Skip to main content
Log in

Learning from the law for regulatory science

  • Published:
Law and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Conrad D. Johnson, “What Moral Philosophers Can Learn From the Law,”The Maryland Law Forum 7 (1977): 114–22.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ibid.: 117.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ibid.: 120.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ibid.: 120.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Carl F. Cranor,Regulating Toxic Substances: A Philosophy of Science and the Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 18–19.

    Google Scholar 

  8. National Research Council,Risk Assessment in the Federal Government (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1984), pp. 17–51.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Although there is considerable uncertainty about the science of carcinogenesis, there are also procedures for arriving at not unreasonable conclusions about the carcinogenic effects of particular substances. Cranor,Regulating, pp. 131–35.

  10. While I do not explicitly argue for this issue here (but have done so inRegulating Toxic Substances), this unasked question should be addressed.

  11. Gulf South Insul. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 701 F. 2nd 1137 (5th Cir. 1983).

  12. Regulating Toxic Substances, pp. 78–82, 131–51.

  13. Regulating Toxic Substances, pp. 29–40.

  14. Regulating Toxic Substances, pp. 13–25.

  15. Ferebee v. Chevron Chemical Co. 756 F. 2d 1529 at 1536 (D.C. Circuit 1984). A recent Supreme Court decisionDaubert v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc. U.S. No. 92–100 (June 28, 1993) (Slip opinion) might lead to changes in this area.

  16. Thomas S. Kuhn,The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1977), pp. 330–32.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fleming James, Jr., and Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr.Civil Procedure (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1977), p. 245.

    Google Scholar 

  18. James and Hazard, p. 241.

  19. James and Hazard, pp. 251–53.

  20. John H. Wigmore,Wigmore on Evidence sec. 2501 (ed. 1940 & Supp. 1991).

  21. James and Hazard, p. 253. They go on to remark that this “is a process of concealing by fiction a change in the substantive law. When the law presumes the presence of B from A, this means that the substantive law no longer requires the existence of B in cases where A is present, although it hesitates as yet to say so forthrightly ...” e.g., the presumption that the possessor of marijuana knows that it was illegally imported (254).

  22. James and Hazard, p. 255.

  23. James and Hazard, p. 255.

  24. James and Hazard, p. 255.

  25. James and Hazard, p. 257 and Edward W. Cleary et al.,McCormick on Evidence, 3rd edition (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing, 1984), pp. 968–69.

  26. C. Cranor, “Public Health & Uncertainty” in Kristin Shrader-FrechetteThe Ethics of Research Science (forthcoming from Rowan & Littlefield, 1994).

  27. The situation in science is even worse than this, however, since in statistical studies of scientific data, the more scientists try to avoid false positives, other things equal, the higher are false negatives (Regulating Toxic Substances, pp. 31–39).

  28. Sections of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act require premarket approval of various products and the Toxic Substances Control Act requires manufacturers to file premanufacture notifications for substances (including minimal testing) with the EPA which then ordinarily has 90 days to identify substances that need further testing. U.S. Congress, the Office of Technology Assessment,Identifying and Regulating Carcinogens (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987), pp. 199–200.

  29. OTA,Identifying and Regulating Carcinogens, 199–220.

  30. This is the view I argue for inRegulating Toxic Substances.

  31. This is the legal presupposition of the voter-passed initiativeThe Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (California Code of Regulations, Title 2, section 12705).

  32. U.S. Congress,Office of Technology Assessment (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987), p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  33. S. Hoover, L. Zeise, W. Pease, L. Lee, M. Hennig, L. Weiss and C. Cranor, “Improving the Regulation of Carcinogens by Expediting Cancer Potency Estimation” (forthcomingRisk Analysis).

  34. L. Gold, C. Sawyer, R. Maga, G. Backman, M. de Veciana, R. Levinson, N. Hooper, W. Havendar, L. Bernstein, R. Peto, M. Pike and B. Ames, “A Carcinogenic Potency Database of the Standardized Results of Animal Bioassays,”Environmental Health Perspectives 58 (1984): 9–319.

    Google Scholar 

  35. L. Gold, M. de Veciana, G. Backman, R. Magaw, P. Lopipero, M. Smith, M. Blumenthal, R. Levinson, L. Bernstein and B. Ames, “Chronological Supplement to the Carcinogenic Potency Database: Standardized Results of Animal Bioassays Published through December 1982,”Environmental Health Perspectives 67 (1986): 161–200.

    Google Scholar 

  36. L. Gold, T. Slone, G. Backman, R. Magaw, M. Da Costa and B. Ames, “Second Chronological Supplement to the Carcinogenic Potency Database: Standardized Results of Animal Bioassays Published through December 1984 and by the National Toxicology Program through May 1986,”Environmental Health Perspectives 74 (1987): 237–329.

    Google Scholar 

  37. L. Gold, T. Slone, G. Backman, S. Eisenberg, M. Da Costa, M. Wong, N. Manley, L. Rohrback and B. Ames, “Third Chronological Supplement to the Carcinogenic Potency Database: Standardized Results of Animal Bioassays Published through December 1986 and by the National Toxicology Program through June 1987,”Environmental Health Perspectives 84 (1990): 215–85.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hoover et al., “Improving the Regulation of Carcinogens,” (forthcoming inRisk Analysis).

  39. Cranor,Regulatory Toxic Substances, pp. 137–146 and C. Cranor, “The Social Benefits of Expedited Risk Assessments” (tentative title, forthcoming).

  40. Hoover et al., “Improving the Regulation of Carcinogens.”

  41. Hoover et al., “Improving the Regulation of Carcinogens.”

  42. Hoover et al., “Improving the Regulation of Carcinogens.”

  43. For the remaining 200 of the 400 Proposition 65 carcinogens, the available data is inadequate for the default procedure.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cranor, C.F. Learning from the law for regulatory science. Law Philos 14, 115–145 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000527

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000527

Keywords

Navigation