Regulatory parallels to Daubert: stakeholder influence, "sound science," and the delayed adoption of health-protective standards.
There is broad agreement that regulatory decisions should be based on evidence. But interested parties have used the "sound science" mantle to demand extended research, analysis, and review of evidence for the sole purpose of delaying health-protective regulation. This historical review shows how the forces behind the "sound science" reasoning leading to the Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc decision on science in the courtroom have operated in parallel in environmental regulation.Like Daubert, certain "sound science" regulatory tools can be used to improve decision quality. However, these tools can also challenge the federal government's ability to safeguard the public's health and well-being. Most recently, political tampering with science provides the foundation for some policymakers to disregard science completely in the environmental regulatory process.
Neff
Roni A
RA
Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe St., Room E6636, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Goldman
Lynn R
LR
D004147:Dioxins / Q000633:toxicity; D004345:Drug Industry / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D033161:Government Regulation; D006801:Humans; D016365:Liability, Legal; D011634:Public Health / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011640:Public Policy; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012586:Science / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000379:methods; D035521:Supreme Court Decisions
D004147:Dioxins