Regulatory Toxicology in Controversy
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 5338322 |
|---|---|
| Authors | David Demortain (0000-0001-9544-7507, INRA, Sciences en Société et IFRIS, Champs-sur-Marne, France, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 38 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | 727-748 |
| Publication date | 2013-11-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Science Technology & Human Values (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0162-2439 • E-ISSN: 1552-8251 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0162243913490201 |
| OpenAlex | W2120637324 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 16 |
| References cited | 38 |
This article examines the way in which public controversies affect regulatory science. It describes the controversy that unfolded in Europe around the use of the ninety-day rat-feeding tests for the risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) plants. This type of test had been criticized for almost two decades by toxicologists, nongovernmental organizations, and industry alike for its inability to capture the specific health effects of GM plants. But GM risk assessment experts showed great reluctance to move toward a more systematic use of other tests, such as chronic two-year studies or toxicogenomic techniques, and made sure that official guidance continues to recommend the use of the ninety-day rat-feeding study. The article shows that these tactics of standardization are a defining feature of regulatory science, and a resource for toxicity experts to defend their authority and credibility against competing expertises that arise during controversies
Credibility · Economics · Engineering ethics · Management · Political science · Public relations · Risk assessment · Scientific integrity · Standardization · Animal testing and alternatives · Computer Science · CRISPR and Genetic Engineering · Engineering · Genetically Modified Organisms Research · Law
Effets politiques du calcul, effets calculatoires de l’action publique
Comment faire preuve en régime de controverse ? Retour sur l’histoire de l’évaluation des OGM
Contrasting norms on the use of evidence in risk assessment
Quality of epidemiological studies
Epistemological depth in a GM crops controversy
Mistrust of the black box
Toxic Ignorance. How Regulatory Procedures and Industrial Knowledge Jeopardise the Risk Assessment of Chemicals
How scientists become experts—or don’t
Toxicity as process
Expertise, Regulatory Science and the Evaluation of Technology and Risk
Une société (de l’analyse) du risque
Derrière le spectre des « conflits d’intérêts » généralisés. Les agences face aux défis de l’évaluation réglementaire de produits
Political values in independent agencies
Defects in Doubt Manufacturing
A mechanistic interpretation, if possible
Science réglementaire
The fifth branch
Scientists and the Regulation of Risk
Reputation and Power
The System of Professions
Mandated Science
Trust in Numbers
Food additive controls
Quantification and the Accounting Ideal in Science
Scientific Method and Expert Witnessing
Three Models of Policymaking
Procedural choices in regulatory science
Regulatory science—Towards a sociological framework
GM crops on trial
Scientific Imaginaries and Ethical Plateaus in Contemporary U.S. Toxicology
Uncertainty as Symbolic Action in Disputes Among Experts
Deficits, Expectations and Paradigms in British and American Drug Safety Assessments
Scientists and the Acid Rain Policy in Canada and the United States
"Recasting "Substantial Equivalence
Regulatory objectivity and the generation and management of evidence in medicine
Building an Interdiscipline
| Unique citing works | 16 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,45 |
| Citation span | 2015 - 2025 (11) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 14 |