FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2045794328> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2045794328 abstract "The topic dealt with in this book is mandated science which means applied science brought to bear on practical issues such as risk assessment. Most readers of the Journal of Radiological Protection would likely consider risk assessment to be objective and value free, but it is just this feature that the authors of this engaging book set about to undermine. In short, the notion that mandated science provides neutral, value-free advice is often mistaken, as is illustrated by a detailed consideration of the alachlor controversy in Canada. Alachlor is a chemical herbicide manufactured by Monsanto and used to control weeds in fields planted with corn and soya beans. Prior to being made commercially available, chemicals such as alachlor require registration by Agriculture Canada. The issue of their safety is dealt with by the Canadian Department of Health and Welfare. Establishing the safety of chemicals like alachlor requires a dose-response curve for the induction of tumours in animal studies, as well as an assessment of the exposures to the workers who will be handling these chemicals during their routine work activities. In the mid-80s, the Canadian government concluded that Alachlor posed too high a risk of cancer. Monsanto appealed this decision, and the Alachlor Review Board was convened to consider the appeal during 1986 - 87. Although the Review Board concluded that alachlor was not a risky product, and should be registered to permit its legal sale in Canada, this recommendation by the Board was rejected by the Minister. As a consequence of this government decision, alachlor is no longer commercially available in Canada. Of particular interest were the large differences between the risks of alachlor as determined by the manufacturer (Monsanto) as compared to those of the Department of Health and Welfare. Based on the same empirical data, the risk estimates made by the commercial company and the health authorities disagreed due to different assumptions made about the exposure to agricultural workers. The most intriguing conclusion of this study, however, is that these differences arose from the fact that the two sides held different value perspectives. Included in this category were issues such as the importance of technology, the relative importance of human health and corporate profits, their political philosophy (e.g. liberalism) as well as the nature of rationality itself. In the case of alachlor, conflicting risk estimates differed by as much as six orders of magnitude because of different assumptions made about issues such as whether the workers would be using protective clothing (gloves) and the exposure measurement methodology (patch tests versus biomonitoring). These issues may be considered to be conditionally or inherently normative and value laden decisions were required before any full blown risk estimate could be made. Retreat by the assessors to simply providing a range of risks which differed by would have rendered any assessment of no practical value for any regulatory purpose. This key facet of risk assessment can be illustrated by looking at the issue of protective clothing, where the question is whether it should be assumed that the worker will wear protective gloves. Not surprisingly, Monsanto assumed workers would be wearing such gloves, an approach which minimised the risk to the company's economic freedom and financial position. Since Health and Welfare has the mandate of health protection, their choice was that workers would not wear gloves. The glove issue was not purely factual but normative; it contrasted the fairness to the company (why should Monsanto be penalised if workers did not obey the instructions provided) versus health (Health and Welfare noted that gloves were in fact generally not worn by workers). The point that the authors are making is that the risk assessment of alachlor is not merely an empirical and factual exercise. When computing risk estimates in the real world, there are usually uncertainties in the underlying science. For example, it is not clear that the induction of tumours in a rat following exposure to a chemical will also result in tumours to humans at similar exposure levels. It is the manner of dealing with these types of scientific (and other) uncertainties that can cause real difficulties in a risk assessment exercise. Proponents of risk assessment are frequently mistaken when they make claims of objectivity. In the alachlor controversy, the scientific mindset represented by the conclusion of the review Board was in reality the hegemony of one set of values dressed up to appear value neutral and scientifically objective. It is important to emphasise that the authors are not denying the need for good science in risk assessment, but that such an exercise involves much more than just establishing `the facts'. The implications of this study are that disagreements about issues such as nuclear power are often normative in nature and not purely factual. A corollary is that any satisfactory resolution of such debates needs to focus on the normative aspects. It is a mistake to pretend that a search for objective `facts' about the risks is likely to resolve such differences and although there may be differences of fact which require attention, these are likely to be minor in comparison to the normative issues. If the case the authors are making were to be generally accepted, then many in the risk assessment business would need to review their methodology and identify the points at which their expertise runs out and value predilections take over. The issue of risk assessment is of major significance for all who work in the field of radiological protection. The arguments and conclusions presented in this book may be disturbing to many health physicists who believe their role in risk assessment to be neutral and purely objective. In this reviewer's opinion, the authors have made a substantive case that risk assessment per se is a much more complex business than hitherto believed to be the case. It appears that risk assessment, as well as any subsequent issues of the acceptability of any risks, impinge on the political realm where conflicting societal demands need to be resolved. The notion that the issue of risk assessment can be resolved by invoking a neutral and objective `algorithm' to yield a rational (and therefore acceptable) answer is apparently misguided. The arguments in this book are clearly presented and the topic is of obvious importance for the health physics profession. If the authors' conclusions on this important topic were to be generally accepted, then those involved with risk assessment would face an important professional choice. Risk assessors could stay out of normative issues and offer watered down versions emphasising uncertainties and how the risk depends on underlying assumptions. Whether such assessments would be of any practical benefit is clearly problematical. Any submission of a comprehensive risk assessment, on the other hand, would need to recognise that these also express value commitments. Obviously such values could not be claimed to be supported by any underlying scientific expertise. Whether one agrees or disagrees with these conclusions, reading this book is an important step towards a deeper understanding of the fundamental issues unearthed by this meticulous scrutiny of the alachlor controversy." @default.
• W2045794328 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2045794328 creator A5018505534 @default.
• W2045794328 date "1996-06-01" @default.
• W2045794328 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2045794328 title "Value Assumptions in Risk Assessment: A Case Study of the Alachlor Controversy" @default.
• W2045794328 doi "https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/16/2/022" @default.
• W2045794328 hasPublicationYear "1996" @default.
• W2045794328 type Work @default.
• W2045794328 sameAs 2045794328 @default.
• W2045794328 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2045794328 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2045794328 hasAuthorship W2045794328A5018505534 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConcept C112930515 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConcept C12174686 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConcept C161176658 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConcept C2779595939 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConcept C2780359760 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConcept C38652104 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConcept C6557445 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConceptScore W2045794328C105795698 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConceptScore W2045794328C112930515 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConceptScore W2045794328C12174686 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConceptScore W2045794328C161176658 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConceptScore W2045794328C2776291640 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConceptScore W2045794328C2779595939 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConceptScore W2045794328C2780359760 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConceptScore W2045794328C33923547 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConceptScore W2045794328C38652104 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConceptScore W2045794328C39432304 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConceptScore W2045794328C41008148 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConceptScore W2045794328C6557445 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConceptScore W2045794328C71924100 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConceptScore W2045794328C86803240 @default.
• W2045794328 hasConceptScore W2045794328C99454951 @default.
• W2045794328 hasLocation W20457943281 @default.
• W2045794328 hasOpenAccess W2045794328 @default.
• W2045794328 hasPrimaryLocation W20457943281 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W12739909 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W137545309 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W144849037 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W1492435894 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W1989569251 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W2030438231 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W2050352289 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W20509621 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W2085867408 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W2110318213 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W2138051708 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W2145516427 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W2162404015 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W2172605671 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W2282449083 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W2288981202 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W2514134814 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W2633769834 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W3121544611 @default.
• W2045794328 hasRelatedWork W2346105641 @default.
• W2045794328 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2045794328 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2045794328 magId "2045794328" @default.
• W2045794328 workType "article" @default.