Upholding science in health, safety and environmental risk assessments and regulations
Creators
- 1. Molecular Pharmacology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1300 Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, NY 10461 (United States)
- 2. Emeritus Professor, Institute of Public Health, University of Aarhus, Aarhus (Denmark)
- 3. Queen Mary, London (United Kingdom)
- 4. Biochemical Pharmacology,Department of Medicine, Imperial College, London (United Kingdom)
- 5. Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE (United States)
- 6. Toxicology Department, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Université Bordeaux Segalen, Bordeaux (France)
- 7. Department of Toxicology, University of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg (Germany)
- 8. Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutics, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS (United States)
- 9. Toxicology and Risk Assessment, Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, University of Milan, Milan (Italy)
- 10. Pharmacology and Toxicology, Michigan State University, East Lansing (United States)
- 11. The Health Policy Center, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Bethesda, MD (United States)
- 12. Technical University of Munich, Munich (Germany)
- 13. INRA, Montpellier (France)
Description
A public appeal has been advanced by a large group of scientists, concerned that science has been misused in attempting to quantify and regulate unmeasurable hazards and risks. The appeal recalls that science is unable to evaluate hazards that cannot be measured, and that science in such cases should not be invoked to justify risk assessments in health, safety and environmental regulations. The appeal also notes that most national and international statutes delineating the discretion of regulators are ambiguous about what rules of evidence ought to apply. Those statutes should be revised to ensure that the evidence for regulatory action is grounded on the standards of the scientific method, whenever feasible. When independent scientific evidence is not possible, policies and regulations should be informed by publicly debated trade-offs between socially desirable uses and social perceptions of affordable precaution. This article explores the premises, implications and actions supporting the appeal and its objectives.
Availability note (English)
Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2016.09.005Additional details
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.tox.2016.09.005;
- PII
- S0300-483X(16)30203-7;
Publishing Information
- Journal Title
- Toxicology
- Journal Volume
- 371
- Journal Page Range
- p. 12-16
- ISSN
- 0300-483X
- CODEN
- TXCYAC
INIS
- Country of Publication
- Ireland
- Country of Input or Organization
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- INIS RN
- 49039642
- Subject category
- S54: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES;
- Descriptors DEI
- ANIMALS; BIOASSAY; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ETHICAL ASPECTS; HAZARDS; POLLUTION REGULATIONS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY
- Descriptors DEC
- GOVERNMENT POLICIES; LAWS; REGULATIONS
Optional Information
- Copyright
- Copyright (c) 2016 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.