Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 177, Issue 3, pp 449–469 | Cite as

Conceptual analysis and special-interest science: toxicology and the case of Edward Calabrese

  • Kristin Shrader-FrechetteEmail author
Article

Abstract

One way to do socially relevant investigations of science is through conceptual analysis of scientific terms used in special-interest science (SIS). SIS is science having welfare-related consequences and funded by special interests, e.g., tobacco companies, in order to establish predetermined conclusions. For instance, because the chemical industry seeks deregulation of toxic emissions and avoiding costly cleanups, it funds SIS that supports the concept of “hormesis” (according to which low doses of toxins/carcinogens have beneficial effects). Analyzing the hormesis concept of its main defender, chemical-industry-funded Edward Calabrese, the paper shows Calabrese and others fail to distinguish three different hormesis concepts, H, HG, and HD. H requires toxin-induced, short-term beneficial effects for only one biological endpoint, while HG requires toxin-induced, net-beneficial effects for all endpoints/responses/subjects/ages/conditions. HD requires using the risk-assessment/regulatory default rule that all low-dose toxic exposures are net-beneficial, thus allowable. Clarifying these concepts, the paper argues for five main claims. (1) Claims positing H are trivially true but irrelevant to regulations. (2) Claims positing HG are relevant to regulation but scientifically false. (3) Claims positing HD are relevant to regulation but ethically/scientifically questionable. (4) Although no hormesis concept (H, HG, or HD) has both scientific validity and regulatory relevance, Calabrese and others obscure this fact through repeated equivocation, begging the question, and data-trimming. Consequently (5) their errors provide some undeserved rhetorical plausibility for deregulating low-dose toxins.

Keywords

Brain Cancer Biological Endpoint Environmental Health Perspective Hormesis Concept Predetermined Conclusion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen v. Pennsylvania Engineering Corp. (APEC) (1996). 102 V.3d 194, 195 (5thCir.).Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): (1980) Principles of scientific freedom and responsibility. AAAS, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE). (1984). Retrieved November 26, 2008, from http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/issue_pdf/backmatter_pdf/119/6.pdf.
  4. Aristotle (1985) Nicomachean ethics, trans. Terence Irwin. Hackett, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  5. Axelrod D., Burns K., Davis D., Von Larebeke N. (2004) Hormesis—An inappropriate extrapolation from the specific to the universal. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 10: 335–339Google Scholar
  6. Beauchamp T., Childress J. (1989) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Calabrese, E. J. (1993). Did occupational exposure to ETO Cause Mr. Walter Allen’s brain tumor? Unpublished Report, April 13.Google Scholar
  8. Calabrese, E. J. (2002a). Curriculum vitae, University of Massachusetts. Retrieved January 3, 2007 from http://people.umass.edu/nrephc/EJCCVApril02.pdf.
  9. Calabrese, E. J. (2002b). Curriculum vitae, University of Massachusetts. Retrieved November 24, 2008 from http://people.umass.edu/nrephc/EJCCVApril02.pdf.
  10. Calabrese E. J. (2005) Historical blunders: How toxicology got the dose-response relationship half right. Cellular and Molecular Biology 51: 643–654Google Scholar
  11. Calabrese, E. J. (2006a). Resume, University of Massachusetts. Retrieved January 30, 2007, from http://www.umassmarine.net/faculty/showprofs.cfm?prof_ID=30.
  12. Calabrese, E. J. (2006b). Resume, University of Massachusetts. Retrieved November 24, 2008 from http://www.umassmarine.net/faculty/showprofs.cfm?prof_ID=30.
  13. Calabrese, E. J. (2007). Curriculum vitae, University of Massachusetts. Retrieved January 3, 2007 from http://people.umass.edu/nrephc/EJCCVApril02.pdf and http://www.umassmarine.net/faculty/showprofs.cfm?prof_ID=30.
  14. Calabrese, E. J. & Baldwin, L. A. (1998). Chemical hormesis: scientific foundations, unpublished final report of the Texas Institute for Advancement of Chemical Technology. Retrieved November 22, 2006 from http://cheweb.tamu.edu/tiact/index_files/Page536.htm.
  15. Calabrese E. J., Baldwin L. A. (1999) Reevaluation of the fundamental dose: Response relationship. BioScience 49: 725–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Calabrese E. J., Baldwin E. J. (2001) Hormesis: U-shaped dose responses and their centrality in toxicology. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 22: 285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Calabrese E. J., Baldwin L. A. (2002) Defining hormesis. Human and Experimental Toxicology 21: 91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Calabrese E. J., Baldwin L. A. (2003a) Hormesis: The dose–response revolution. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 43: 175–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Calabrese E. J., Baldwin L. A. (2003b) Toxicology rethinks its central belief. Nature 421: 691–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Calabrese E. J., Baldwin L. A., Holland C. (1999) Hormesis: A highly generalizable and reproducible phenomenon with important implications for risk assessment. Risk Analysis 19: 261–281Google Scholar
  21. Calabrese E. J., Cook R. (2005) Hormesis: How it could affect the risk assessment process. BELLE 12: 22–27Google Scholar
  22. Cook R., Calabrese E. J. (2006a) Hormesis is biology, not religion. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(12): A668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cook, R. & Calabrese, E. J. (2006b). The importance of hormesis to public health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114, 1631–1635. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/8606/8606.pdf.
  24. Cranor C. (2006) Toxic torts. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cranor, C. (2008). Personal Communication Regarding Allen v. Pennsylvania Engineering, Document C, email to Kristin Shrader-Frechette. Received November 24, 2008, at kshrader@nd.edu.Google Scholar
  26. David, E. R. and the Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research (1992). Responsible science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  27. Ehrenberg L., Hiesche K. D., Osterman-Golkar S., Wennberg I. (1974) Evaluation of genetic risks of alkylating agents: Tissue doses in the mouse from air contaminated with ethylene oxide. Mutation Research 24: 83–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Elliott, K. (2007). Email to Kristin Shrader-Frechette. Received January 28, 2007, at kshrader@nd.eduGoogle Scholar
  29. Elliott, K. (2008a). Email to Kristin Shrader-Frechette. Received October 3, 2008a, at kshrader@nd.eduGoogle Scholar
  30. Elliott, K. (2008b). Email to Kristin Shrader-Frechette. Received November 13, 2008b, at kshrader@nd.eduGoogle Scholar
  31. Faden R., Beauchamp T. (1986) A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Flanagin A., Fontanarosa P., DeAngelis C. (2006) Update on JAMA’s conflict of interest policy. Journal of the American Medical Association 296(2): 220–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greenland S. (1990) Randomization, statistics, and causal inferences. Epidemiology 1: 421–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hume D. (1975) A treatise of human nature. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (1994). Ethylene Oxide CAS No.: 75-21-8. Monographs 60, 73; Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol60/m60-02.html.
  36. Jackson C. I. (1986) Honor in science. Sigma Xi the Scientific Research Society, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  37. Jennings, B., Kahn, J., Mastroianni, A., Parker, L. (eds) (2003) Ethics and public health. Association of Schools of Public Health, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Kociba R. J., Keyes D. G., Beyer J. E. (1978) Results of a two-year chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in rats. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 46: 279–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krimsky S. (2003) Science in the private interest. Rowman and Littlefield, Savage, MDGoogle Scholar
  40. Lang L. (1995) Strange brew. Environmental Health Perspectives 103: 142–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lockwood A. H. (2004) Human testing of pesticides. American Journal of Public Health 94: 1908–1915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mayr E. (1988) Toward a new philosophy of Biology. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  43. Mead, M. N. (2006). Sour finding on popular sweetener. Environmental Health Perspectives 114. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2006/114-3/ss.html.
  44. NationalResearch Council (NRC): (2004) Intentional human dosing studies for EPA regulatory purposes. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. Oleskey C., Fleishman A., Goldman L. R. (2004) Pesticide testing in humans. Environmental Health Perspectives 112: 114–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reir S. E., Martin D. C., Bowman R. E., Domowski W. P., Becker J. L. (1993) Endometriosis in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) following chronic exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Fundamentals of Applied Toxicology 421: 433–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rothman K. J. (1990) Statistics in non-randomized studies. Epidemiology 1: 417–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rothman K. J. (2002) Epidemiology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Rourke, L. J. (2008a). Email to Kristin Shrader-Frechette. Received November 13, 2008a, at kshrader@nd.eduGoogle Scholar
  50. Rourke, L. J. (2008b). Email to Kristin Shrader-Frechette. Received November 27, 2008b, at kshrader@nd.eduGoogle Scholar
  51. Scientific Advisory Board and FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAB). (2000). Comments on the use of data from testing of human subjects, EPA-SAB-EC-00-017. Washington, DC: EPA.Google Scholar
  52. Shrader-Frechette K. (1991) Nuclear energy and ethics edited volume. World Council of Churches, Geneva, p 233Google Scholar
  53. Shrader-Frechette K. (1993a) Risk and rationality. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  54. Shrader-Frechette K. (1993b) Burying uncertainty. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  55. Shrader-Frechette K. (1994) Ethics of scientific research. Rowman and Littlefield, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Shrader-Frechette K. (2001) Using a thought experiment to clarify a radiobiological controversy. Synthese 128: 319–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shrader-Frechette K. (2002) Environmental justice. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shrader-Frechette K. (2007) Taking action, saving lives: our duties to protect environmental and public health. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Shrader-Frechette, K. (2008a). Email to Kevin Elliott. Sent on November 11.Google Scholar
  60. Shrader-Frechette K. (2008b) Evidentiary standards and animal data. Environmental Justice 1(3): 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shrader-Frechette K. (2008c) Ideological toxicology: Invalid, logic, science, ethics about low-dose pollution. Biological Effects of Low-Level Exposures 14(4): 39–47Google Scholar
  62. Shrader-Frechette K. (2008d) Ideological toxicology: Invalid, logic, science, ethics about low-dose pollution. Human and Experimental Toxicology 27: 647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shrader-Frechette K. (2008e) Statistical significance in biology: Neither necessary nor sufficient for hypothesis-acceptance. Biological Theory 3(1): 12–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shrader-Frechette, K. (2009a). Environmental justice. A syllabus for a graduate/undergraduate course, offered for philosophy or for biological-sciences credit, in which students do pro-bono scientific work assessment draft, science-related government assessments affecting poor and minority communities. Accessed 9-6-09 at www.nd.edu/~kshrader/courses.
  65. Shrader-Frechette, K. (2009b). Center for Environmental Justice and Children’s Health. An overview of the 20–30 annual, pro-bono, science-related projects done by faculty and students who use methodological analysis of scientific assessments to promote better science and better science-related public policy. Accessed 9-6-09 at www.nd.edu/~kshrader/cejch.html.
  66. Sulovska K., Lindgren D., Eriksson G., Ehrenberg L. (1969) The mutagenic effect of low concentrations of ethylene oxide in air. Hereditas 6: 264–266Google Scholar
  67. Thayer K. A., Melnick R., Burns K., Davis D., Huff J. (2005) Fundamental flaws of hormesis for public health decisions. Environmental Health Perspectives 113: 1272–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. University of Massachusetts. (1997). Policy on Conflicts of Interest, doc. T96-039 (Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts). Retrieved October 1, 2009 from http://www.umass.edu/research/ora/conflict.html.
  69. US National Research Council (US NRC): (1993) Measuring lead exposure in infants, children. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  70. Wing S. (2003) Objectivity and ethics and environmental health science. Environmental Health Perspectives 111(14): 1809–1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Department of Biological Sciences, Center for Environmental Justice and Children’s HealthUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations