Ergonomics' Credibility Still in the Works

[Guest guest]

http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/SCIENCE/

Monday, May 24, 1999

SCIENCE WATCH

Ergonomics' Credibility Still in the Works

By LEE DYE

A scientific discipline that came of age with the ubiquitous use of personal

computers is taking some knocks these days, both in the Congress and the

science media.

Ergonomics has become a buzzword ever since personal computers began sending

users to their doctors with severe wrist pain caused by carpal tunnel

syndrome.

At issue is whether the science underlying ergonomics is sound. A bill that

is winding its way through Congress would stop the federal government from

establishing new regulations for industries until a two-year study by the

National Academy of Sciences is completed.

That study, which is just now getting started, is the second time the

academy has studied the issue in the past three years.

And a report in the journal Nature questions whether some of the research in

the field is valid.

Basically, ergonomics is the attempt to make the world more user-friendly by

ensuring that the human-gadget interface is as kind as possible. It ranges

from corkscrews to computers, and from control rooms for nuclear power

plants to heavy lifting.

As a scientific discipline, the field is only about 50 years old, according

to psychologist C. Howell, who chairs the Committee on Human Factors

for the academy's National Research Council. The term human factors is

virtually synonymous with ergonomics, and Howell believes the previous study

provided a mountain of evidence that proper design can significantly reduce

injuries in the workplace.

That was the conclusion reached by the committee he chairs, and it was

echoed by similar studies by the National Institute for Occupational Safety

and Health, the General Accounting Office and the U.S. Department of Labor.

But last year Congress appropriated $890,000 and told Howell's committee to

do the study again.

" In my view that's sort of unnecessary because the evidence has been there

for a long time, " said Howell, former science director of the American

Psychological Assn.

The congressional demand was precipitated by a move by OSHA to establish

guidelines for the use of ergonomics in the workplace.

A Republican-controlled U.S. House subcommittee approved a bill last week

that would prohibit OSHA from implementing any guidelines until the new

study is completed.

Howell, who spent five years lobbying Congress for the American

Psychological Assn., said the move grew out of concerns that guidelines have

a way of evolving into regulations and laws that can cost businesses money.

Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who sponsored the House bill, said he is not

convinced that the subject has been studied enough.

" It's time OSHA recognize the importance of doing its homework before

issuing a regulation, " Blunt said.

Although Howell and others insist the evidence, in most cases,

overwhelmingly supports ergonomics, it is less convincing in some areas, and

even some experts in the field are uncomfortable with efforts to impose

regulations on the workplace.

Some in the field opposed an earlier OSHA proposal because they felt it went

beyond the science in some areas.

" There's still a lot of unanswered questions, " said Howell, " but I don't

think anybody who has seriously reviewed the literature could come to any

other conclusion than that there are a lot of workplace situations that

present serious risks. "

Even the Santa -based Human Factors & Ergonomics Society has stopped

short of endorsing guidelines proposed by OSHA.

" We're struggling to respond in a way that makes sense, " said Lynn Strother,

the society's executive director.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that even something as fundamental

as heavy lifting can get very complicated.

" Specifying exact numbers as to how much a person should lift, for example,

is very tricky, " Howell said. " It depends on how they do the lifting and

what the circumstances of the lifting are. "

Some of the strongest evidence involves computer workstations, largely

because of injuries resulting from highly repetitive use.

A recent study by San Francisco State University found, for example, that

people who use a mouse with their computer suffer more than twice as much

muscle tension in their arms, necks and shoulders as those who don't use a

mouse.

The problem is exacerbated by wide keyboards that force the user to reach

farther for the mouse.

And researchers at Cornell University were shocked recently when they looked

at computer workstations in elementary schools.

The stations had been designed with little regard for musculoskeletal

development, and according to the study, 40% of the third- to fifth-graders

who used the stations were at " postural risk. "

Researchers insist that conclusions such as those are based on sound science

and engineering. But they are faced with opposition from some who view the

field as " voodoo science, " said the society's Strother.

Part of the problem may be that the field is being invaded by marketing

people with no real background in ergonomics, she said. " I've seen ads for

ergonomically designed tortilla chips, " Strother said. " I guess that's the

kind that you can scoop up a lot of guacamole without breaking it. "

Researchers in the Engineering Psychology Research Group at the University

of Southampton in England found little merit in claims that items ranging

from computer keyboards to video recorders were ergonomically designed to be

user-friendly.

" Methods for predicting the usability of devices have become so entrenched

that their validity is simply assumed and seldom tested, " the researchers

said in a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature.

They did not challenge the validity of ergonomics when it is carried out

properly, but they did question whether sound procedures are always

followed.

That, however, should have no bearing on efforts to make the workplace

safer, said Howell, because the evidence clearly shows that if you can make

something easier to use, you can reduce injuries.

But the question remains: Should that be regulated by the federal

government, or should common sense prevail over the workplace?

As one past president of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society noted

recently, good ergonomics is good economics. Lost time from preventable

injuries lowers production and profits.

Lee Dye can be reached at leedye@....

Copyright 1999 Los Angeles Times.