Bias in toxicology

Wandall, Birgitte; Hansson, Sven Ove; Rudén, Christina

doi:10.1007/s00204-007-0194-5

Cited by 37 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Obviously, toxicology has a similar problem of information flooding and coexistence of traditional and modern methodologies, as well as various biases (Wandall et al, 2007). It is most difficult to find and summarise the relevant information for any given major question.…”

Section: Consideration 1: Ebm Tries To Solve Some Problems That Are Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Food for thought … on evidence-based toxicology

Hartung

2009

ALTEX

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Consideration 1: Ebm Tries To Solve Some Problems That Are Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Food for thought … on evidence-based toxicology

Hartung

2009

ALTEX

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Not only do values play an important role in knowledge generation, but their influence is pervasive in the taking of decisions based on scientific knowledge. An ample literature, based on casestudies, backs up this point (see, for instance: Wilholt 2009, Wandall et al 2007ShraderFrechette 2001, 2004a, Mayo and Spanos 2006, Elliot and McKaughan 2009, Elliott 2011a, Michaels and Monforton 2005, Douglas 2000, Michaels 2008Mayo and Hollander 1991).…”

Section: Values In Sciencementioning

confidence: 96%

Non-cognitive Values and Methodological Learning in the Decision-Oriented Sciences

Todt

Luján

2015

Found Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The function and legitimacy of values in decision making is a critically important issue in the contemporary analysis of science. It is particularly relevant for some of the more application-oriented areas of science, specifically decision-oriented science in the field of regulation of technological risks. Our main objective in this paper is to assess the diversity of roles that non-cognitive values related to decision making can adopt in the kinds of scientific activity that underlie risk regulation. We start out, first, by analyzing the issue of values with the help of a framework taken from the wider philosophical debate on science and values. Second, we study the principal conceptualizations used by scholars who have applied them to numerous case studies. Third, we appraise the links between those conceptualizations and learning processes in decision-oriented science. In this, we recur to the concept of methodological learning, i.e., learning about the best methodologies for generating knowledge that is useful for science-based regulatory decisions. The main result of our analysis is that non-cognitive values can contribute to methodological improvements in science in three principal ways: (a) as basis for critical analysis (to differentiate ''sound'' from ''bad'' science), (b) for contextualizing methodologies (by identifying links between methods and objectives), and (c) for establishing the burden of proof (in order to generate data that otherwise would not be generated).

show abstract

“…7 Among such nonstandard methodologies are short-term tests, weight-of-evidence approaches, the reversal of the burden of proof, and the use of specifically tailored inference guides. (35,(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49) The data produced by methodologies like these do not conform to all supposed to cover the entire spectrum of possible interpretations of precaution but rather offer a selection of several highly relevant understandings of precaution in regulation. Their purpose is to help us structure our analysis.…”

Section: Precaution Based On Decision-oriented Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Analyzing Precautionary Regulation: Do Precaution, Science, and Innovation Go Together?

Todt

Luján

2014

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we argue that the precautionary principle, as applied to the regulation of science and technology, cannot be considered in any general manner inconsistent with the norms and methods of scientific knowledge generation and justification. Moreover, it does not necessarily curtail scientific-technological innovation. Our argument flows from a differentiated view of what precaution in regulation means. We first characterize several of the most relevant interpretations given to the precautionary principle in academic debate and regulatory practice. We then use examples of actual precaution-based regulation to show that, even though science can have varying functions in different circumstances and frames, all of those interpretations recur to scientific method and knowledge, and tend to imply innovation in methods, products, and processes. In fact, the interplay of regulation and innovation in precautionary policy, at least in the case of the interpretations of precaution that our analysis takes into account, could be understood as a way of reconciling the two fundamental science and technology policy functions of promotion and control.

show abstract

Bias in toxicology

Cited by 37 publications

References 38 publications

Food for thought … on evidence-based toxicology

Food for thought … on evidence-based toxicology

Non-cognitive Values and Methodological Learning in the Decision-Oriented Sciences

Analyzing Precautionary Regulation: Do Precaution, Science, and Innovation Go Together?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About