Science and regulation: current impasse and future solutions.
We reflect on four articles that examine the Supreme Court's Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc decision and efforts by private interests to derail public health and environmental regulations. The articles' authors make the case that the impact of Daubert and related decisions in court settings pale by comparison to the threat that Daubert-like thinking poses in the regulatory arena. A growing number of companies, however, have made substantial changes in practice and in culture by embracing a philosophy where health and environment are priorities. Mechanisms could be established to encourage firms to pledge to use science to meet public health and environmental goals, as well as channel the ingenuity of the private sector towards ecological, economical, and equitable systems of production.
Hoppin
Polly J
PJ
Environmental Health Initiative of the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, School of Health and Environment, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, 600 Suffolk St., 5th floor, Lowell, MA 01854, USA. phoppin@envhealth.net
Clapp
Richard
R
D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D033161:Government Regulation; D006801:Humans; D011634:Public Health / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011640:Public Policy; D012586:Science / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000379:methods; D035521:Supreme Court Decisions; D014481:United States