Ethical Considerations & Implications
One major limitation in our analysis was the broadness of our data. We were working with data on the state and regional levels but were unable to obtain anything more specific. Furthermore, although we had access to state population data, we did not have any information about the population density distribution. Looking at the data on a state or regional level without accounting for population density means that we may have missed trends that are masked by broadly looking at state data.
SOMEONE WHOSE DATA IS USED IN THE ANALYSIS
The EPA, a national agency, collects toxin emission reports from individual companies and then aggregates them at the state level. Thus, both companies and States can be considered owners of the data that we use, as the analysis we produce will reflect on them. Technically, the names of the employees in charge of submitting the report were in the original data set but because they were removed, the data is not associated with them. This is a good example of data anonymization.
EPA
The CDC produced the USCS cancer data by collecting cancer incidence reports from doctors and aggregating them at the state level. Thus, we are using the data of states, not just the CDC. We are not, however, using the data of individual patients, as we only have aggregated info.
CDC
SOMEONE AFFECTED BY THE ANALYSIS
This analysis could potentially affect how people view or choose their area of residence. If there may be a link between chemical pollution and higher cancer rates, then knowing that a certain area has more pollution than others may deter people from living there. In the event that higher risk of cancer is incorrectly attributed to chemical pollution, people living in areas with higher chemical pollution may be compelled to leave, which could lead to the disintegration of neighborhoods and residential areas.
People
Many companies release large amounts of chemicals. However, a link between chemical pollution and increased cancer rates could cause more regulations to be put in place to cut down on chemical releases. Such regulations could have major impacts on how these companies operate. In the event that higher risk of cancer is incorrectly attributed to certain chemicals, these companies may be forced to change their operational models or spend extra money in order to cut down on chemical releases that are not actually impacting people’s health.
Companies
Legislators
If chemical pollution may lead to a higher risk of cancer, then more regulations should be put in place in order to cut down chemical releases, ultimately decreasing cancer rates. This would require state governments to allocate money and time toward developing such regulations. In the event that higher risk of cancer is incorrectly attributed to chemical pollution, theses legislators may be needlessly wasting resources on ineffective regulations.
SOMEONE WHO CAN APPLY THE ANALYSIS
Policymakers
Policy makers and lobbyists may find the project’s findings relevant in drafting legislation to help reduce and regulate the quantity of toxic chemicals being released into the environment. Having empirical evidence on the relationship between toxic chemicals and the development of cancer in individuals who reside in states with higher rates of toxic chemical release may be useful in building a case for stricter regulation. If U.S. residents’ health is at risk, there is more than enough reason to development legal pathways that can prevent, and possibly even lower, the rate at which toxin-induced cancer is being developed within the United States.
Researchers
The specificity of our research was limited in part by the broadness of our data. As we mentioned previously, the most specific data we were able to obtain during our data collection period contained cancer/toxic chemical release rates for each overall state, not the individual districts/regions composing the state.
This data applied a single statewide rate for the two aforementioned attributes, but does not account for varying levels of population density for different regions within each state, which would likely affect a particular district/region’s rate of toxin release as more urban areas generally contain more factories and other sources of pollution. For example, certain regions may be very rural, whereas other regions may be very large metropolitan areas; applying any single statistic to such states without considering how widely these rates may vary by region results in a conclusion that is not entirely applicable to regions within a state that differ greatly from the “average case.”
It is possible that health researchers may have access to more specific regional patient data, which would be very helpful in developing a more comprehensive understanding of the cancer/toxin relationship in the U.S. if it was possible for this information to be accessed.