Objectivity and ethics in environmental health science.

Abstract

During the past several decades, philosophers of science and scientists themselves have become increasingly aware of the complex ways in which scientific knowledge is shaped by its social context. This awareness has called into question traditional notions of objectivity. Working scientists need an understanding of their own practice that avoids the naïve myth that science can become objective by avoiding social influences as well as the reductionist view that its content is determined simply by economic interests. A nuanced perspective on this process can improve research ethics and increase the capacity of science to contribute to equitable public policy, especially in areas such as environmental and occupational health, which have direct implications for profits, regulation, legal responsibility, and social justice. I discuss research into health effects of the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA, as an example of how scientific explanations are shaped by social concepts, norms, and preconceptions. I describe how a scientific practice that developed under the influence of medical and nuclear physics interacted with observations made by exposed community members to affect research questions, the interpretation of evidence, inferences about biological mechanisms in disease causation, and the use of evidence in litigation. By considering the history and philosophy of their disciplines, practicing researchers can increase the rigor, objectivity, and social responsibility of environmental health science.

Resolving the qualitative-quantitative debate in healthcare research

“…Scholars Walsham (1993) and Reed (2008) define interprettivism as description, which posits that interpretive methods of research start from the position that our knowledge of reality, including the domain of human action, is a social construction by human actors and that this applies equally to researchers (Thorne et al, 1997;Wing, 2003). Phenomena are not based on objective truth, but are socially constructed (Lee, 1992;Silverman, 2000Silverman, , 2001Moriarty, 2011).…”

“…Positivism assumes that truths can be explained and predicted; and its epistemological belief in objectivity is guided by the quantitative methodology (Wing, 2003;Rambaree, 2007;Moriarty, 2011).…”

Conceptual analysis and special-interest science: toxicology and the case of Edward Calabrese

“…That is, they have no random assignment of subjects to different exposure conditions, no random assignment to control or study groups, and so on. As a consequence, when these purely observational human studies employ any classical statistical-significance tests, their conclusions have no strict interpretability and reliability because of the lack of randomness (Greenland 1990;Rothman 1990;Wing 2003;Shrader-Frechette 2008e). However, because non-human animals may be subjected to known experimental harms, and because these studies may meet conditions of randomization, control of confounders, and so on, the experimental animal studies are more statistically robust than, and typically rely on better data and conclusions than, the observational human studies.…”

Ethical issues in environmental health research.

“…However, whether or not environmental health researchers advocate such community-based participatory methods, it is clear that the decision to examine one locality and not another has normative significance. These decisions reflect moral judgments that the concerns of a particular group of individuals are significant enough to warrant further investigation (Wing 2003). Hence, an investigator's choice to study a particular locality or purported Environmental health research encompasses a wide range of investigational topics, study designs, and empirical methodologies.…”