Abstract
The rapidly growing importance and impact of technology have made it necessary to regulate technological development in order to maximize its advantages while controlling its possible negative effects on human health and the natural environment. Scientific research has become a fundamental tool for the governance of technology. It provides knowledge about (a) the positive and negative impacts of technology and (b) the best means (public policy, regulation, etc.) for maximizing the desired effects of technology while minimizing the undesired consequences, as well as (c) monitoring regulated technologies (in order to establish the effects of regulation itself and evaluate its efficacy). Since the inception of technology regulation, its development and application have been accompanied by debate and even controversy about the importance and role of scientific knowledge in regulatory decision making. Two of the most relevant questions are: (1) what function, if any, does scientific knowledge have in regulatory data generation and decisions, and (2) whether and under what circumstances could regulatory science be considered a new type of science, distinct from (traditional) academic science. In this chapter, we will analyze these questions via two case studies, one on risk assessment (toxic substances) and the other on benefit assessment (functional foods). As our analysis shows, it is justified (while at the same time, inevitable) to take into account the ultimate goal of regulatory science, namely that of facilitating regulatory decision making, as well as the social and environmental consequences of uncertainty and inductive errors, in the resolution of methodological controversies in this sphere.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
This is due to the sources of information. These are mostly bioassays (research on animal models) and epidemiological data (real exposure situations, but with different levels of exposure as compared to the desired data, including the effects of industrial accidents, exposure to other, similar substances, etc.).
- 2.
RCTs are human intervention studies based on subdividing the sample by way of a random process into an experimental group (members receive the substance under test) and a control group (members receive a placebo).
References
Aggett, P. (2012). Dose-response relationships in multifunctional food design: Assembling the evidence. International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition, 63(S1), 37–42.
Bagchi, D. (Ed.). (2014). Neutraceuticals and functional food regulations in the United States and around the world. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft. Frankfurt A.M.: Suhrkamp.
Biesalski, H. K., et al. (2011). 26th Hohenheim consensus conference, September 11, 2010 Scientific substantiation of health claims: Evidence-based nutrition. Nutrition, 27(10 Suppl), S1–20.
Bipartisan Policy Center. (2009). Improving the use of science in regulatory policy. http://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/BPC%20Science%20Report%20fnl.pdf
Blumberg, J., Heaney, R., Huncharek, M., Scholl, T., Stampfer, M., Vieth, R., et al. (2010). Evidence-based criteria in the nutritional context. Nutrition Review, 68, 478–484.
Cranor, C. (1993). Regulating toxic substances. New York: Island Press.
Cranor, C. (1995). The social benefits of expedited risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 15, 353–358.
Cranor, C. (2008). Toxic torts: Science, law, and the possibility of justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dickson, D. (1988). The new politics of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 67, 559–579.
Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Elliott, K. (2011). Is a little pollution good for you? Incorporating societal values in environmental research. New York: Oxford University Press.
European Parliament and Council. (2006a). Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of 18/12/2006, concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. Official Journal of the European Communities, L.136, 3–280.
European Parliament and Council. (2006b). Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. Official Journal of the European Union, L.404, 9–25.
Gibb, J. (1997). Epidemiology and cancer risk assessment. In V. Molak (Ed.), Fundamentals of risk analysis and risk management (pp. 23–31). Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.
Gregori, D., & Gafare, C. (2012). Multifunctional food: Medical evidence and methodological notes on substantiating health claims? International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 63(S1), 29–36.
Haack, S. (2014). Evidence matters. Science, proof, and truth in the law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., & Wajcman, J. (2008). The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Heaney, R. (2008). Nutrients, endpoints, and the problem of proof. Journal of Nutrition, 138, 1591–1595.
Hobbs, J., Stavroula, M., Sogah, E., & Yeung, M. (2014). Regulating health foods. Policy challenges and consumer conundrums. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar.
IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2015). IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk to humans. Lyon: World Health Organization.
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch. Science advisers as policy makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jordana, J., & Levi-Faur, D. (Eds.). (2004). The politics of regulation. Institutions and regulatory reforms for the age of governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Levidow, L., & Carr, S. (2007). Europeanising advisory expertise: The role of “independent, objective and transparent” scientific advice in agri-biotech regulation. Environment and Planning C, 26, 880–895.
López Cerezo, J. A., & Luján, J. L. (2000). Ciencia y política del riesgo. Madrid: Alianza.
López Cerezo, J. A., & Luján, J. L. (2012). Ciencia y valores en la regulación del cambio tecnológico. In E. Aibar, M. A. Quintanilla, & M.A. (Eds.), Ciencia, tecnología y sociedad. Enciclopedia Iberoamericana de Filosofía (pp. 277–302). Madrid: Trotta.
López Cerezo, J. A., & Luján, J. L. (2013). A philosophical approach to the nature of risk. In F. Lan, F. G. Wallner, & A. Schulz (Eds.), Concepts of a culturally guided philosophy of science: Contributions from philosophy, medicine and science of psychotherapy (pp. 161–179). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.
López Cerezo, J. A., Méndez, J. A., & Todt, O. (1998). Participación pública en política tecnológica: problemas y perspectivas. Arbor, 159, 279–308.
Luján, J. L., & Briggle, A. (2005). Environmental regulation. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia on science, technology and ethics (pp. 670–676). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
Luján, J. L., & López Cerezo, J. A. (2004). De la promoción a la regulación. El conocimiento científico en las políticas públicas de ciencia y tecnología. In J. L. Luján & J. Echeverría (Eds.), Gobernar los riesgos. Ciencia y valores en la sociedad del riesgo (pp. 75–98). Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
Luján, J. L., & Moreno, L. (1996). El cambio tecnológico en las ciencias sociales: el estado de la cuestión. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 74, 127–161.
Luján, J. L., & Todt, O. (2000). Ciencia, tecnología y nuevos movimientos sociales. In M. Medina & T. Kwiatowska (Eds.), Ciencia, tecnología/naturaleza, cultura en el siglo XXI (pp. 95–109). Anthropos: Barcelona.
Luján, J. L., & Todt, O. (2008). Ciencia precautoria y la “fabricación de incertidumbre”. Theoria, 23, 307–317.
Luján, J. L., & Todt, O. (2012). Precaution: A taxonomy. Social Studies of Science, 42(1), 143–157.
Luján, J. L., & Todt, O. (2015). The role of values in methodological controversies: The case of risk assessment. Philosophia Scientiae, 19, 45–56.
Mayo, D. G. (1991). Sociological versus metascientific views of risk assessment. In D. G. Mayo & R. D. Hollander (Eds.), Acceptable evidence: Science and values in risk management (pp. 249–279). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt is our product. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rescher, N. (1983). Risk: A philosophical introduction to the theory of risk evaluation and management. Langham: University Press of America.
Richardson, D. (2012). Preparing dossiers: Strength of the evidence and problems of proof. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 71, 127–140.
Sarewitz, D. (1996). Frontiers of illusion: Science, technology, and the politics of progress. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (1994). Ethics of scientific research. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (2004). Using metascience to improve dose-response curves in biology: Better policy through better science. Philosophy of Science, 71, 1026–1037.
Steel, D. (2008). Across the boundaries. Extrapolation in biology and social science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steel, D. (2010). Epistemic values and the argument from inductive risk. Philosophy of Science, 77, 14–34.
Steel, D. (2011). Extrapolation, uncertainty factors, and the precautionary principle. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 42, 356–364.
Sunstein, C. (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sunstein, C. (2014). Valuing life. Humanizing the regulatory state. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tickner, J. (1999). A map toward precautionary decision making. In C. Raffensberger & J. Tickner (Eds.), Protecting public health and the environment. Implementing the precautionary principle (pp. 162–186). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Tijhuis, M. J., de Jong, N., Pohjola, M., Gunnlaugsdóttir, H., et al. (2012). State of the art in benefit-risk analysis: Food and nutrition. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50, 5–25.
Todt, O. (2011). The limits of policy: Public acceptance and the reform of science and technology governance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79, 902–909.
Todt, O., & Luján, J. L. (2008). A new social contract for technology? – On the policy dynamics of uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research, 11, 509–523.
Todt, O., & Luján, J. L. (2011). Dinámica de los conceptos reguladores. Factores cognitivos y no cognitivos en el contexto de la toma de decisiones sobre riesgos tecnológicos. Éndoxa, 27, 317–336.
Todt, O., & Luján, J. L. (2014a). Analyzing precautionary regulation: Do precaution, science and innovation go together? Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 34, 2163–2173.
Todt, O., & Luján, J. L. (2014b). Values and decisions: Cognitive and non-cognitive values in knowledge generation and decision making. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 39, 720–743.
Todt, O., & Luján, J. L. (2015a). Non-cognitive values and methodological learning in the decision-oriented sciences. Foundations of Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-015-9482-3.
Todt, O., & Luján, J. L. (2015b). The role of epistemic policies in regulatory science: Scientific substantiation of health claims in the European Union. Journal of Risk Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1100661.
Todt, O., & Luján, J. L. (2016). ¿Bueno para la salud? Un análisis de los requisitos de sustanciación científica en la regulación europea de las declaraciones de salud. Salud Pública de México, 58 (in press).
Todt, O., Rodríguez Alcázar, J., & Luján, J. L. (2010). Practical values and uncertainty in regulatory decision making. Social Epistemology, 24, 349–362.
Vallverdú, J. (2005). La difícil consecución de la evidencia científica: La evaluación de riesgos de la sacarina. Redes, 11(21), 77–118.
van der Meulen, B. (Ed.). (2014). EU Food Law handbook. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Wandall, B. (2004). Values in science and risk assessment. Toxicology Letters, 152, 265–272.
Acknowledgments
This study has received support from the Spanish Government’s State Secretariat for Research, Development and Innovation (research projects: La evaluación de beneficios como ciencia reguladora [FFI2013-42154-P], Estandáres de prueba y elecciones metodológicas en la fundamentación científica de las declaraciones de salud [FFI2017-83543-P]) and European Commission ERDF funds.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Luis Luján, J., Todt, O. (2018). Regulatory Science: Between Technology and Society. In: Laspra, B., López Cerezo, J. (eds) Spanish Philosophy of Technology. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71958-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71958-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71957-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71958-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)