Abstract
In a recent paper in Science and Engineering Ethics (SEE) Elliott proposed an ethics of expertise, providing its theoretical foundation along with its application in a case study devoted to the topic of hormesis. The application is based on a commentary in the journal Nature, and it includes assertions of ethical breaches. Elliott concludes that the authors of the commentary failed to promote the informed consent of decision makers by not providing representative information about alternative frequency estimates of hormesis in the literature, thereby hindering the capacity of the scientific community to promote informed consent relating to chemical regulation. This paper argues that Elliott should have incorporated due process into his system of evaluation. His argument is also seriously deficient technically, in that it misinterprets the toxicological issues, misrepresents the scientific literature with respect to the frequency of hormesis, and incorrectly assesses the extent to which the Nature paper revealed opposing/alternative views on hormesis. Given the seriousness of assertions of noncompliance to ethical norms, there must be procedures to protect those whose ethics were called into question, to fairly evaluate the technical justification for an assertion, and to enable corrections in the event of errors. If a journal is willing to publish assertions that individuals acted in an ethically questionable way, it should be guided by a documented code of ethics and meet a standard of responsibility far greater than normal peer-review processes for papers that do not entail such ethical judgments.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Elliott, K. (2006). An ethics of expertise based on informed consent. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 637–661.
Calabrese, E. J., & Baldwin, L. A. (2003). Toxicology rethinks its central belief-hormesis demands a reappraisal of the way risks are assessed. Nature, 421, 691–692.
Elliott, K. (2000). Conceptual clarification and policy-related science: The case of chemical hormesis. Perspective Science, 8, 346–366.
Calabrese, E. J., & Baldwin, L. A. (2001). The frequency of U-shaped dose-responses in the toxicological literature. Toxicological Sciences, 62, 330–338.
Calabrese, E. J., & Baldwin, L. A. (2003). The hormetic dose response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology. Toxicological Sciences, 71(2), 246–250.
Mundt, K. A., & May, S. (2001). Epidemiological assessment of hormesis in studies with low-level exposure. Human Ecology Risk Assessment, 7, 795–810.
Crump, K. (2001). Evaluating the evidence for hormesis: A statistical perspective. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 31, 669–679.
Kitchin, K. T., & Drane, J. W. (2003). A critique of the use of hormesis in risk assessment. Human and Experimental Toxicology, 24, 249–253.
Jonas, W. (2001). A critique of “the scientific foundations of hormesis”. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 31, 625–629.
Calabrese, E. J., & Baldwin, L. A. (2002). Defining Hormesis. Human and Experimental Toxicology, 21, 91–97.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Calabrese, E.J. Elliott’s Ethics of Expertise Proposal and Application: A Dangerous Precedent. SCI ENG ETHICS 13, 139–145 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9015-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9015-8