Carcinogenic Risk Assessment in the United States and Great Britain: The Case of Aldrin/Dieldrin

The question is posed: why were two pesticides, Aldrin and Dieldrin, judged to be carcinogenic in the US but not in Britain when the same evidence was available to the public authorities in both countries? No single cause is identified; rather, a variety of mutually reinforcing factors account for the decisions by the two public authorities: the uncertainty of the scientific evidence; the application of different standards of carcinogenicity associated with different social and scientific commitments; the government agencies with primary responsibility for the decisions; the way in which pesticides are regulated; and several cultural and economic considerations. The case study illustrates the analytical inadequacy of the fact-value distinction, and the tendency of decision-makers to justify their decisions by recourse to science. It also supports the view that the traditional relationship between science and public policy is being redefined in complex, technical areas of decision-making like risk assessment.

[1]  T. Maugh Chemical carcinogens: the scientific basis for regulation. , 1978, Science.

[2]  Ron Johnston,et al.  The Development of Specialties in Industrialised Science , 1977 .

[3]  R. Rettig Cancer Crusade: The Story of the National Cancer Act of 1971 , 1977 .

[4]  U. Saffiotti Editorial: Comments on the scientific basis for the "Delaney Clause". , 1973, Preventive medicine.

[5]  Weaver Ph Regulation, social policy, and class conflict. , 1978 .

[6]  John B. Shoven,et al.  I , Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal.

[7]  J. Davies The Politics of Pollution , 1975 .

[8]  D. E. Stevenson,et al.  The toxicology of dieldrin (HEOD). I. Long-term oral toxicity studies in mice. , 1973, Food and cosmetics toxicology.

[9]  J. M. Barnes,et al.  Carcinogenic hazards from pesticide residues. , 1966, Residue reviews.

[10]  O. Fitzhugh,et al.  Tumorigenic potential of aldrin and dieldrin for mice. , 1962, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[11]  R. Johnston,et al.  The Role of Cognitive and Occupational Differentiation in Scientific Controversies , 1976 .

[12]  H. Nowotny SCIENTIFIC PURITY AND NUCLEAR DANGER The Case of Risk-Assessment , 1977 .

[13]  Stuart S. Blume Toward a political sociology of science , 1974 .

[14]  P. Weaver Regulation, social policy, and class conflict. , 1978, The Public interest.

[15]  A. Rip,et al.  Science Policy Advisory Councils in France, The Netherlands and the United States, 1957-77 , 1979, Social studies of science.