Hormesis, ethics, and public policy: an overview

Abstract

<jats:p> This article synthesizes the major points made in the preceding essays on the topic of “Hormesis and Ethics.” The questions and concerns raised in these essays are organized into three general categories: (1) scientific issues, (2) practical concerns, and (3) “explicitly ethical” considerations. The present article concludes with several suggestions. First, researchers would do well to address scientific concerns about the generalizability of hormesis. Second, it would be helpful to gather further information about the frequency that hormetic effects are beneficial for organisms over the long term. Third, more information is needed about the toxic exposures that the public is already receiving and about the potential synergistic effects of those exposures. Fourth, further reflection is warranted about whether regulations should, on one hand, maximize the ratio of benefits to risks for the population as a whole or, on the other hand, protect individuals from health risks to which they do not consent and for which they cannot easily be compensated. </jats:p>

Ad hoc and Fast Forward: The Science of Hormesis Growth and Development

“…The issue of the extent to which such progress has engendered any ethical dimensions has been addressed. Elliott (2008b) provided a broad analysis of ethical matters in summarizing a group of articles on the topic included in the August 2008 issue of Human and Experimental Toxicology .…”

Respect for lay perceptions of risk in the hormesis case

“…32 Nevertheless, deciding how much evidence for hormesis we should require in order to change public policy is itself an ethically loaded question that merits significant deliberation. 33 Thus, I think that Ropeik's call to respect lay risk perceptions in the course of risk communication is both timely and important, and I contend that it should be interpreted in a way that promotes deliberations of the sort proposed by the NRC. 1 …”

A case for deliberation in response to hormesis research

“…27 Other terminological issues include (1) deciding whether to use the label "hormesis" at all rather than just referring to "non-monotonic doseresponses" 28,29 , (2) determining whether it is appropriate to claim that hormesis is "adaptive" 29,36 , (3) determining whether the "hormesis" label should be restricted only to cases of overcompensation in response to a disruption in homeostasis [37][38][39] , and ( 4) deciding what criteria must be met to claim that hormesis is "generalizable". 40 A third set of judgments revolve around the interpretation and evaluation of previous studies on hormesis. Deliberators need to consider how much significance to give to the literature studies performed by Calabrese, given various concerns that have been raised: weaknesses in the original toxicological studies, the potential for false positives as a result of the criteria used for identifying hormesis, and the possibility for some alleged hormetic effects to be the result of variations in control values.…”

“…Although the public health community has traditionally been more willing than those in clinical medicine to emphasize the common good over individual rights, 46 there are a variety of reasons to think that policy makers would be hesitant to take a utilitarian approach in the hormesis case. 40 The first step of the diagnostic process proposed here involves considering not only the current state of scientific research but also the social context of hormesis research. This phenomenon clearly has the potential to affect many aspects of life.…”

“…The normative and instrumental strengths of citizen panels take on special significance in this case, given that large segments of the public have challenged previous attempts to regulate environmental exposures with the goal of maximizing public health benefits (e.g., in the case of fluoride). 40 Despite these caveats, other commentators might persist in questioning the merits of a citizen panel. Disagreements of this sort are relatively unproblematic because the goal of this commentary is not to convince everyone to accept the details of my particular diagnosis.…”