David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 177 (3):449 - 469 (2010)
One way to do socially relevant investigations of science is through conceptual analysis of scientific terms used in special-interest science (SIS). SIS is science having welfare-related consequences and funded by special interests, e.g., tobacco companies, in order to establish predetermined conclusions. For instance, because the chemical industry seeks deregulation of toxic emissions and avoiding costly cleanups, it funds SIS that supports the concept of "hormesis" (according to which low doses of toxins/carcinogens have beneficial effects). Analyzing the hormesis concept of its main defender, chemical-industry-funded Edward Calabrese, the paper shows Calabrese and others fail to distinguish three different hormesis concepts, H, HG, and HD. H requires toxin-induced, short-term beneficial effects for only one biological endpoint, while HG requires toxin-induced, net-beneficial effects for all endpoints/responses/subjects/ages/conditions. HD requires using the risk-assessment/regulatory default rule that all low-dose toxic exposures are net-beneficial, thus allowable. Clarifying these concepts, the paper argues for five main claims. (1) Claims positing H are trivially true but irrelevant to regulations. (2) Claims positing HG are relevant to regulation but scientifically false. (3) Claims positing HD are relevant to regulation but ethically/scientifically questionable. (4) Although no hormesis concept (H, HG, or HD) has both scientific validity and regulatory relevance, Calabrese and others obscure this fact through repeated equivocation, begging the question, and data-tri mm ing. Consequently (5) their errors provide some undeserved rhetorical plausibility for deregulating low-dose toxins
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kevin Elliott (2000). Conceptual Clarification and Policy-Related Science: The Case of Chemical Hormesis. Perspectives on Science 8 (4):346-366.
K. S. Shrader-Frechette (2000). Radiobiogical Hormesis, Methodological Value Judgments, and Metascience. Perspectives on Science 8 (4):367-379.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette (2001). Radiobiological Hormesis, Methodological Value Judgments, and Metascience. Perspectives on Science 8 (4):367-379.
Kevin C. Elliott (2006). A Novel Account of Scientific Anomaly: Help for the Dispute Over Low-Dose Biochemical Effects. Philosophy of Science 73 (5):790-802.
Edward J. Calabrese (2007). Elliott's Ethics of Expertise Proposal and Application: A Dangerous Precedent. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (2):139-145.
Kevin Elliott (2004). Error as Means to Discovery. Philosophy of Science 71 (2):174-197.
K. Shrader-Frechette, Ideological Toxicology: Invalid Logic, Science, Ethics About Low-Dose Pollution.
Kristin Shrader‐Frechette (2004). Using Metascience to Improve Dose‐Response Curves in Biology: Better Policy Through Better Science. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1026-1037.
Kristin Sharon Shrader-Frechette (2009). Data Trimming, Nuclear Emissions, and Climate Change. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):19-23.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette (2011). Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (1):75-107.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Better Policy Through Better Science: Using Metascience to Improve Dose-Response Curves in Biology and in ICRP Ecological Risk Assessment.
Julio Santiago, Marc Ouellet, Antonio Román & Javier Valenzuela (2012). Attentional Factors in Conceptual Congruency. Cognitive Science 36 (6):1051-1077.
Bert Scholtens & Laura Spierdijk (2007). Lemons and Timber. The Case of Tropical Timber Investment Funds in the Netherlands. Philosophica 80:105-119.
Added to index2011-03-29
Total downloads13 ( #98,969 of 1,010,257 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,700 of 1,010,257 )
How can I increase my downloads?