Demanding more research can forestall policy even when evidence is conclusive

Evidence

A common way to forestall policy initiatives, even in the face of corroborative converging evidence from diverse methodologies, is to argue that the available information is insufficient and more research is needed. A decade after silicosis reached epidemic proportions among American mine workers, a scientist from a research center funded by the mining industry minimized the state of knowledge regarding silicosis in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “The scarcity of factual information and lack of knowledge of already established facts are responsible for the major part of the medical expert’s shortcomings. Additional study is certainly needed” After World War II, the silica industry claimed that silicosis was not only a minor problem but no longer existed. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1801

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Supports the mechanism behind why regulatory inaction persists despite evidence, resonant with how industry stalls environmental protections.
• XREF: Connects to existing vault claims about industry-funded dismissal of harm, analogous to lead additive choices and tobacco science denial. — connects to: Fear of government overreach justified defunding gun-harm research. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 1188
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 1801