Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:40:26.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Metascience to Improve Dose-Response Curves in Biology: Better Policy through Better Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many people argue that uncertain science—or controversial policies based on science—can be clarified primarily by greater attention to social/political values influencing the science and by greater attention to the vested interests involved. This paper argues that while such clarification is necessary, it is not a sufficient condition for achieving better science and policy; indeed its importance may be overemphasized. Using a case study involving the current, highly politicized controversy over the shape of dose-response curves for biological effects of ionizing radiation, the paper argues that the conflict could be significantly resolved through specific methodological improvements in the areas of metascience and philosophy of science. These improvements focus on taking account, respectively, of scale, data trimming, aggregation, measurability, and simplicity.

Type
Methodology in Practice: Is There a New Normativity in Philosophy of Science?
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers , December 2004 , pp. 1026 - 1037
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Clarke, Roger (1999), “Control of Low-Level Radiation Exposure: Time for a Change?”, Control of Low-Level Radiation Exposure: Time for a Change? 19:107–111.Google ScholarPubMed
Darwall, Stephen, Gibbard, Allan, and Railton, Peter (1997), “Toward Fin de Siecle Ethics”, in Darwall, Stephen, Gibbard, Allan, and Railton, Peter (eds.), Moral Discourse and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 3–47.Google Scholar
Dodd, J., and Stern-Gillet, S. (1995), “The Is/Ought Gap, the Fact/Value Distinction and the Naturalistic Fallacy”, The Is/Ought Gap, the Fact/Value Distinction and the Naturalistic Fallacy 34:727–745.Google Scholar
Dubrova, Y. E., Nesterov, V. N., Krouchinsky, N. G., Ostapenko, V. A., Neumann, R., Neil, D. L., and Jeffreys, A. J. (1996), “Human Minisatellite Mutation Rate after the Chernobyl Accident”, Human Minisatellite Mutation Rate after the Chernobyl Accident 380:683–686.Google ScholarPubMed
Fairlie, I., and Sumner, D. (2000), “In Defence of Collective Dose”, In Defence of Collective Dose 20:1–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Flew, Antony (1970), Evolutionary Ethics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael (1974), “Explanation and Scientific Understanding”, Explanation and Scientific Understanding 71:5–19.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, A. (1994), “Biological Effects of Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation”, Biological Effects of Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation 4:37–45.Google Scholar
Halfmann, Jost (1984), “The Dethroning of the Philosophy of Science: Ideological and Technical Functions of the Metasciences”, in Cohen, Robert S. and Wartofsky, Marx W. (eds.), Methodology, Metaphysics, and the History of Science. Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl (1966), Philosophy of Natural Sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hume, David (1888). A Treatise of Human Nature. Selby-Bigge, L. A., ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (1991), 1990 Recommendation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (2002), “A Report on Progress toward New Recommendations”, A Report on Progress toward New Recommendations 21:113–123.Google Scholar
Maffie, James (1995), “Towards an Anthropology of Epistemology”, Towards an Anthropology of Epistemology 26:218–241.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1903), Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, L. (2002), “Lowering the Bar”, Lowering the Bar 58(3): 28–33.Google Scholar
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) (1993), Limitation of Exposures to Ionizing Radiation, NCRP Report 116. Bethesda, MD: NCRP.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) (1996), Understanding Risk in a Democracy. Washington, DC: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Pearce, David, and Rantala, Veikko (1983), “New Foundations for Metascience”, New Foundations for Metascience 56:1–26.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1964), “How to Derive ‘Ought’ from ‘Is’”, How to Derive ‘Ought’ from ‘Is’ 73:43–58.Google Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, Kristin (1991), Risk and Rationality. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, Kristin (2001), “Using a Thought Experiment to Clarify a Radiobiological Controversy”, Using a Thought Experiment to Clarify a Radiobiological Controversy 128:319–342.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1975), Simplicity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNSCEAR (1994), Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Wisdom, John Oulton (1987), Philosophy of the Social Sciences: A Metascientific Introduction. Aldershot, UK: Avebury.Google Scholar