This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Mayo, D. Articles by Spanos, A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mayo, D. Articles by Spanos, A Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Risks to health and risks to science: the need for a responsible "bioevidential" scrutiny

Department of Philosophy, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA mayod{at}vt.edu

A Spanos

Department of Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

Ethical issues of evidence relevant for risk policy are not adequately addressed if divorced from issues of the responsible interpretation of the risk evidence itself. Evidence for hormetic hypotheses are based on data that disagree with a null hypothesis asserting H0: zero (0) improvement (at low doses). We critically evaluate some of the reasoning and the procedures used by leading proponents of hormesis, and suggest how potential errors may be avoided.

Key Words: bioevidential scrutiny • evidence-based policy • hormetic effects • severe testing • statistical inference • statistical vs. substantive significance • risk evidence

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 27, No. 8, 621-625 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0960327108098488


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?