Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:27:07.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Novel Account of Scientific Anomaly: Help for the Dispute over Low-Dose Biochemical Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Kevin C. Elliott
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The biological effects of low doses of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals are currently a matter of significant scientific controversy. This paper argues that philosophers of science can contribute to alleviating this controversy by examining it with the aid of a novel account of scientific anomaly. Specifically, analysis of contemporary research on chemical hormesis (i.e., alleged beneficial biological effects produced by low doses of substances that are harmful at higher doses) suggests that scientists may initially describe anomalous phenomena in terms of multiple distinct “characterizations,” each of which is compatible with current empirical evidence. By focusing attention on this feature of scientific anomalies, philosophers of science can alleviate the controversy over low-dose chemical effects in at least two ways: (1) they can pinpoint the significant ways in which particular characterizations frame the controversy, and (2) they can identify the methodological value judgments at stake in researchers’ choice of characterizations.

Type
Can Philosophy Offer Help in Resolving Contemporary Biological Controversies?
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 73 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. Edited by Miriam Solomon , December 2006 , pp. 790 - 802
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

I would like to thank Kristin Shrader-Frechette for very helpful input on earlier versions of this paper.

References

Ashford, Nicholas, and Miller, Claudia (1998), Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bogen, J., and Woodward, James (1988), “Saving the Phenomena,” Philosophical Review 97:303–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridgman, P. W. (1927), The Logic of Modern Physics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Edward (1999), “Evidence That Hormesis Represents an ‘Overcompensation’ Response to a Disruption in Homeostasis,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 42:135–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabrese, Edward, and Baldwin, Linda (1998), Chemical Hormesis: Scientific Foundations. College Station, TX: Institute for the Advancement of Chemical Technology.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Edward, and Baldwin, Linda (2000), “Tales of Two Similar Hypotheses: The Rise and Fall of Chemical and Radiation Hormesis,” Human and Experimental Toxicology 19:85–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calabrese, Edward, and Baldwin, Linda (2002), “Defining Hormesis,” Human and Experimental Toxicology 21:91–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calabrese, Edward, and Baldwin, Linda (2003), “Toxicology Rethinks Its Central Belief,” Nature 421:691–692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colborn, Theo, Dumanoski, Diane, and Myers, J. P. (1996), Our Stolen Future. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Collins, Harry, and Evans, R. (2002), “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience,” Social Studies of Science 32:235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley (1991), Theory Change in Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, J. Michael, and Svendsgaard, David (1990), “U-Shaped Dose-Response Curves: Their Occurrence and Implications for Risk Assessment,” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 30:71–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, Kevin (2000a), “A Case for Caution: An Evaluation of Calabrese and Baldwin’s Studies of Chemical Hormesis,” Risk: Health, Safety, and Environment 11:177–196.Google Scholar
Elliott, Kevin (2000b), “Conceptual Clarification and Policy-Related Science: The Case of Chemical Hormesis,” Perspectives on Science 8:346–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin (2004a), “Error as Means to Discovery,” Philosophy of Science 71:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin (2004b), Scientific Anomaly and Biological Effects of Low-Dose Chemicals. Ph.D. dissertation. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Gerber, Linda M., Williams, George C., and Gray, Sandra J. (1999), “The Nutrient-Toxin Dosage Continuum in Human Evolution and Modern Health,” Quarterly Review of Biology 74:273–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gooding, David (1990), Experiment and the Making of Meaning: Human Agency in Scientific Observation and Experiment. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, T., and Doyle, J. (1987), “Drinking and Mortality: The Albany Study,” American Journal of Epidemiology 125:263–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hacking, Ian (1988), “On the Stability of the Laboratory Sciences,” Journal of Philosophy 85:507–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrick, C., and Sarewitz, Daniel (2000), “Ex Post Evaluation: A More Effective Role for Scientific Assessments in Environmental Policy,” Science, Technology, and Human Values 25:309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonas, W. (2001), “A Critique of ‘The Scientific Foundations of Hormesis,’” Critical Reviews in Toxicology 31:625–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, J. (2003), “Sipping from a Poisoned Chalice,” Science 302 (October 17): 376–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, Thomas (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre (1970), “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 91–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1977), Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Machamer, Peter, Darden, Lindley, and Craver, Carl (2000), “Thinking about Mechanisms,” Philosophy of Science 67:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, Deborah (1996), Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, Deborah, and Spanos, Aris (2006), “Philosophers of Science and Statistical Controversies in Ecological Testing,” Philosophy of Science 73 (5), in this issue.Google Scholar
Nickles, Thomas (1997), “A Multi-pass Conception of Scientific Inquiry,” Danish Yearbook of Philosophy 32:11–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Sarewitz, Daniel (2000), “Science and Environmental Policy: An Excess of Objectivity,” in Frodeman, Robert (ed.), Earth Matters: The Earth Sciences, Philosophy, and the Claims of Community. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 79–98.Google Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth (1993), Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stebbing, A. R. D. (1998), “A Theory for Growth Hormesis,” Mutation Research 403:249–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinle, Friedrich (1997), “Entering New Fields: Exploratory Uses of Experimentation,” Philosophy of Science 64 (supplement): S65–S74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vichi, P., and Tritton, T. (1989), “Stimulation of Growth in Human and Murine Cells by Adriamycin,” Cancer Research 49:2679–2682.Google ScholarPubMed
Wimsatt, William (1987), “False Models as Means to Truer Theories,” in Nitecki, Matthew and Hoffman, Antoni (eds.), Neutral Models in Biology. New York: Oxford University Press, 23–55.Google Scholar
Woodward, James (2000), “Data, Phenomena, and Reliability,” Philosophy of Science 67:S163–S179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar