The risk assessment component of the risk regulation process (or any similar consultation of the scientific experts) cannot be claimed to be value-free, and the process must be altered to accommodate a value-laden science. There was a scheduling problem in the Judges calendar, and CTPF lost the. Thus, non-epistemic values, of the kind that are important in risk management, have an important and legitimate role to play in the judgments required to perform and interpret the dioxin studies. Weighing non-epistemic consequences requires the use of non-epistemic values. In order to judge what risk of error to accept, one needs to consider and weigh the consequences of one’s judgments, whether epistemic or non-epistemic. I show how problems of interpretation arise for each area of science that prevent a clear-cut answer to the question: what dose of dioxins is safe for humans? Because of significant uncertainties in how to interpret these studies, there is significant risk that one will err in the interpretation. I review three areas of science important to dioxin regulation: epidemiological studies, laboratory animal studies, and biochemical studies. In examining the recent controversy over dioxin regulation, I argue that the first component is not value-free. The first component is generally thought to be free of the contentious value judgments that often characterize the second component. Elaine Treharne and Susan Rosser (Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and. The risk regulation process has been traditionally conceived as having two components: a consultation of the experts concerning the magnitude of risk (risk assessment) and a negotiated decision on whether and how to reduce that risk (risk management). the just judge will render to me in that day: and not only to me, but to.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |