An be made after the application of core science.

An
analysis of the controversy between opposing group of scientists and the
European Commission over the proposed regulatory policy on endocrine disrupting
chemicals (EDCs) reveals that scientific and non-scientific issues have been conflated
(Dietrich et al., 2013). The disagreement focuses on how scientists should
maintain their objectivity when informing the decision makers.

 

The
disagreement by both parties on the notion that evidence of the toxicity of
EDCs in animals (e.g. rats) is relevant to humans can only be resolved with the
existence of a proper standard of scientific evidence which regulatory bodies
can use to draw policy-relevant conclusions. Due to ethical barriers, it would
be impracticable to test the toxic effects of EDCs on humans. Therefore, the
lack of scientific certainty would force regulatory bodies to apply the
precautionary principle which uses judgement of values to finalize regulatory
decisions to protect the environment and public health. Historically different
standards of evidence have been applied depending on the level of potential
public risk (Bergman et al., 2013). However, Dietrich et al., (2013) states the
proposition of value by suggesting that toxic regulators should always adhere
to the same standard of proof and policies should be made after the application
of core science.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

In
addition, Gore et al. (2013) opposes the notion by Dietrich et al. (2013) on
existence of threshold on adverse effects of EDC by arguing that there is no scientific
proof to support the existence of threshold. Gore et al. (2013) further argues
that EDC effects have no threshold as it has historically been widely practiced
by regulatory bodies and should be adopted in regulating EDCs. However, the notion
of existence of threshold or no threshold on EDC is value-laden because there
is no explicit definition of how much scientific evidence is needed to
formulate a policy based on threshold hypothesis (Elliot & Resnik, 2014). Furthermore,
it is unethical to test the wide range of adverse effects on humans; this
creates an uncertainty in EDC risk assessment due to lack of data. There ought
to be an accepted definition of endocrine systems, and adverse effects that
characterizes the significance and response to chemical exposure on humans and
other environmental challenges before passing regulatory decisions (Dietrich et
al., 2013).

 

In
summary, implicit values are crucial in making science based policies and regulations;
hence, the incorporation of scientists from different stakeholder groups on
government advisory bodies would help clarify judgement on implicit values in
science to provide democratic decision making (Gore et al., 2013). This constructive
guideline would help in developing a consistent and unbiased transparent
criterion for the systemic review of EDC to communicate scientific findings in
a manner that promotes objectivity and public trust rather than a biased decision
that favors those who benefit from the policy (mostly the industries). Having
considered this, scientists should make their works publicly explicit to inform
the public as they can get a wide range of reasonable interpretations, limitations,
and policy options from scientific interpretations (Elliot & Resnik, 2014).

x

Hi!
I'm Joan!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out