# Cancer Rates of Scientists vs. General Population **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 19, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cancer-rates-of-scientists-vs-general-population/235295 "2004-03-19T22:07:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lost\_In\_Reality](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Lost\_In\_Reality](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lost_In_Reality)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cancer-rates-of-scientists-vs-general-population/235295/1 "2004-03-19T22:07:25Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cancer-rates-of-scientists-vs-general-population/235295/2 "2004-03-20T04:21:11Z")
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. > **[Mortality of professional chemists in England and Wales, 1965-1989 - PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8480770/?dopt=Abstract)** > > Several studies on the mortality of chemists have revealed a lower overall mortality but an excess of deaths from certain diseases, in particular, cancers. This study determined the causes of mortality of 4,012 chemists among 14,884 members of The... 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… > **[Cancer incidence among employees at a petrochemical research facility - PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11227635/?dopt=Abstract)** > > This investigation evaluated cancer incidence among workers at a petrochemical research facility in Illinois. A cluster of brain cancer and other intracranial tumors had occurred at the facility before the study began. The subjects were 5641 people... > **[Mortality among employees at a petrochemical research facility - PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11148013/?dopt=Abstract)** > > The deficit of brain cancer deaths contrasts with an excess incidence seen in a companion study. Subjects' generally favorable mortality experience probably reflects socioeconomic advantages of employees relative to the Illinois general population. These are abstracts of two studies measuring cancer and morbidity/mortality at a petrochemical research facility. Decreased lung cancer, increased some other cancers. > **[Lymphopoietic cancer and other major causes of death among petrochemical...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10436558/?dopt=Abstract)** > > This study updates lymphopoietic cancer (LHC) mortality statistics and other major causes of death through 1992 for 13,188 petrochemical researchers employed between 1964 and 1986. Significant deficits of deaths were observed for all causes, all... > **[Mortality among petrochemical science and engineering employees - PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2069433/?dopt=Abstract)** > > This is a study of a dynamic cohort of 13 250 commercial research and development personnel for whom information on occupational and educational background and smoking was available. Their age-, sex-, race-, and period-adjusted death rates were... Again petrochemical research facility, increase in lymphopoeitic cancers. > **[Mortality and cancer incidence in biomedical laboratory personnel in Sweden -...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10086198/?dopt=Abstract)** > > The present findings lend some support to an excess of brain tumors among male scientists and of breast cancer in female scientists in biomedical research laboratories. Swedish biomedical workers with an increased rate of brain, skin, and breast cancers. > **[Cancer incidence among laboratory workers in biomedical research and routine...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14635237/?dopt=Abstract)** > > We suggest that work in research and biomedical laboratories might involve an increased risk of certain types of cancer. Am. J. Ind. Med. 44:600-610, 2003. > **[Cancer incidence among laboratory workers in biomedical research and routine...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14635238/?dopt=Abstract)** > > Our results exclude the possibility that the excess cancer morbidity was related to personal risk factors but they may be explained by exposure factors. Am. J. Ind. Med. 44:611-626, 2003. Biomedical workers in Israel, increased brain, lung, breast, and other cancers. > **[Exposure to chemical carcinogens and risk of cancer among Finnish laboratory...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14502761/?dopt=Abstract)** > > This study did not suggest any major cancer risks among Finnish laboratory workers but the follow-up time of the cohort was too short (on an average 15.7 years) to reveal possible cancer risks requiring a longer induction period. Finnish laboratory workers, no increase in cancer risk. > **[Cancer risk in laboratory workers: an emphasis on biological research - PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11071688/?dopt=Abstract)** > > Overall, this study suggests a low overall risk of cancer, albeit a higher risk may be suggested for cancers of the pancreas (risk ratios ranging from 0.5 to 6.3) and brain (0.7-9.4), and for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (0.6-51.5). We suggest ways in... 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. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cancer-rates-of-scientists-vs-general-population/235295/3 "2004-03-20T19:30:05Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cancer-rates-of-scientists-vs-general-population/235295/4 "2004-03-20T20:02:47Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cancer-rates-of-scientists-vs-general-population/235295/5 "2004-03-20T20:08:51Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > 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. Pun intended?