Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Is a Little Pollution Good for You?Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Kevin Elliott

Print publication date: 2011

Print ISBN-13: 9780199755622

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2011

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755622.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 16 October 2019

Lesson #2

Lesson #2

Diagnosing Deliberation

Chapter:
(p.109) 5 Lesson #2
Source:
Is a Little Pollution Good for You?
Author(s):

Kevin C. Elliott

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755622.003.0005

This chapter explores the last of the options considered in chapter 4 for preventing interest groups' questionable influences on scientific research. It argues that there are normative, substantive, and instrumental reasons for pursuing formal mechanisms for broadly based deliberation to guide the value judgments associated with policy‐relevant science. Nevertheless, because these forums can involve a wide range of mechanisms and strategies for representing affected parties, and because deliberative proceedings have weaknesses as well as strengths, the chapter calls for more careful “diagnosis” of the mechanisms appropriate in response to particular areas of research. It develops a three‐step diagnostic model inspired by the account proposed in the NRC volume Understanding Risk. Applying this diagnostic procedure to the hormesis case, the chapter calls for a mixed deliberative approach. In the near term, it recommends that policy makers examine the hormesis phenomenon in either an existing scientific advisory committee or a special advisory council created to represent the range of important stakeholder perspectives on hormesis. This council could address some of the major judgments identified in Chapter 2, such as prioritizing future areas of research, proposing definitions of key terms under debate, and evaluating the evidence for the generalizability and regulatory implications of hormesis. If the advisory council were to conclude, now or in the future, that the evidence warranted considering regulatory changes in response to hormesis, then a more intensive deliberative proceeding such as a consensus conference might be justified. These formal exercises could serve as a valuable starting point for informal political action by concerned citizens' groups.

Keywords:   deliberation, value judgments, public participation, consent, hormesis, advisory committees, consensus conferences, citizens' juries

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .