A case for deliberation in response to hormesis research

Human and Experimental Toxicology

Volumn 27, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 529-538

  Elliott, K C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Consent; Deliberation; Hormesis; Judgments; Public participation; Values

Indexed keywords

CARCINOGEN; DIOXIN; XENOBIOTIC AGENT;

ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; HORMESIS; INTERNAL BIAS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; MORTALITY; NATURAL SCIENCE; NOMENCLATURE; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIOLOGY; ADAPTATION; ARTICLE; CONSUMER; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG EFFECT; HEALTH CARE POLICY;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HEALTH POLICY; JUDGMENT; XENOBIOTICS;

EID: 56049113490     PISSN: 09603271     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0960327108096535     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Renn O. Model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management. Environ Sci Technol 1999 ; 33: 3049 - 3055.
2. Fiorino D. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Human Values 1990 ; 15: 226 - 243.
3. O Renn T Webler P Wiedemann, (). Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Dordrecht: Kluwer ; 1995.
4. Kleinman D. Democratizations of science and technology. In: D Kleinman, (ed), Science, technology, and democracy. Albany: SUNY Press ; 2000. p. 139 - 165.
5. Beierle T. Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Policy Stud Rev 1999 ; 16: 76 - 103.
6. Beierle T. The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal 2002 ; 22: 739 - 749.
7. Irvin R Stansbury J. Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort. Public Adm Rev 2004 ; 64: 55 - 65.
8. Renn O. An ethical appraisal of hormesis: towards a rational discourse on the acceptability of risks and benefits. Hum Exp Toxicol (in press).
9. Joss S Durant J. Public participation in science: the role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum ; 1995.
10. Sclove R. Democracy and technology. New York: Guilford Press ; 1995.
11. Rogers-Hayden T Pidgeon N. Reflecting upon the UK's citizens' jury on nanotechnologies: NanoJury UK. Nanotechnol Law Bus 2006 ; 3: 167 - 178.
12. Wynne B. Sheep farming after Chernobyl: a case study in communicating scientific information. Environment 1989 ; 31: 11 - 15, 33-39.
13. Brown P Mikkelsen E. No safe place: toxic waste, leukemia, and community action. Berkeley: University of California Press ; 1990.
14. Irwin A. Citizen science: a study of people, expertise, and sustainable development. London: Routledge ; 1995.
15. Couch S Kroll-Smith S. Environmental movements and expert knowledge: evidence for a new populism. In: S Kroll-Smith P Brown V Gunter, (eds), Illness and the environment: a reader in contested medicine. New York: New York University Press ; 2000. p. 384 - 404.
16. Epstein S. Democracy, expertise, and AIDS treatment activism. In: D Kleinman, (ed), Science, technology, and democracy. Albany: SUNY Press ; 2000. p. 15 - 32.
17. NRC. Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press ; 1996.
18. Douglas H. Inserting the public into science. In: S Maasen P Weingart, (eds), Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making. Dordrecht: Springer ; 2005. p. 153 - 169.
19. Shrader-Frechette KS. Evaluating the expertise of experts. Risk: Health Saf Environ 1995 ; 6: 115 - 126.
20. Fischer F. Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: from theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sci 1993 ; 26: 165 - 187.
21. Longino H. Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press ; 1990.
22. P Machamer G Wolters. Science, values, and objectivity. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press ; 2004.
23. H Kincaid J Dupre A Wylie. Value-free science? Ideals and illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press ; 2007.
24. Kleinman D. Science and technology in society: from biotechnology to the internet. Malden, MA: Blackwell ; 2005.
25. Calabrese EJ Baldwin LA. Chemical hormesis: scientific foundations. College Station, TX: Texas Institute for the Advancement of Chemical Technology ; 1998.
26. Calabrese EJ Baldwin LA. The hormetic dose-response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology. Toxicol Sci 2003 ; 71: 246 - 250.
27. Calabrese EJ Baldwin LA. Toxicology rethinks its central belief. Nature 2003 ; 421: 691 - 692.
28. Cook R Calabrese EJ. The importance of hormesis to public health. Environ Health Perspect 2006 ; 114: 1631 - 1635.
29. Thayer KA Melnick R Burns K Davis D Huff J. Fundamental flaws of hormesis for public health decisions. Environ Health Perspect 2005 ; 113: 1271 - 1276.
30. Mushak P. Hormesis and its place in nonmonotonic dose-response relationships: some scientific reality checks. Environ Health Perspect 2007 ; 115: 500 - 506.
31. Shrader-Frechette KS. Ideological toxicology: invalid logic, science, ethics about low-dose pollution. Hum Exp Toxicol (in press).
32. Calabrese EJ Staudenmayer JW Stanek EJ Hoffmann GR. Hormesis outperforms threshold model in National Cancer Institute antitumor drug screening database. Toxicol Sci 2006 ; 94: 368 - 378.
33. Elliott KC. Conceptual clarification and policy-related science: the case of chemical hormesis. Perspect Sci 2000 ; 8: 346 - 366.
34. Calabrese EJ Baldwin LA. Defining hormesis. Hum Exp Toxicol 2002 ; 21: 91 - 97.
35. Chapman P. Defining hormesis: comments on Calabrese and Baldwin (2002). Hum Exp Toxicol 2002 ; 21: 99 - 101.
36. Axelrod D Burns K Davis D von Larebeke N. "Hormesis" - an inappropriate extrapolation from the specific to the universal. Int J Occup Environ Health 2004 ; 10: 335 - 339.
37. Van der Woude H Alink G Rietjens I. The definition of hormesis and its implications for in vitro to in vivo extrapolation and risk assessment. Crit Rev Toxicol 2005 ; 35: 603 - 607.
38. Weltje L vom Saal F Oehlmann J. Reproductive stimulation by low doses of xenoestrogens contrasts with the view of hormesis as an adaptive response. Hum Exp Toxicol 2005 ; 24: 431 - 437.
39. Calabrese EJ. Hormesis: why it is important to toxicology and toxicologists. Environ Toxicol Chem 2008 ; 27: 1451 - 1474.
40. Elliott KC. Hormesis, ethics, and public policy: an overview. Hum Exp Toxicol (in press).
41. Zapponi G Marcello I. Low-dose risk, hormesis, analogical and logical thinking. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006 ; 1076: 839 - 857.
42. Crump K. Limitations in the National Cancer Institute antitumor drug screening database for evaluating hormesis. Toxicol Sci 2007 ; 98: 599 - 601.
43. Calabrese EJ Staudenmayer JW Stanek EJ Hoffmann GR. Hormesis and high throughput studies: Crump's analysis lacks credibility. Toxicol Sci 2007 ; 98: 602 - 603.
44. Elliott KC. Hormesis and environmental policy: an ethical analysis. Public Aff Q 2006 ; 20: 31 - 53.
45. Shrader-Frechette KS. Taking action, saving lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press ; 2007.
46. Bryan CS Call TJ Elliott KC. The ethics of infection control: philosophical frameworks. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007 ; 28: 1077 - 1084.
47. Calabrese EJ Baldwin LA. Hormesis: the dose-response revolution. Annu Rev Pharmacol 2003 ; 43: 175 - 197.
48. Renn O. Implications of the hormesis hypothesis for risk perception and communication. Hum Exp Toxicol 1998 ; 17: 431 - 438.
49. Kaiser J. Sipping from a poisoned chalice. Science 2003 ; 302: 376 - 379.
50. Beder S. Global spin. Rev. ed. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green ; 2000.
51. Elliott KC. Scientific judgment and the limits of conflict of interest policies. Account Res 2008 ; 15: 1 - 29.
52. Calabrese EJ. Hormesis: from marginalization to mainstream: a case for hormesis as the default dose-response model in risk assessment. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2004 ; 197: 125 - 136.
53. Jefferson T Wager E Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. J Am Med Assoc 2002 ; 287: 2786 - 2790.
54. Wager E Jefferson T. Shortcomings of peer review in biomedical journals. Learned Publishing 2001 ; 14: 257 - 263.
55. Rodricks J. Hormesis and toxicological risk assessment. Toxicol Sci 2003 ; 71: 134 - 136.