Science and regulation: Current impasse and future solutions

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 95, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2005, Pages

  Hoppin, Polly J ^a   Clapp, Richard ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL   (United States)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COURT; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; INDUSTRY; LAW SUIT; ORGANIZATION; PHILOSOPHY; POLICY; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; SCIENCE;

EXPERT TESTIMONY; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC POLICY; SCIENCE; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 22744434436     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.059626     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Wagner W. The perils of relying on interested parties to evaluate scientific quality. Am J Public Health. 2005; 95:S99-S106.
2. Neff RA, Goldman LR. Regulatory parallels to Daubert: Stakeholder influence, "sound science," and the delayed adoption of health-protective standards. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:S81-S91.
3. McGarity TO. Daubert and the proper role for the courts in health, safety, and environmental regulation. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:S92-S98.
4. Michaels D, Monforton C. Manufacturing uncertainty: Contested science and the protection of the public's health and environment. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:S39-S48.
5. Daubert v Merrell-Dow (1993) set new guidelines for federal judges to use in deciding whether expert scientific testimony should be allowed in particular tort cases. The major guidelines were (1) whether the theory or technique can be, and has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential error rate associated with application of the theory; and (4) the general acceptance of the theory or technique in question. Daubert v Merrell-Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc. 113S Ct. 2786 (1993).
6. Krimsky S. The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:S129-S136.
7. Jasanoff S. Law's knowledge: Science for justice in legal settings. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:S49-S58.
8. Cohen G, O'Connor J. Fighting Toxics. Island Press, Washington, DC, 1990.
9. See http://www.samsung.co.uk/SEUK/images/Editorials/Position% 20paper_0604.pdf.
10. See http://www.fujitsu.com/downloads/ECO/rep2002/2002report47_48_e.pdf.
11. Though the literature is replete with evidence associating exposure to certain chemicals with a range of endocrine-related abnormalities, the science that would make risk assessment possible is in its infancy.
12. Liroff RA. Benchmarking corporate management of safer chemicals in consumer products - a tool for investors and senior executives. Corporate Environmental Strategy, International Journal of Sustainable Business, Vol. 12, No. 1 (January-February 2005).
13. Past articles in this journal have examined precautionary dedsionmaking, including Kreibel D, Tickner J. Reenergizing public health through precaution. Am J Public Health 2001; 91:1351-1355.
14. See http://www.ceres.org. CERES is a network of investment funds and environmental and public interest organizations, is one such initiative. Over 70 companies have endorsed principles developed by CERES, including commitments to "reduce and make continual progress toward eliminating the release of any substance that may cause environmental damage to the air, water, or the earth or its inhabitants," to "strive to minimize the environmental, health and safety risks to our employees and the communities in which we operate through safe technologies, facilities and operating procedures, and by being prepared for emergencies," and to "inform in a timely manner everyone who may be affected by conditions caused by our company that might endanger health, safety or the environment. We will regularly seek advice and counsel through dialogue with persons in communities near our facilities. We will not take any action against employees for reporting dangerous incidents or conditions to management or to appropriate authorities." Pressure from shareholder resolutions and initiatives by corporate leaders have resulted in significant commitments from corporations, particularly in the area of climate change. In April 2004, for example, ChevronTexaco became the first oil company to disclose its entire greenhouse gas footprint, including the emissions associated with the use of its end product (e.g., emissions from cars that consume its gasoline). The company has taken the fundamental step of assuming a cost for carbon (of $5-$20/ton) whenever it considers a new capital investment, and it is considering a major investment in renewable energy.
15. See http://www.globalreporting.org.
16. Quinn MM, Levenstein C, DeLaurier GF. Good practice guidelines for occupational health research funded by the private sector. New Solutions: A Journal of Occupational and Environmental Policy 2001;11:303-314.
17. The Precautionary Principle and Chemical Exposure Standards for the Workplace, Policy Resolution No. 9606, American Public Health Association, 1996.
18. See http://www.csrwatch.com.
19. McDonough W, Braungart M, Anastas PT, Zimmerman JB. Applying the principles of green engineering to cradle-to-cradle design. Env Sci Technol 2003;37:434A-441A.
20. See http://www.mbdc.com/biz_ home.htm.
21. Kriebel D, Tickner J, Epstein P, et al. The precautionary principle in environmental science. Env Health Persp. 2001;109:871-876.