Knowledge Supremacy
This is a term identified by Centric Lab to define a knowledge pool that self-identifies as supreme to systematically dictate the knowledges that are valuable, trusted, and acknowledged, resulting in hegemonic policies that affect our health.
Within knowledge supremacy there are 4 pathways in which people are erased through the use of science and data.
-
Communities all over the world are documenting how industrial plants, landfills, gasworks sites, and polluted water are affecting their daily lives – yet they are being told that this information is not enough to change policy or make changes. This is part of a culture that lacks a rapport of consent.
“These “fenceline communities” are places where people cough. Where they carry asthma inhalers. Where every resident has a handful of neighbours who have died of cancer. Where refinery and government officials insist that chemicals in the air don’t harm them, and residents are sure that they know better.”
“Using a handheld decibel monitor Paul had previously attempted to monitor the noise of the nearby compressor stations, highlighting moments when the noise was higher than the permitted 55 decibels. However, the township government rejected his data, claiming that he had not taken into account the noise of local bullfrogs, which made the data inadmissible. As just one example, regulators routinely dismissed the many attempts by citizens to document environmental problems by collecting data and presenting it as evidence.” - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053951716679677
-
In the case of Ella Roberts, it took 8 years and an autopsy to confirm air pollution as her cause of death in a 2020 landmark ruling. This is despite a 2018 report by Stephe Hodges, a leading Medical Research Council Clinical Professor concluding that Ella’s exposure to NO2 was a key driver of her asthma.
This report was based on a study he did correlating pollution sensor data near her home with tissue samples and the times she was hospitalised. Based on the thinking of “Good Enough Data” - linking air pollution to Ella Roberta’s poor health outcomes could have been determined by her initial hospitalisations (there were 27 in total) and her proximity to a congested roundabout. She didn’t need to die nor was an autopsy needed to understand how air pollution was affecting her biological systems or to make necessary changes to her neighbourhood.
-
Collecting the wrong data, having an inaccurate design experiment, and poor analysis can all coalesce into an inaccurate scientific assessment. For example, in 2019 Centric investigated the methods behind Public Health England’s ruling on the health of a community in Southall, west London. They termined that children of the area were not getting sick due to the gasworks site as absenteeism had not increased. However, this design failed to understand the community and identify other variables that could influence absenteeism.
The one obvious factor is the shift work nature of many People in Southall, which influences how many of their children can stay home if they are sick. There was no detailed investigation into how many times a child had to use an inhaler, hospitalised, or even complained about breathing problems (which they did). Therefore ruling that there is no link between air pollution and a child’s health based on absenteeism alone is not a reliable data source.
-
When looking at environmental justice, people are often erased due to lack of numbers. One person in a whole community does not seem to arouse interest in science or in authorities meant to protect ALL of our health. A campaign called ‘Truth about Zane’ seeks an investigation into the death of a young child who died after being exposed to 25,000 parts per million of Hydrogen Cyanide Gas. He was the only death following a flooding incident in Surrey that left a whole community exposed to the gas (source). One death is too many; one incident is a phenomenon, and therefore worth investigating.