So I’m considering going into the exciting field of chemical research. Unfortunately, the parents seem to disapprove for fear of me working with deadly compounds. They harp on stories of their neighbor’s brother’s girlfriend’s dad who worked in a lab and developed untold misery.
Anyway, a quick google search does reveal a bunch of websites that do claim that scientists, in particular Chemists, have a higher rate of developing cancer. Can anyone vouch for the validity of these studies? I can’t seem to find the actual study just news articles talking about specific companies or personal webpages talking about them.
Additionally, can anyone distinguish the rates of cancer between academic chemists versus industrial chemists, a comparison of the rates in the different fields of chemistry, and a general comparison of the different fields of science. Thanks for everyone’s help.
I’m in genetics, I know two people in their 20s-30s in my grad school who have come down with cancer during the 7 years I have been around. It is an interesting idea, since we deal with quite a lot of mutagens (ethidium bromide, beta-emitting radiation, ethane methylsulfonate, diaminobenzidine, ethyl nitrosourea to name a few). So here are the relevant articles from a quick PubMed search.
This study will be your best bet, IMHO. Rates of cancer in 4000+ members of the Royal Society of Chemistry over 24 years. There are a number of other relevant hits for cancer AND incidence AND chemists, some show increases and some don’t. I think it will depend very heavily with what chemicals you work the most. Carbon black, benzene compounds, styrene rubbers, chromium compounds, and a bunch of others come up again and again.
I haven’t critically read all of these studies and analyzed their findings. Correlative studies like can be prone to error, especially with a limited sample size. Since some find correlation and some don’t, I think you would need a little more specifics on precise chemicals and precise cancers, as well as giving a critical eye to the studies.
Here are some more. Pretty much all agree that biological science workers get more cancer. Great…
These are abstracts of two studies measuring cancer and morbidity/mortality at a petrochemical research facility. Decreased lung cancer, increased some other cancers.
Again petrochemical research facility, increase in lymphopoeitic cancers.
Swedish biomedical workers with an increased rate of brain, skin, and breast cancers.
Biomedical workers in Israel, increased brain, lung, breast, and other cancers.
Finnish laboratory workers, no increase in cancer risk.
Metaanalysis of other laboratory cancer clusters. “Biological research could be associated with an elevated risk for pancreatic cancer, brain tumors, and certain hemopathies.”
This should be enough to get you started – there are plenty of other studies around, though.
I can’t offer any numbers, but when I worked in our school’s chem lab, the post docs who did the real labor acknowledged freely that they tended to be sicklier as a result of the lab work. A couple of them had chronic lung problems, and many others admitted that they got respiratory problems like pneumonia more easily.
Whether it translates into higher levels of cancer, I couldn’t tell you - but you DO end up breathing more than your share of carcinogens no matter how careful you are. I sure as hell felt better when I left.
On the other hand, I work in a clinical genetics lab that shares space with one of our infectious diseases lab, and I never get sick any more. I haven’t had so much as a cold in the last two years. I like to believe that my immune system has been strengthened to the point where it could ward off a charging rhino.