Before the storm: informing and involving stakeholder groups in workplace biomarker monitoring

The social, legal and ethical implications of advances in biomarker indentification have been discussed by scholars and environmental researchers, but not by the "everyday" professionals and workers who may eventually make and be affected by decisions about their workplace applications. Through the use of a hypothetical scenario, this study introduced members of various professional and occupational groups to the potential uses of biomarkers research on biological monitoring in the workplace. The purpose was to obtain opinions about how events would proceed based on the scenario, leading to a broad discussion of potential uses and abuses of biomarker-based health monitoring. Six professionally homogeneous focus groups, comprised of 1) company health professionals, 2) third-party payers, 3) attorneys, 4) human resource managers, 5) non-unionized workers, and 6) unionized workers, participated in focus groups presented as "think-tank" discussions in Greenville and Charleston, S.C. Participants were given a fictitious "newspaper article" about the use of biomarker-based monitoring at a chemical plant and were asked to comment on what they thought would happen next. The discussion expanded to a general consideration of biological monitoring and its legal, social and ethical ramifications. Data was analyzed through the "immersion/crystallization" method. Few participants reported any knowledge of biological monitoring prior to the focus group session. Some had initial difficulty understanding the concept and how it differs from other means of measuring environmental risk. Although biological monitoring was previously unknown to many participants, occupational groups were relatively consistent in the issues they raised about its use in the workplace. In all groups, questions about potential discrimination against employees were raised. The general consensus was that the use of biomarker-based monitoring would result in conflict and litigation without regulations to protect employees from discrimination. Although most participants saw potential health benefits resulting from the preventive advantages associated with this technology, their concerns about its misuses were paramount. Perceptions varied as a function of occupation. Non-unionized workers expressed the most concern about discriminatory uses of biological monitoring. Unionized workers, who said they believed the union would support their interests, expressed much less concern. Health professionals (company physicians and nurse practitioners) were most alarmed about the "extra work" a monitoring program would create for them. Human resource managers concentrated on the company's "damage control" efforts. Attorneys emphasized that the reliable use of such tests would establish a causal relationship between exposure and personal injury. The results of this project illustrate that people who are most likely to be affected by biomarker-based biological monitoring in the workplace readily understand and are alarmed by its legal and ethical implications. It is unlikely that this technology will be fully accepted as an environmental risk assessment tool or as a prevention strategy without stringent protection of workers' rights. This study demonstrated the value of focus groups in obtaining opinion data about an environmental risk issue that it not yet well known to the general public.