Non-precautionary aspects of toxicology

Abstract

Empirical studies in toxicology aim at deciphering complex causal relationships, especially in regard to human disease etiologies. Several scientific traditions limit the usefulness of documentation from current toxicological research, in regard to decision-making based on the precautionary principle. Among non-precautionary aspects of toxicology are the focus on simplified model systems and the effects of single hazards, one by one. Thus, less attention is paid to sources of variability and uncertainty, including individual susceptibility, impacts of mixed and variable exposures, susceptible life-stages, and vulnerable communities. In emphasizing the need for confirmatory evidence, toxicology tends to penalize false positives more than false negatives. An important source of uncertainty is measurement error that results in misclassification, especially in regard to exposure assessment. Standard statistical analysis assumes that the exposure is measured without error, and imprecisions will usually result in an underestimation of the dose-effect relationship. In testing whether an effect could be considered a possible result of natural variability, a 5% limit for "statistical significance" is usually applied, ICTX 2004Grandjean, Philippe even though it may rule out many findings of causal associations, simply because the study was too small (and thus lacked statistical power) or because some imprecision or limited sensitivity of the parameters precluded a more definitive observation. These limitations may be aggravated when toxicology is influenced by vested interests. Because current toxicology overlooks the important goal of achieving a better characterization of uncertainties and their implications, research approaches should be revised and strengthened to counteract the innate ideological biases, thereby supporting our confidence in using toxicology as a main source of documentation and in using the Precautionary Principle as a decision procedure in the public policy arena.

Negotiated Complexity: Framing Multi-Criteria Decision Support in Environmental Health Practice

“…For a number of individual toxic substances the health effects from high doses are well-established. The effects of small doses of many substances over a longer period are, however, unknown [60]. Also unknown are the effects of different substances in combination-though there are clues in the form of DNA damage, hormone disruptions, loss of sperm quality, the risk of cancer.…”

The Ethical Issues in Uranium Mining Research in the Navajo Nation

“…Adopting a burden of proof that ensures safety offers a good approach to risk analysis, a better scale to assess the quality of environment that places more value to public good as well as environmental good. Considering the inadequacies in assessing risk, the European Commission has initiated discussions on how qualitative aspects such as ethical values, animal welfare, quality of life issues, socioeconomic considerations, and sustainability can be incorporated (European Comission, 2003;Grandjean, 2005). Winkler (1996) suggests that our ethical evaluation be domain specific, historically situated, and socially contextualized moral reasoning, and that it include our basic social patterns of resource use and consumption, and our fundamental moral attitudes towards future generations, other animals, and the natural world as a whole, and that we have a clear, ordered, and widely shared conception of the primary social good.…”

Opening the research agenda for selection of hot spots for human biomonitoring research in Belgium: a participatory research project

“…Others may see this though as a classic example of a traditional expert reflex aiming at what is technically and methodologically feasible from the perspective of traditional research standards, arguing that from a problem solving perspective in focussing on complex reality a different turn might have been taken. Internationally recognized experts such as Philippe Grandjean [23,24] and David Gee [25] challenge traditional reductionist approaches as well as the yardstick of perfect information and strict statistical standards with respect to environment and health research. Moreover, even in more traditional hotspot cases foreseen and unforeseen complexities will occur, challenging choices based on arguments with respect to research attainability and effectiveness.…”