Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:59:43.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inductive Risk and Regulatory Toxicology: A Comment on de Melo-Martín and Intemann

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Daniel J. Hicks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Inmaculada de Melo-Martín and Kristen Intemann consider whether, from the perspective of the argument from inductive risk, ethical and political values might be logically, epistemically, pragmatically, or ethically necessary in the “core” of scientific reasoning. In each case, they argue that there are significant conceptual problems. In this comment, employing regulatory uses of high-throughput toxicology at the US Environmental Protection Agency as a case study, I respond to some of their claims about the notion of “pragmatic necessity.” I conclude that, while an inductive risk framework has some significant limitations, it is still conceptually and rhetorically valuable.

Type
Discussion Note
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 85 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 164 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†.

Thanks to Heather Douglas, Inmaculada de Melo-Martín, Kristen Intemann, and two anonymous reviewers for feedback on previous versions of this comment. This comment would not have been possible without the opportunity to spend a year as an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science and Technology Policy Fellow hosted at the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Chemical Safety for Sustainability Program. All views and opinions stated in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the views of AAAS, EPA, or any other entity or organization.

References

Becker, Richard, and Tipaldo, Emily. 2013. “Comment Submitted by Emily Tipaldo, American Chemistry Council.” Regulations.gov public comment. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0075-0009.Google Scholar
Betz, Gregor. 2013. “In Defence of the Value Free Ideal.” European Journal of Philosophy of Science 3 (2): 207–20..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, Justin. 2016. “Inductive Risk, Epistemic Risk, and the Overdiagnosis of Disease.” Perspectives on Science 24 (2): 192–205..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, Patience, Judson, Richard, Casey, Warren, Kleinstreuer, Nicole C., and Thomas, Russell. 2015. “Screening Chemicals for Estrogen Receptor Bioactivity Using a Computational Model.” Environmental Science and Technology 49 (14): 8804–14..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Melo-Martín, Inmaculada, and Intemann, Kristen. 2016. “The Risk of Using Inductive Risk to Challenge the Value-Free Ideal.” Philosophy of Science 83 (October): 500–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Stefano, Julian. 2001. “Power Analysis and Sustainable Forest Management.” Forest Ecology and Management 154 (1–2): 141–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67 (4): 559–79..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin, and Willmes, David. 2013. “Cognitive Attitudes and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 80 (5): 807–17..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl. 1965. “Science and Human Values.” In Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, 81–96. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Isaacs, Kristin K., Goldsmith, Michael-Rock, Egeghy, Peter, Phillips, Katherine, Brooks, Raina, Hong, Tao, and Wambaugh, John F.. 2016. “Characterization and Prediction of Chemical Functions and Weight Fractions in Consumer Products.” Toxicology Reports 3:723–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Judson, Richard, et al. 2009. “The Toxicity Data Landscape for Environmental Chemicals.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (5): 685–95..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Judson, Richard 2015. “Integrated Model of Chemical Perturbations of a Biological Pathway Using 18 in Vitro High-Throughput Screening Assays for the Estrogen Receptor.” Toxicological Sciences 148 (1): 137–54..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleinstreuer, Nicole C., Ceger, Patricia C., Allen, David G., Strickland, Judy, Chang, Xiaoqing, Hamm, Jonathan T., and Casey, Warren M.. 2015. “A Curated Database of Rodent Uterotrophic Bioactivity.” Environmental Health Perspectives 124 (5): 556–62..Google ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, Sandra. 2004. “The Prescribed and Proscribed Values in Science Policy.” In Science, Values, and Objectivity, ed. Machamer, Peter and Wolters, Gereon, 245–55. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Parker, Wendy. 2010. “Whose Probabilities? Predicting Climate Change with Ensembles of Models.” Philosophy of Science 77 (5): 985–97..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Wendy 2014. “Values and Uncertainties in Climate Prediction, Revisited.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 46 (June): 24–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pullen, Kristi. 2015. “Comment Submitted by Kristi Pullen, Ph.D., Staff Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).” Regulations.gov public comment. https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0305-0024.Google Scholar
Richardson, Henry. 2002. Democratic Autonomy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rudner, Richard. 1953. “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments.” Philosophy of Science 20 (1): 1–6..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarewitz, Daniel. 2004. “How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse.” Environmental Science and Policy 7 (5): 385–403..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, Daniel. 2016. “Climate Change and Second-Order Uncertainty: Defending a Generalized, Normative, and Structural Argument from Inductive Risk.” Perspectives on Science 24 (6): 696–721..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2015a. “Chemical Safety for Sustainability: Strategic Action Plan, 2016–2019.” US Environmental Protection Agency, November. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-02/documents/strap_2016_css_508_compliant_final_optimized_0.pdf.Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency 2015b. “Use of High Throughput Assays and Computational Tools: Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program; Notice of Availability and Opportunity for Comment.” Federal Register 80 (118): 35350–55..Google Scholar
Wahl, Eugene, and Ammann, Caspar. 2007. “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperatures: Examination of Criticisms Based on the Nature and Processing of Proxy Climate Evidence.” Climatic Change 85 (1–2): 33–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetmore, Barbara A., et al. 2012. “Integration of Dosimetry, Exposure, and High-Throughput Screening Data in Chemical Toxicity Assessment.” Toxicological Sciences 125 (1): 157–74..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilholt, Torsten. 2012. “Epistemic Trust in Science.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (2): 233–53..Google Scholar
Winsberg, Eric. 2012. “Values and Uncertainties in the Predictions of Global Climate Models.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 22 (2): 111–37..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed