Kevin C. Elliott
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199755622
- eISBN:
- 9780199827121
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755622.003.0007
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This chapter shows how the major lessons of the preceding chapters apply to cases of policy‐relevant research other than hormesis. It argues that those who investigate endocrine disruption and ...
More
This chapter shows how the major lessons of the preceding chapters apply to cases of policy‐relevant research other than hormesis. It argues that those who investigate endocrine disruption and multiple chemical sensitivity also encounter at least four major categories of value judgments: (1) choices about what topics to investigate and how to design studies; (2) decisions about what scientific terminology and definitions to employ; (3) choices about how to interpret and evaluate studies; and (4) questions about how to incorporate scientific research into policy decisions. The chapter also shows, in accordance with Chapter 4, that current university conflict‐of‐interest policies are unlikely to prevent interest groups from exerting powerful influences on these judgments. Chapter 7 also supports the central contention of Chapter 5 (i.e., that diagnosing deliberative forums is important) by showing the problematic effects of poorly designed deliberation in the MCS case and the positive consequences of well‐designed deliberation in response to endocrine disruption. Finally, the chapter shows that experts who study MCS and endocrine disruption could also gain valuable guidance by reflecting on the ethics of expertise developed in Chapter 6.Less
This chapter shows how the major lessons of the preceding chapters apply to cases of policy‐relevant research other than hormesis. It argues that those who investigate endocrine disruption and multiple chemical sensitivity also encounter at least four major categories of value judgments: (1) choices about what topics to investigate and how to design studies; (2) decisions about what scientific terminology and definitions to employ; (3) choices about how to interpret and evaluate studies; and (4) questions about how to incorporate scientific research into policy decisions. The chapter also shows, in accordance with Chapter 4, that current university conflict‐of‐interest policies are unlikely to prevent interest groups from exerting powerful influences on these judgments. Chapter 7 also supports the central contention of Chapter 5 (i.e., that diagnosing deliberative forums is important) by showing the problematic effects of poorly designed deliberation in the MCS case and the positive consequences of well‐designed deliberation in response to endocrine disruption. Finally, the chapter shows that experts who study MCS and endocrine disruption could also gain valuable guidance by reflecting on the ethics of expertise developed in Chapter 6.
