The German experience with asbestos-related diseases: a failure of compensation due to the manipulation of science

Abstract

The world pandemic of asbestos-related diseases results from inadequate prevention and late bans on asbestos use. For years in Germany there has been an annual average of about ten thousand new claims. Many countries deny compensation due to unsound diagnostic applications that have entered into the literature and are used to deny compensation. One such well-established incorrect scientific strategy is the use of quantifying asbestos bodies or fibers in lung tissue and setting restrictive thresholds on the findings in tissues of workers who had been exposed primarily to chrysotile which shows low bio-persistence, movement to the pleura, and rarely forms asbestos bodies. The so called one thousand asbestos body hypothesis for the diagnosis of asbestosis, originating from the German Mesothelioma Register run by the employers’ statutory accident insurance institutions, has been applied in Germany and similarly in several other western countries. As opposed to the well-substantiated hit and run phenomena that has been predominantly applied to chrysotile asbestos, low asbestos body or fiber counts in tissue had been systematically misinterpreted. This, combined with restrictive histopathology definitions, have been used for the manipulation not only of diagnostic criteria but also of science and has had an effect on laws governing compensation. The counting of asbestos bodies or fibers in human lungs should under no circumstances invalidate a qualified occupational history of exposure as the hallmark requisite tool for assessing asbestos exposure and acceptance of asbestos-related diseases in compensation schemes. An outcome suggested by this paper is the need to broaden the WHO beneficial initiative to eliminate ARD worldwide by establishment of an international board of independent scientists on remedial action that would recommend standards for acknowledgement and compensation. Such a board should be supported by national legal branches recognizing possible regional differences and initiating compliance with the recommendations.