David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
If scientists rely on assumptions rather than logic, empirical confirmation, and falsification, they are no longer doing science but ideology – which is, by definition, unethical. As a recent US National Academy of Sciences report put it, “bad science is always unethical.”1 This article discusses several ways in which toxicologists can fall into ideology – bad, therefore unethical, science. In part because of the increasing expense of pollution control, some toxicologists have been reexamining pollution dose-response curves that are non-monotonic, that is, curves in which the direction of some response changes with increasing or decreasing dose.2 Ethanol is a classic example of a non-monotonic dose-response curve because moderate drinking is associated with lower risks of heart disease, whereas heavy drinking is associated with higher risks.3,4 If some low-dose pollutants exhibit adaptive or “beneficial effects,”5 this might suggest re-thinking pollution regulations which presuppose linear no-threshold (LNT) dose-response curves.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Kristin Shrader-Frechette (2010). Conceptual Analysis and Special-Interest Science: Toxicology and the Case of Edward Calabrese. Synthese 177 (3):449 - 469.
Similar books and articles
Kristin Shrader-Frechette (2001). Radiobiological Hormesis, Methodological Value Judgments, and Metascience. Perspectives on Science 8 (4):367-379.
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 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 Shrader-Frechette, Better Policy Through Better Science: Using Metascience to Improve Dose-Response Curves in Biology and in ICRP Ecological Risk Assessment.
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.
Helen E. Longino (1989). Biological Effects of Low Level Radiation: Values, Dose-Response Models, Risk Estimates. Synthese 81 (3):391 - 404.
Kristan Shrader-Frechete (2001). Using a Thought Experiment to Clarify a Radiobiological Controversy. Synthese 128 (3):319 - 342.
Zeno G. Swijtink (1990). Theory of the Apparatus and Theory of the Phenomena: The Case of Low Dose Electron Microscopy. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:573 - 584.
K. S. Shrader-Frechette (2000). Radiobiogical Hormesis, Methodological Value Judgments, and Metascience. Perspectives on Science 8 (4):367-379.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette (2000). Ethics and the Challenge of Low-Dose Exposures. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics 2:167-184.
Added to index2009-12-21
Total downloads17 ( #98,934 of 1,102,836 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #296,987 of 1,102,836 )
How can I increase my downloads?