Risks to health and risks to science: the need for a responsible “bioevidential” scrutiny-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

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

Published:2008-08 Issue:8 Volume:27 Page:621-625
ISSN:0960-3271
Container-title:Human & Experimental Toxicology
language:en
Short-container-title:Hum Exp Toxicol

Author:

Mayo DG¹,Spanos A²

Affiliation:

1. Department of Philosophy, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

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

Abstract

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.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis,Toxicology,General Medicine

Link

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0960327108098488

Reference19 articles.

1. Evaluating the Evidence for Hormesis: A Statistical Perspective

2. Low-Dose Risk, Hormesis, Analogical and Logical Thinking

3. Fundamental Flaws of Hormesis for Public Health Decisions

4. A critique of the use of hormesis in risk assessment

5. Can the Concept of Hormesis Be Generalized to Carcinogenesis?

Cited by 5 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. What if Peer-Review Process Is Killing Thinking-Out-of-the-Box Science?;Frontiers in Marine Science;2022-06-24

2. Scientific Opinion on the hazard assessment of endocrine disruptors: Scientific criteria for identification of endocrine disruptors and appropriateness of existing test methods for assessing effects mediated by these substances on human health and the environment;EFSA Journal;2013-03

3. Scientific report of the Endocrine Active Substances Task Force;EFSA Journal;2010-11

4. Ad hoc and Fast Forward: The Science of Hormesis Growth and Development;Environmental Health Perspectives;2009-09

5. Philosophical Scrutiny of Evidence of Risks: From Bioethics to Bioevidence;Philosophy of Science;2006-12