No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Articles and Commentaries
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences
References
American Industrial Health Council (1978). AIHC Recommended Alternatives to OSHA's Generic Carcinogen Proposal.Google Scholar
American Industrial Health Council (1979). AIHC Comments on: A Report of the Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group (IRLG), Work Group on Risk Assessment Entitled “Scientific Bases for Identification of Potential Carcinogens and Estimation of Risks.” Scarsdale, N.Y.: American Industrial Health Council.Google Scholar
Ames, B. N. (1983). “Dietary Carcinogens and Anti-carcinogens: Oxygen Radicals and Degenerative Diseases.” Science 221: 1256–1264.Google Scholar
Anderson, E. L., et al. (1983). “Quantitative Approaches in Use to Assess Cancer Risk.” Risk Analysis 3 (December): 277–295.Google Scholar
Andrews, R. N. L. (1984). “Economics and Environmental Decisions, Past and Present.” In Smith, V. K. (ed.), Environmental Policy under Reagan's Executive Order: The Role of Benefit-Cost Analysis. Chapel Hill, N. C.: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Ashford, N. A., et al. (1983). “Law and Science Policy in Federal Regulation of Formaldehyde.” Science 222: 894–900.Google Scholar
Atkisson, A. A., Kraft, M. E., and Philipson, L. L. (1985). Risk Analysis Methods and Their Employment in Governmental Risk Management. Final report to the National Science Foundation. Redondo Beach, Calif.: J. H. Wiggins Company.Google Scholar
Bardach, E. A., and Kagan, R. A., eds. (1982). Social Regulation: Strategies for Reform. San Francisco: Institute for Comtemporary Studies.Google Scholar
Calkins, D. R., et al. (1980). “Identification, Characterization, and Control of Potential Human Carcinogens: A Framework for Federal Decision-Making.” JCNI 64: 169–176.Google Scholar
Clark, T. B. (1978). “Cracking Down on the Causes of Cancer.” National Journal 10: 2056–2060.Google Scholar
Clark, T. B. (1979). “A Battle Plan for the War on Cancer.” National Journal 11: 1808–1811.Google Scholar
Cole, L. A. (1983). Politics and the Restraint of Science. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
Crandall, R. W. and Lave, L. B. (1981). The Scientific Basis of Health and Safety Regulation. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Crandall, R. W., and Portney, P. A. (1984). “Environmental Policy.” In Portney, P. R. (ed.), Natural Resources and the Environment: The Reagan Approach. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Derr, P., et al. (1981). “Worker/Public Protection: The Double Standard.” Environment 23: 6–16, 31-36.Google Scholar
Doll, R. and Peto, R. (1981). The Causes of Cancer: Quantitative Estimates of Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United States Today. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Eads, G. C. and Fix, M. (1984). Relief or Reform? Reagan's Regulatory Dilemma. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
Efron, E. (1984). The Apocalyptics: Cancer and the Big Lie. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (1976). “Health Risk and Economic Impact Assessments of Suspected Carcinogens: Interim Procedures and Guidelines.” Federal Register 41: 21402–21405.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (1982). “Additional U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidance for the Health Assessment of Suspect Carcinogens with Specific Reference to Water Quality.” In PCB and Dioxin Cases, pp. 105–124.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (1984a). “Risk Management: The New Program at EPA.” Proceedings of a conference held June 7, at Arlington, Va.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (1984b). “Report of the Toxics Integration Task Force.” Washington, D. C.: Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. S. and Swartz, J., et al. (1984). “Letter: Cancer and Diet.” Science 224: 660–668.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1953). “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” In Friedman, M., Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3–43.Google Scholar
Gillespie, B., Eva, D., and Johnson, R. (1979). “Carcinogenic Risk Assessment in the United States and Great Britain: The Case of Aldrin/Dieldrin.” Social Studies of Science 9: 265–301.Google Scholar
Hadden, S. G. (1984). “Introduction: Risk Policy in American Institutions.” In Hadden, S. G. (ed.), Risk Analysis, Institutions, and Public Policy. Port Washington, N.Y.: Associated Faculty Press, pp. 33–18.Google Scholar
Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group, Work Group on Risk Assessment (1979). “Scientific Bases for Identification of Potential Carcinogens and Estimation of Risks.” JCNI 63: 241–268. Reprinted in Control of Carcinogens, pp. 191–218.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Kirschten, D. (1977). “The New War on Cancer—Carter Team Seeks Causes, Not Cures.” National Journal 9: 1220–1225.Google Scholar
Kraft, M. E.(forthcoming). “The Political and Organizational Setting for Risk Analysis.” In Covello, V., et al. (eds.) Risk Evaluation and Management. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Kraft, M. E. and Vig, N. J. (1984). “Environmental Policy in the Reagan Presidency.” Political Science Quarterly 99: 415–439.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2d ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lave, L. B. (1982). Quantitative Risk Assessment in Regulation. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Laws, P. W. (1974). Medical and Dental X-Rays. Washington, D.C.: Public Citizen Health Research Group.Google Scholar
Light, P. C. (1985). “Social Security and the Politics of Assumptions.” Public Administration Review 45: 363–371.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). “The Science of Muddling Through.” Public Administration Review 19 (Spring): 79–88.Google Scholar
Lowrance, W. W. (1976). Of Acceptable Risk: Science and the Determination of Safety. Los Altos, Calif.: William Kaufman, Inc.Google Scholar
Lynn, F. M. (1983). “The Interplay of Science and Values in Assessment and Environmental Risks.” Ph.D. diss., University of N. C. at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Lyons, R. D. (1979). “U.S. Agencies Are in Confusion Over Regulation of Radioactivity.” The New York Times, July 2.Google Scholar
McGarity, T. O. (1979). “Substantive and Procedural Discretion in Administrative Resolution of Science Policy Questions: Regulating Carcinogens in EPA and OSHA.” Georgetown Law Review 67: 729–810.Google Scholar
Matheny, A. R., and Williams, B. A. (1984). “Regulation, Risk Assessment, and the Supreme Court: The Case of OSHA's Cancer Policy.” Law and Policy Quarterly 6 (October): 425–449.Google Scholar
Maugh, T. H. II (1978a). “Chemical Carcinogens: The Scientific Basis for Regulation.” Science 201: 1200–1205.Google Scholar
Maugh, T. H. II (1978b). “Chemical Carcinogens: How Dangerous are Low Doses?” Science 202: 37–41.Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences (1983). Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
The New York Times (1985a). “U.S. Jury Clears a Nausea Drug in Birth Defects.” March 13, p. 10.Google Scholar
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1980). “Identification, Classification, and Regulation of Potential Occupational Carcinogens.” Code of Federal Regulations Title 29, Chapter XVII, pp. 388–401.Google Scholar
Office of Radiation Programs (1984). Radionuclides, Background Information Document for Final Rules. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Information Agency.Google Scholar
Office of Science and Technology Policy (1982). “Review on the Mechanisms of Effect and Detection of Chemical Carcinogens.” First draft. Washington, D. C.: Executive Office of the President.Google Scholar
Office of Science and Technology Policy (1983). “Review on the Mechanisms of Effect and Detection of Chemical Carcinogens.” Second draft. Washington, D. C.: Executive Office of the President.Google Scholar
Office of Science and Technology Policy (1984). “Chemical Carcinogens: Review of the Science and its Associated Principles.” Federal Register 49: 21594–21661.Google Scholar
Office of Science and Technology Policy (1985). “Chemical Carcinogens: A review of the Science and its Associated Principles.” Federal Register 50 (March 14): 10372–10442.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment (1981). Assessment of Technologies for Determining Cancer Risks from the Environment. Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment.Google Scholar
Page, T. (1981). “A Framework for Unreasonable Risk in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).” In Nicholson, W. (ed.), Management of Assessed Risk for Carcinogens, 363. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Perera, F. P. (1984). “The Genotoxic/Epigenetic Distinction: Relevance to Cancer Policy.” Environmental Research 34: 175–191.Google Scholar
Perl, P. (1985). “Work Sites with High Cancer Risks Disclosed.” The Washington Post January 24.Google Scholar
Price, D. K. (1965). The Scientific Estate. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhold, R. (1980). “Science Unit Revises Study on Radiation's Cancer Risk.” The New York Times July 30.Google Scholar
Rettig, R. A. (1977). Cancer Crusade: The Story of the National Cancer Act of 1971. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Robbins, D., and Johnston, R. (1976). “The Role of Cognitive and Occupational Differentiation in Scientific Controversies.” Social Studies of Science 6: 349–368.Google Scholar
Roderick, H. (1982). Feasibility Study for an International Program to Identify Existing Chemicals in the Environment. Brighton: University of Sussex, p. 8, annex 4.Google Scholar
Ruckelshaus, W. D. (1983). “Science, Risk, and Public Policy.” Science 221: 1026–1028.Google Scholar
Ruckelshaus, W. D. (1985). “Risk, Science, and Democracy.” Issues in Science and Technology 1 (3): 19–38.Google Scholar
Rushefsky, M. E. (1977). “Organic Farming: Science and Ideology in a Technological Dispute.” Ph. D. diss., State University of New York at Binghamton.Google Scholar
Rushefsky, M. E. (1984). “The Misuse of Science in Governmental Decision Making.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 9 (Summer): 47–59.Google Scholar
Salsburg, D. and Heath, A. (1981). “When Science Progresses and Bureaucracies Lag—The Case of Cancer Research.” The Public Interest 65: 30–39.Google Scholar
Schmandt, J. and Katz, J. E. (1981). “Research Project on the Scientific State: A Report and A Proposal.” Austin, Tex.: LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Schrecker, T. F. (1984). Political Economy of Environmental Hazards. Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada.Google Scholar
Science Council of Canada (1982). Regulating the Regulators: Science, Values and Decisions. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada.Google Scholar
Squire, R. A. (1981). “Ranking Animal Carcinogens: A Proposed Regulatory Approach.” Science 214: 877–880. Reprinted in Control of Carcinogens, pp. 222–225.Google Scholar
“‘Star Wars’ and the Scientists” (1985). Letters fromE. Teller, L. Wood, H. A. Bethe, V. F. Weisskopf, and others. Commentary 79 (3): 4–11.Google Scholar
Todhunter, J. A. (1982). “Review of Data Available to the Administrator Concerning Formaldehyde and di (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate (DEHP).” In Formaldehyde: Review of Scientific Basis, pp. 248–271.Google Scholar
Toxic Substances Strategy Committee (1980). Toxic Chemicals and Public Protection. Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President.Google Scholar
Trachtman, L. E. (1985). “Why Tolerate the Statistical Victim?” The Hastings Center Report 15 (1): 14.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress (1982a). House, Hearing Before the Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. Formaldehyde: Review of Scientific Basis of EPA's Carcinogenic Risk Assessment. 97th Cong., 2d Sess.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress (1982b). House, Hearing Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. PCB and Dioxin Cases. 97th Cong., 2d Sess.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress (1982c). Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1982. Report 97-666, 97th Cong., 2d sess.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress (1983a). House, Hearing Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation, and Tourism. Control of Carcinogens in the Environment. 98th Cong., 1st Sess.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress (1983b). House, Hearings Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. EPA: Investigation of Superfund and Agency Abuses. 98th Cong., 1st. Sess, Part 1.Google Scholar
Vig, N. J. and Kraft, M. E. (1984). Environmental Policy in the 1980s: Reagan's Neyv Agenda. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Viscusi, W. (1983). Risk by Choice: Regulating Health and Safety in the Workplace. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Weinstein, M. C. (1983). “Cost-Effectiveness Priorities for Cancer Prevention.” Science 221: 17–23.Google Scholar
Weisburger, J. H. and Williams, G. M. (1981). “Carcinogen Testing: Current Problems and New Approaches.” Science 214: 401–407.Google Scholar
Whittemore, A. S. (1983). “Facts and Values in Risk Analysis for Environmental Toxicants.” Risk Analysis 3: 23–33.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A. (1979a). Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A. (1979b). “No Risk is the Greatest Risk of All.” American Scientist 67 (January): 32–37.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A. (1980). “Richer is Safer: Risk Assessment in the Large.” House. Joint Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space. U.S. Senate and Congress/Science Forum with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 96th Cong., 1st Sess. Reprinted in Risk/Benefit Analysis in the Legislative Process, pp. 18–34.Google Scholar