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 HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Shrader-Frechette, K Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Shrader-Frechette, K Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Ideological toxicology: invalid logic, science, ethics about low-dose pollution

Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA kshrader{at}nd.edu

As illustrated by the case of ethanol, claim H is that, for some biological endpoints, low-dose toxins and carcinogens exhibit hormesis, a beneficial or adaprive response characterized by biphasic dose reponses and resulting from compensatory biological processes following an initial disruption in homeostasis. From this uncontroversial claim H, however, the paper argues that some toxicologists invalidly infer HG (that H is generalizable across biological model, endpoint measured, and chemical class) and HD (that a strong case can be made for the use of hormesis H as a default assumption in the risk-assessment/regulation process), Evaluating HG and HD, this paper argues for 5 claims. While (1) H is true, (2) HG falls victim to several logical fallacies and therefore is logically, scientifically, and ethically invalid. (3) Because it relies on logical fallacies, confuses necessary and sufficient conditions, and violates at least 5 sets of ethical norms, HD is logically, scientifically, and ethically invalid. (4) Five remedies could help address HG-HD flaws and failure to adequately assess low-dose exposures. (5) Three objections to these criticisms of HG and HD are easily answered.

Key Words: consent • dose-response curve • ethics • hormesis • low-dose effect • regulation

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 27, No. 8, 647-657 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0960327108098491


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Elliott Respect for lay perceptions of risk in the hormesis case Human and Experimental Toxicology, January 1, 2009; 28(1): 21 - 26. [Abstract] [PDF]