Lowering the bar

Moore, LeRoy

doi:10.2968/058003008

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A scientific consensus on which model is correct has proven to be elusive (Mettler & Moseley, 1985; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994, 2000; Moore, 2002). While the linear model has long been the predominant choice in standard setting in both the United States and international regulatory bodies, as recently as 2000 the GAO found that there was no consensus on the scientific basis for that model—or any other.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This effort was the seventh in a sequence of committees evaluating the BEIR, referred to as the BEIR VII Committee. The composition of the Academy's Committee led to disputes over the potential bias of the members, with nuclear critics arguing that the nominees were stacked with proponents of relaxing nuclear safety standards, public comment on the nominations had been inadequate, and that conflicts of interest by nominees had not been disclosed (Moore, 2002, p. 35). After several modest changes in the composition of the BEIR VII Committee, the task was initiated, and the committee report was released in 2005 (National Academy of Sciences, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also expect that the kinds of organizations that scientists work for, and the professional associations they join, can have a significant influence on their policy‐relevant beliefs and values. As noted above, some observers claim that scientists' perspectives in the BEIR debate are linked to employment and/or membership in professional associations (Moore, 2002). Such linkages could plausibly result from a combination of selection effects (as when scientists choose to affiliate with organizations that take scientific and policy positions compatible with their own), peer influence, and perhaps organizational interests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 5 The Health Physics Society, a scientific professional organization that focuses on radiation protection issues, argued in an online position article that the use of the linear dose‐response model results in “an overestimation of risks” (Health Physics Society, 2001, p. 1). Some proponents of more stringent radiation exposure standards dismissed the Health Physics Society as consisting of “people who have a stake in perpetuating the nuclear enterprise” or even “a labor union for the nuclear industry” (Moore, 2002, pp. 31–32). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reconciling Scientists' Beliefs about Radiation Risks and Social Norms: Explaining Preferred Radiation Protection Standards

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social scientists have argued about the role of political beliefs in highly charged policy debates among scientific experts. In debates about environmental hazards, the focus of contention is likely to rest on the appropriate scientific assumptions to inform safety standards. When scientific communities are polarized, one would expect to find systematic differences among combatants in the choice of appropriate assumptions, and variation in the application of "precaution" in standard setting. We test this proposition using an experiment applied in a mail survey format to groups of scientists from opposing sides of the nuclear policy debate. Questions were asked about the role of political, social, and epistemological beliefs in reaching scientific and policy judgments about the relationship between radiation dose and cancer incidence in human populations. We find that the precautionary tendency is pervasive regardless of whether the scientist is associated with a putatively pro- or anti-nuclear group. Using a multinomial logit model, we explain a modest percentage of the variation in the choice of preferred judgments about safety standards, but find that distinct sets of political and social values are significantly associated with policy positions among scientists. Implications for scientific advice to policymakers are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reconciling Scientists' Beliefs about Radiation Risks and Social Norms: Explaining Preferred Radiation Protection Standards

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

James V. Neel and Yuri E. Dubrova: Cold War Debates and the Genetic Effects of Low-Dose Radiation

Goldstein

Stawkowski

2014

J Hist Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article traces disagreements about the genetic effects of low-dose radiation exposure as waged by James Neel (1915-2000), a central figure in radiation studies of Japanese populations after World War II, and Yuri Dubrova (1955-), who analyzed the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident. In a 1996 article in Nature, Dubrova reported a statistically significant increase in the minisatellite (junk) DNA mutation rate in the children of parents who received a high dose of radiation from the Chernobyl accident, contradicting studies that found no significant inherited genetic effects among offspring of Japanese A-bomb survivors. Neel's subsequent defense of his large-scale longitudinal studies of the genetic effects of ionizing radiation consolidated current scientific understandings of low-dose ionizing radiation. The article seeks to explain how the Hiroshima/Nagasaki data remain hegemonic in radiation studies, contextualizing the debate with attention to the perceived inferiority of Soviet genetic science during the Cold War.

show abstract

Stakeholder Perspectives on Radiation Protection

Ledwidge¹,

Moore

Crawford³

2004

Health Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standards for permissible exposure to radiation and the way they are established must incorporate a set of principles that uphold both health and democracy. When the science is uncertain, the burden of proof that risk is not being imposed should be on the source of the risk, not on the possibly affected public or workforce. Scientific processes must be transparent to the public, must address all relevant risk issues and endpoints (and not only cancer), and must be inclusive of the actual experience and opinion of the people who are exposed to radiation risks. Scientists are too often dismissive of public experience and interests, as for instance with worker illnesses or fallout, even though input from the public and workers has frequently proven to be valuable in the development of radiation protection principles. Incorporating the concerns, views, and experiences of workers and the public in a respectful way while maintaining a high standard of scientific work must be an essential part of the standard-setting process. Further, the clearly enunciated International Commission on Radiological Protection principle that the imposition of risk must be accompanied by a clear benefit needs to be a far more explicit part of standard-setting processes, which must also ensure that all known risks are disclosed and that suspected risks, such as possible synergisms between some radionuclides and hormone-disrupting chemicals, are carefully considered. Finally, given the long-lived nature of risks from many radionuclides and the large uncertainties about future physical, social, economic, and other conditions, the issue of how the interests of future generations can be included in standard setting is a difficult but vital matter.

show abstract

Lowering the bar

Cited by 4 publications

References 1 publication

Reconciling Scientists' Beliefs about Radiation Risks and Social Norms: Explaining Preferred Radiation Protection Standards

Reconciling Scientists' Beliefs about Radiation Risks and Social Norms: Explaining Preferred Radiation Protection Standards

James V. Neel and Yuri E. Dubrova: Cold War Debates and the Genetic Effects of Low-Dose Radiation

Stakeholder Perspectives on Radiation Protection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About