York T imes. April 15, 1992. 219) Scarr. op.cit . pp.173. 220) Needlem an HL. A reply to Scarr and Ernhart. P ediatrics 1993 ; 91(2) : 520 醫史學 제8권 제1· 2호 (통권 제14호) 1999년

misconduct hearing , saying "misconduct hearing could becom e ev en more of a spectator sport in the 1990s."221) Although the Hearing Board seem ed to settle the case, aftereffects lingered. In December 1992, Needlem an published a paper in P ediatrics to share his experience of being a researcher in the combativ e field of environm ental health science, and of being inv estigated for scientific misconduct.222) T his paper included a short history of lead research in America, as w ell as an account of his experience of being investigated. He experienced the lead indu stries ' attack on the lead researcher s who reported adver se effect of lead from 1972 when he presented his fir st paper on lead in teeth. In the beginning of his career as an independent scholar, he had to m eet attacks from the representatives of the gasoline companies, such as Dutch Shell, and Ethyl Corporation of America. T o get historical per spectives, Needlem an looked into the history of lead research. T hus, the 1979 case w as not new to him , but it w as a m ost formidable experience. Finally Needlem an gave young scientists som e suggestions to av oid being charged with academic misconduct . Ernhart and Scarr , and Geneson reacted promptly to Needlem an ' s paper in 1992 P ediatrics . In a new journal, E thics & B ehavior, they published a paper : "On Being a W histleblow er : T he Needlem an Case."223) T hey depicted them selves as whistle- blow er s who undertook to report "observation s that suggest misconduct to agencies that are empow ered to ex amine and evaluate such evidence." T hey w ere concerned, they said, that even "a few case in stances of misconduct can erode public tru st in science." "Con sonant with this respon sibility ", they blew the whistle on Herbert Needlem an . Although they described the sam e hearing , their appraisal of the hearing w as quite different from that of Needlem an. T hey stressed that the reporting of misconduct contributes to science and should be view ed in this light rather than as a betrayal of a colleague. T heir article made a number of scientists angry . After w atching Needlem an ' s case for m ore than a decade, m any scientists saw that how indu stries could dam age an inv estigator ' s reputation, and credibility without grounds, and con sum e his tim e for long periods alm ost to the exclusion of any scientific output , while he w as obliged to defend him self. Several questions arose concerning charges of scientific misconduct : W hat is the basis for a charge of scientific misconduct ? Who should investigate charges of scientific misconduct ? How should such investigation s be conducted?224) In the A m erican

221) P alca J. Lead researcher confront s accuser in public hearing. Science 1992 ; 256 : 438 222) Needlem an HL. Salem com es to the National In stitutes of Health : notes from in side the crucible of scientific integrity . P ediatrics 1992 ; 90(6) : 977- 981 223) Ernhart CB, Scarr S , Geneson DF . On being a Whistleblow er : T he Needlem an Case. Ethics and Behavior 1993 ; 3(1) : 73- 93 224) Silbergeld EK. Annotation : protection of the public interest , allegation s of scientific misconduct , and the Needlem an case. Am erican Journal of Public Health 1995 ; 85(2) KIM OJ, CHO SI, HWANG SI : Debate on Environmental Lead Poisoning - A Historical Analy

J ournal of P ublic H ealth in F ebruary 1995, an editorial insisted that professional organization s should inv estigate how easily comm ercial interest s can procure ' scientific ' witnesses, and the situations where false accu sations of scientific misconduct are m ade, "and punish member s who attempt artfully to pull commercial chestnut s out of the fire by impugning the integrity of colleagues, as they now seek to discipline those who cheat ."225)

A History of lead resea rch : cha nge a nd continuity

With the Needleman case, w e can see that the history of lead research in Am erica rev eals both change and continuity . F or continuity , LIA and later ILZRO have continuou sly attempted to control the field, public health effort by funding lead poisoning research, by influencing public opinion , and by exerting pow ers ov er developing policy . A s Graebner show s, LIA has known the necessity of ' scientific ' representation of their propaganda : lead is not harmful. T hus they con stantly , and insistently , tried to show the public that science has proven the harmlessness of lead. T o this end, they have adopted tw o strategies : one is to fund lead research , while the other is to intimidate independent scholar s. Dr . Needlem an ' s case fit s the latter . If w e compare recent lead researches with those of the early tw entieth century , the source of funding has changed. LIA and later ILZRO dominated the funding of lead research until the 1970s. F rom 1971 to 1980, the U.S . governm ent began to support environmental health research, including the study of lead poisoning . T he National In stitute of Environm ental Science has become a m ajor source of research funds, supplanting LIA , and ILZRO. Dr . Herbert Needleman w as never funded by the lead indu stries, but by NIH. Secondly , in the 1970s and 1980s a group of independent scholar s em erged. Unlike Alice Hamilton, or Yandell Hender son, who testified against tetraethyl lead before Congress, and w ere vilified as opponents of progress, Needleman received support from his colleagues all over Am erica. It w as not a lonely struggle that his predecessor s in the sam e field had to confront without organizing support . T he Am erican Public Health A ssociation , which w as not independent of the lead indu stry in the fir st half of this century , now spoke out on the Needlem an ' s case. T hirdly , the methods u sed to intimidate a researcher who revealed the adv er se health effect s of indu strial products also changed. Compared to the case of Alice Hamilton in 1932, who received direct threat s from lawyer s, and even from industrialist s them selves, the accusation s against Needlem an cam e from scientist s. In the summ er of 1932, the heads of five companies accu sed Alice Hamilton ' s book, I ndus trial P ois ons in the United S tates , of containing "m atter , inaccurate and untrue, which is dam aging to u s as m anufacturers."226) Extrem ely irritated, Alice Hamilton had to go through a lengthy ,

: 165- 166 225) Silv er GA . Editor ' s note. Am erican Journal of Public Health 1995 ; 85(2) : 167 醫史學 제8권 제1· 2호 (통권 제14호) 1999년

painful negotiation with Albert F Jaeckel, coun sel for the m anufacturers. In a letter to her lawyer , Hamilton say s, "I still face the fact that I am very much afraid of Mr . Jaeckel ' s pow er to bankrupt m e and I cannot afford to be bold."227) In the public health controver sy over leaded gasoline during the 1920s, corporations such as General M otors, Dupont , Standard Oil, and the Ethyl Corporation , producing autom obiles and/ or tetraethyl lead, also m ade the question as a controver sy betw een those who advocated the indu strial progress of Am erica and those who opposed it. In the case of Needlem an, the m ain attack w as a question of scientific misconduct .228) T he factor s in the 1980s and 1990s, which are different from those of the 1920s and 1930s are changes in scientific activities, and in the patronage of the science, and changes in public attitudes to science. Since the 1960s, argum ent s for indu strial progress cannot overcom e argument s for environmental research and protection . Environmental issues already becam e very important after 1960s. T hu s, for indu stry , the m ost reliable w ay to discount the harmful effect s of indu strial products is to use other scientist s to cast doubt upon an investigator ' s credibility . Even if he or she is finally ex onerated, such an attack can destroy consensu s about a toxicant ' s danger , and intimidate potential researchers who might report again st the interest s of a particular industry .

A cknowledgm ent : W e thank Dr . KIM Rhokho, professor of indu strial m edicine at the School of Public Health, Seoul National Univer sity , Dr . Leonard G Wilson , professor of history of m edicine at the Univer sity of Minnesota, Dr . Sally Kohlstedt , professor of history of science at the Univer sity of Minnesota.

KEY WORDS : Lead, Poisoning, Environment, He rbe rt Needle ma n, Alice Hamilton, Science, Scientific Misconduct

226) Herm an B. Alice Hamilton. A Life in Letter s. Harvard Univ Press, 1984. p.325. 227) Letter from Alice Hamilton to Benjamine V Cohen , January 6, 1933. Alice Hamilton Paper, Schlesiner library , Radcliff College. quote from ibid. p.331. 228) T his is partly because Needlem an ' s researches deal with environm ental lead poisoning . Since environm ental regulation of lead, how ever , also greatly influences lead industries ' profit, there is alw ay s possibility for the indu stries to m ake such an argum ent . KIM OJ, CHO SI, HWANG SI : Debate on Environmental Lead Poisoning - A Historical Analy

=한글 초록=

환경성 납 중독을 둘러싼 미국내 논쟁의 역사적 고찰

김 옥 주* · 조 성 일* * · 황 상 익* * *

저자들은 이 논문에서, 저농도의 환경성 납으로도 건강에 위해가 초래될 수 있다는 소아 과의사 허버트 니들맨(Herbert Needlem an )의 논문에 대한 심리학자 클레어 에른하르트 (Claire Ernhart ) 등의 논박으로 시작된 1980, 90년대 미국의 논쟁 과정을 추적하고, 환경성 납 중독을 둘러싼 미국내 논쟁의 시대적 변화를 다음과 같이 역사적으로 고찰하였다. 논쟁의 초기인 1920∼ 30년대에는 논쟁의 전선이 납의 유해성을 주장하는 앨리스 해밀튼 등 일부 과학자(의학자)들과 무해함을 강조하는 납 관련 산업자본가들 또는 그 대리인인 법 률가들 사이에 형성되었던 데에 비해, 1980∼ 90년대에는 주로 과학자들 사이의 논쟁으로 그 겉모습이 변모하였다. 후기 논쟁에서 납의 유해성을 인정할 수 없다는 과학자들은 본인들의 부인에도 불구하고 대개 납 관련 산업체들로부터 거액의 연구비 지원을 받고 있었다. 또한 납의 무해함을 주장하는 쪽의 화두가 초기 논쟁에서는 주로 산업상의 진보 를 둘러 싼 것이었음에 반해, 후기 논쟁에서는 유해론자들의 방법론적 오류나 과학의 오용 에 집중 되었다. 1930년대에 해밀튼은 산업의 발전을 가로막는다고 공격을 받은 데에 비해, 에른하르 트 등은 니들맨을 과학 의 이름으로 공박하였다. 그리고 납 유해론자들에 대한 미국공중보건학회 등 학계의 반응도 초기의 냉랭함에서 후 기의 지원과 공감으로 크게 바뀌었다. 많은 학자들이 니들맨의 논문에서 방법론상의 오류나 과학을 오용하였다는 혐의를 인정하지 않았다. 환경성 납 중독을 둘러싼 미국내 논쟁 양상이 몇십년 사이에 크게 변화한 요인으로는, 납 에 관련된 과학적(의학적) 연구의 주된 지원기관이 관련 산업체들로부터 정부(NIH )로 바뀜 으로써 산업체로부터 독립적인 연구자들이 성장할 수 있었다는 점과 1960년대 이래 환경 문 제가 미국사회의 주요한 관심사로 부상하게 된 사실 등을 들 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 그러한 변화에도 불구하고 납 산업체들이 자신들의 이익을 관철하려는 시도를 포 기하지 않고 있으며, 과학자들을 앞세워 과학 논쟁을 펼침으로써 납 유해론에 타격을 입히 는 쪽으로 전략적인 선회를 꾀하고 있음을 니들맨 사례 에서 엿볼 수 있다.

색인어 : 납· 중독· 환경· 허버트 니들맨· 앨리스 해밀튼· 과학· 과학의 오용(誤用) ------* 하버드 대학교 과학사학과 ** 하버드 대학교 보건대학원 *** 서울대학교 의과대학 의사학교실; 책임저자(em ail : hw ang [email protected] )