Suchergebnisse

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.