The effects of exposure to "synthetic" chemicals on human health: a review.
This article examines how scientists use human, animal, and bacterial evidence to develop policy recommendations about the health consequences of human exposure to modern chemicals. Human evidence is limited because many epidemiological studies are contaminated with selection effects or unobserved heterogeneity. Changes in the aggregate incidence of morbidity (such as cancer) in the population over time are not a substitute for the lack of good individual-level data because incidence data are contaminated by the medicalization of cancer. Animal tests are also problematic because the expense of conducting experiments leads researchers to use only enough animals to allow detection of large differences in cancer incidence between controls and experimental animals that can only arise if the exposure doses are large. Predictions about the cancer incidence that would result in humans at much lower exposure levels, thus, require statistical inferences that implicitly make choices between false positive and false negative inference errors. Policy recommendations about carcinogens, therefore, are as much the product of value choices as "scientific" knowledge.
VanDoren
P M
PM
Political Science Department, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599-3265, USA.
D000826:Animal Testing Alternatives; D000818:Animals; D001419:Bacteria / Q000187:drug effects; D015197:Carcinogenicity Tests; D002274:Carcinogens, Environmental / Q000009:adverse effects; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D015331:Cohort Studies; D004781:Environmental Exposure; D006801:Humans; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000139:chemically induced / Q000401:mortality; D011634:Public Health; D011640:Public Policy; D018570:Risk Assessment; D015262:Xenobiotics / Q000009:adverse effects*
D002274:Carcinogens, Environmental; D015262:Xenobiotics