& b u l l e t ; ABSTRACTThe question is posed: why were two pesticides, Aldrin and Dieldrin, judged to be carcinogenic in the US but not in Britain when the same evidence was available to the public authorities in both countries? No single cause is identified; rather, a variety of mutually reinforcing factors account for the decisions by the two public authorities: the uncertainty of the scientific evidence; the application of different standards of carcinogenicity associated with different social and scientific commitments; the government agencies with primary responsibility for the decisions; the way in which pesticides are regulated; and several cultural and economic considerations. The case study illustrates the analytical inadequacy of the fact-value distinction, and the tendency of decision-makers to justify their decisions by recourse to science. It also supports the view that the traditional relationship between science and public policy is being redefined in complex, technical areas of decision-making like risk assessment.The nature and scale of the hazards associated with new technologies have required governments to make difficult decisions about the form of control they should exercise over new products and processes. Although governments have received advice from a large and growing body of scientists, this has not always simplified the decision-making process nor rendered it more rational and objective. In this paper, we try to explain why two governments reached contradictory conclusions to the same problem on the basis of the same scientific evidence. More specifically, we will try to explain why two chemical pesticides, Aldrin and Dieldrin
The 1993 Environmental Action Programme for Central and Eastern Europe presented a series of recommendations for integrating environmental objectives into the process of economic and democratic reform in Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) and the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union (NIS). In this paper, on the basis of findings of a recent OECD study, we look at progress across the region in light of these recommendations. In several CEEC, there has been a synergy among economic reforms, democratic development, and environmental improvement. These countries have seen important improvements in environmental conditions but now face a variety of challenges, many tied to the process of accession to the EU and the need to deepen integration between environment and sectoral policies, such as those for agriculture and transport. In other countries, and in particular many NIS, pollution reductions have mainly resulted from declines in economic production. Many of these countries face ongoing crisis in terms of establishing economic reform, stable societies, and environmental protection. In several areas of the former Soviet Union, environmental problems—in particular poor access to safe drinking water—pose serious threats to human health. Addressing these problems presents a difficult challenge both for national governments and for international cooperation agencies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.