Advertisement

Axiomathes

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 695–708 | Cite as

Does Low Dose Ionizing Radiation Cause Cancer? The Interplay of Epistemology and Ethics in Radiation Protection

  • Bjørn M. HofmannEmail author
Original Paper
  • 86 Downloads

Abstract

In order to investigate the relationship between scientific evidence and social commitments this article addresses three questions: (1) does low dose ionizing radiation cause cancer? (2) Is the answer to this question different in a social setting than in a scientific context? (3) What are the consequences of the answers of 1 and 2 for the relationship between epistemology and ethics as played out in radiation protection? Conceptual analysis with basis in the philosophy of science, in particular traditional theories of causality. Whether low dose ionizing radiation causes cancer deeply depends on what we mean by causality. According to traditional scientific conceptions of causality it is not warranted to say that low dose ionizing radiation causes cancer. Standard approaches in radiation protection, however, imply that there is a causal connection, which is due to the strong social commitment in the field. There is a close relationship between social and scientific conceptions of causality, posing a series of challenges: one being that scientists covertly become moral experts, another one that the general public can be misinformed. There is a difference between causality in science and in policy making. Mixing these conceptions, as sometimes is done in radiation protection, can be misleading. Whether low dose ionizing radiation causes cancer is a social and not only a scientific issue. As such those who are warranted to have a say.

Keywords

Causality Low dose ionizing radiation Cancer Ethics Philosophy of science 

References

  1. Beck U (1992) Risk society, towards a new modernity. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Berrington de González A, Darby S (2004) Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 363(9406):345–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boice JD Jr (2017) The linear nonthreshold (LNT) model as used in radiation protection: an NCRP update. Int J Radiat Biol 93(10):1079–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown P, Calnan M (2013) NICE technology appraisals: working with multiple levels of uncertainty and the potential for bias. Med Health Care Philos 16:281–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cartwright N (2007) Hunting causes and using them: approaches in philosophy and economics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cologne JB, Pawel DJ, Sharp GB, Fujiwara S (2004) Uncertainty in estimating probability of causation in a cross-sectional study: joint effects of radiation and hepatitis-C virus on chronic liver disease. J Radiol Prot 24(2):131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Vreese L (2009) Epidemiology and causation. Med Health Car Philos 12:345–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Debnath D (2004) Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays. Lancet 363(9424):1909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans AS (1976) Causation and disease: the Henle–Koch postulates revisited. Yale J Biol Med 49:175–195Google Scholar
  10. Funtowicz S, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:735–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansson SO (1993) The false promises of risk analysis. Ratio 6:16–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansson SO (1996) Decisionmaking under great uncertainty. Philos Soc Sci 26(3):369–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansson SO (2007) Ethics and radiation protection. J Radiol Prot 27:147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herzog P, Rieger CT (2004) Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays. Lancet 363(9424):340–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill AB (1965) The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 58:295–300Google Scholar
  16. Hofmann B, Holm S, Iversen JGH (2007) Philosophy of science. In: Laake P, Olsen B, Benestad H (eds) Research methodology in the medical and biological sciences. Elsevier, London, pp 1–32Google Scholar
  17. International Radiation Protection Association (2013) Bridging radiation policy and science. http://www.irpa.net/irpa10/cdrom/01326.pdf. Accessed 12 Nov 2013
  18. Janssen PHM, Petersen AC, van der Sluijs JP, Risbey JS, Ravetz JR (2005) A guidance for assessing and communicating uncertainties. Water Sci Technol 52(6):145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jasanoff S (2006) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Koch R (1912) Die aetiologie der Tuberkulose. In: Schwalbe J (ed) Gesammelte Werke von Koch. Georg Thieme Verlag, Leipzig, pp 428–455Google Scholar
  21. Kocher DC, Apostoaei AI, Hoffman FO (2005) Radiation effectiveness factors for use in calculating probability of causation of radiogenic cancers. Health Phys 89:3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lipton R, Ødegaard T (2005) Causal thinking and causal language in epidemiology: it’s in the details. Epidemiol Perspect Innov 2:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mackie J (1974) The cement of the universe. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Mendelson D (2017) Causation in law and medicine. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meyer G, Folker AP, Jørgensen RB, Krayer von Krauss MP, Sandøe P, Tveit G (2005) The factualization of uncertainty: risk, politics, and genetically modified crops: a case of rape. Agric Hum Values 22(2):235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2012) Uncertainties in the estimation of radiation risks and probability of disease causation, Report No. 171. NCRP, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  27. National Research Council (2006) Committee to assess health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation, BEIR VII Phase 2. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  28. Niu S, Deboodt P, Zeeb H (eds) (2010) Approaches to attribution of detrimental health effects to occupational ionizing radiation exposure and their application in compensation programmes for cancer: a practical guide. International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Labour Organization and the World Health Organization, Geneva (Occupational Safety and Health Series, No. 73) Google Scholar
  29. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Rethinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Ozasa K, Shimizu Y, Suyama A, Kasagi F, Soda M, Grant EJ, Sakata R, Sugiyama H, Kodama K (2012) Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors, Report 14, 1950–2003: an overview of cancer and noncancer diseases. Radiat Res 177(3):229–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ozonoff D (2005) Legal causation and responsibility for causing harm. Am J Public Health 95:S35–S38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pearl J (2000) Causality: models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Picano E (2004) Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays. Lancet 363(9424):1909–1910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ravetz JR (1996) Scientific knowledge and its social problems. Transaction, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  35. Rothman K, Greenland S (1998) Modern epidemiology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  36. Russell B (1913) On the notion of cause. Proc Aristot Soc 13:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Russell B (1928) Sceptical essays. George Allan & Unwin Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Simmons JA (2004) Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays. Lancet 363(9424):1908–1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stirling S (2010) Keep it complex. Nature 468:1029–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tallacchini M (2005) Before and beyond the precautionary principle: epistemology of uncertainty in science and law. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 207:645–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tranøy KE (1988) Science and ethics. Some of the main principles and problems. In: Jones AJI (ed) The moral import of science. Essays on normative theory, scientific activity and Wittengenstein. Sigma Forlag, BergenGoogle Scholar
  42. Tubiana M, Aurengo A, Masse R, Valleron AJ (2004) Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays. Lancet 363(9424):1909–1910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. UNSCEAR (2008) Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Medical radiation exposures. UNSCEAR Report, New York. http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_2008_Annex_A.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2014
  44. UNSCEAR (2010) Summary of low-dose radiation effects on health. UNSCEAR Report, New York. http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2010/UNSCEAR_2010_Report_M.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2014
  45. UNSCEAR (2012a) Effects of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. UNSCEAR (2012b) Biological mechanisms of radiation actions at low doses. A white paper to guide the Scientific Committee’s future programme of work. New York. http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/Biological_mechanisms_WP_12-57831.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2014
  47. UNSCEAR (2013) Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR Report, New York. http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications.html. Accessed 23 Jan 2014
  48. UNSCEAR (2016) Sources, effects, and risks of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR report 2016. http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2016/UNSCEAR_2016_Report.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2017
  49. UNSCEAR (2017) Sources, effects, and risks of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR report 2017. http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2017/UNSCEAR_2017_Report.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2018
  50. Walker W, Harremoës P, Rotmans J, van der Sluijs J, van Asselt MVA, Janssen P, Krayer von Krauss MP (2003) Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. J Integr Assess 4(1):5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wall BF, Haylock R, Jansen JTM, Hillier MC, Hart D, Shrimpton PC (2011) HPA-CRCE-028-radiation risks from medical X-ray examinations as a function of the age and sex of the patient. Radiation Risks from Medical X-ray Examinations as a Function of the Age and Sex of the Patient, OxfordshireGoogle Scholar
  52. Wynne B (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning. Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob Environ Change 2:111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for the Health SciencesNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyGjøvikNorway
  2. 2.Centre for Medical EthicsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations