Inertia in science is a major hurdle, as the documentation of neurotoxicity builds only gradually. Scientific tradition demands verification and replication before reaching firm conclusions. Worse, vested interest have explored this inertia by demanding proof and by raising doubt about scientific documentation. Meanwhile, more than a generation of children have suffered chemical brain drain, while the evidence was debated and no decision reached. These adverse effects could have been prevented. However, in a contentious environment, where conflicting interests abound, scientists tend to hedge their conclusions in soft language in an attempt to justify a balanced position. Often, existing uncertainties are interpreted as a demand for more research, from which the researchers themselves may benefit, and preventive action is then postponed. The picture is muddled by unrecognized or unreported biases and by the influence of vested interests that have manipulated or manufactured doubt and uncertainty.
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.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.