Advertisement

Political and Commercial Interests in the BSE Inquiry

  • Louise Cummings
Chapter

Abstract

The account of the reasoning of BSE scientists in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 has emphasised logical and epistemic features of argument to the exclusion of a vast range of other factors that have an influence on the reasoning process. These factors, which include psychological states and emotions as well as a range of vested interests, are as significant determinants of the reasoning process as are the logical factors that have traditionally been the focus of study by theorists of reasoning. In the context of the UK’s BSE epidemic, two main types of interest were never far from the risk assessments and other decisions arrived at by scientists. These interests included political considerations of various shades and the concerns of commercial organisations connected to the British beef industry. The role of these interests during the BSE crisis varied from that of directly influencing scientific decision-making and other judgements to creating contexts in which only certain views and opinions could be readily expressed.

Keywords

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Logical Ground Bone Meal Chief Medical Officer Argumentative Strategy 
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.

References

  1. Copi IM, Cohen C (2009) Introduction to logic, 13th edition. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River NJGoogle Scholar
  2. Walton DN (1997) Appeal to expert opinion: arguments from authority. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PAGoogle Scholar
  3. Suich JC (1987) Bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Letter to Mr LG Faulkner, British Embassy, The Hague, 30 October 1987Google Scholar
  4. Cummings L (2005) Giving science a bad name: politically and commercially motivated fallacies in BSE inquiry. Argumentation 19 (2):123–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Battersby M (2006) Applied epistemology and argumentation in epidemiology. Informal Logic 26 (1):41–62Google Scholar
  6. Jasanoff S (1997) Civilization and madness: the great BSE scare of 1996. Public Understand Sci 6 (3):221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lacey RW (1998) The BSE inquiry statement no. 10. Statement of Professor Richard Lacey, 4 March 1998Google Scholar
  8. Wilesmith JW (1993) Professor Lacey’s article: BSE – the gathering crisis. Letter to Mr R Bradley, 18 May 1993Google Scholar
  9. Department of Health (1990) Press release by the Chief Medical Officer on the safety of beef, 16 May 1990Google Scholar
  10. Bradley R (1994b) Dr Stephen Dealler’s visit to CVL. Letter to Mr TED Eddy (AHDC Tolworth), Mr KC Taylor (AHWV Tolworth), Dr JA Morris (CVL), Mr JW Wilesmith (CVL), 15 April 1994Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert MA (1997) Coalescent argumentation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. Michaels D (2005) Editorial: scientific evidence and public policy. Am J Public Health 95 (S1):S5–S7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Williams BM (1987) A case of spongiform encephalopathy in the bovine. Letter to Mr R Hancock, VI Centre, 13 May 1987Google Scholar
  14. Walton DN (2008) Informal logic: a pragmatic approach. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tversky A, Kahneman D (2004) Belief in the law of small numbers. In: Shafir E (ed) Preference, belief and similarity: selected writings by Amos Tversky, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Woods J, Walton DN (1974) Argumentum ad verecundiam. Philosophy and Rhetoric 7 (3):135–153Google Scholar
  17. Packer RJ (1996) Possible collapse of the beef market. Letter to the Minister, 18 March 1996Google Scholar
  18. Agriculture Committee (1990) Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson-Laird PN, Byrne RMJ (1991) Deduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Seguin E (2000) The UK BSE crisis: strengths and weaknesses of existing conceptual approaches. Sci Public Policy 27 (4):293–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bradley R (1990) Dr Stephen Dealler. Letter to Dr CJ Gibbs. National Institutes of Health, Maryland, USA, 25 July 1990Google Scholar
  22. Kimberlin RH (1990) Transmissible encephalopathies in animals. Can J Vet Res 54 (1):30–37PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Arts and HumanitiesNottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations