Consequences of Non-compliance in Production of Commercial Products
Clifford Chanler, Chanler Law Group, New Canaan, CT 

The Public Trust and Air Quality
Norman Anderson, American Lung Association of Maine, Augusta, ME

Ethics in Technical Publications: How Can the System Identify and Address Scientific Fraud?
Christopher Teaf, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL  

In Defense of the Earth:  Considering the Rationales

Lisa H. Newton, Ph.D., Fairfield University , Fairfield , CT 06824 , Tel: 203-254-4128, Email: lhnewton@mail.fairfield.edu

What’s wrong with pollution?  The rationale for laws forbidding the pollution of soils (or water or air) tends to turn on actual or potential harm to humans, e.g. from cancer caused by carcinogenic substances dumped in the soil.  But then, is a demonstration that no conceivable harm could come to humans from a given instance of use or disposal of waste substances in the soil, sufficient to defeat opposition to such use or disposal?  In the literature of environmental ethics, can we find other rationales that might be deployed in defense of the earth?  What philosophical grounds support these rationales?

Ethical Assessment at the Limits of the Risk Assessment Process: Uncertainty Perchlorate and Societal Consequences

David R. Brown, Program in Applied Ethics, Fairfield University, 1073 North Benson Road, Fairfield, CT 06430, Tel: 203-259-4698, Fax: 203-256-8799
Lisa H. Newton Ph.D., Program in Applied Ethics, Fairfield University, 1073 North Benson Road, Fairfield, CT 06430, Tel: 203-259-4128

Presently the regulatory process is dependent on performance of Quantitative or Qualitative Risk Assessments.   The limitations to each assessment are developed in the discussions of uncertainty.  In the presence of incomplete, conflicting or ambiguous findings the usefulness of a risk assessment as a quantitative regulatory tool begins to fail. This failure is frequently based in the uncertainty of the research studies.  Some procedures such as ecological and epidemiological studies have less statistical power than others. Thus they can increase the uncertainty in the process.

In such cases, the weight of evidence is often applied. Studies with low statistical power tend to magnify the uncertainty in the process.  That limits to usefulness of all of the scientific information in the assessment.  In those cases the usefulness of risk assessment to the protection of public health is compromised.  Examples are found in the arsenic in water literature, the perchlorate in drinking water literature, particulate matter in ambient air literature and several others.

When viewed from an ethical perspective there are consequences to the failure or limitation of public health processes.  Ethical reasoning is based on the development of philosophical principles that began with the Greek civilization and before.  It is that line of reasoning that holds societies together.  Ethical analysis is based on a trilogy of obligations and the structure of theories such as Deontology, Utilitarianism and Ontological Reasoning.  Ethics presumes a systematic and fair process for resolution of issues.  These principles provide a framework for identification actions appropriate when risk assessments are unable to provide quantitative guidance.  The position of waiting to act until absolutely definitive information is found fails to meet the ethical standard of fairness.  However delay and inaction is often the result of emphasis on risk assessment uncertainty. Moreover the delay in the process tends to in appropriately encourage those studies and analysis that increase uncertainty over those that explain the differences.  In the face of increasing uncertainty does one act or does one wait?  The answer to this question will define our society.

Consequences of Non-compliance in Production of Commercial Products

Clifford Chanler, Chanler Law Group, New Canaan, CT      

California's Proposition 65 is one of the first attempts to reduce the health risk from consumer products through labeling.  Enforcement is extended to the general public through a litigation option.  Products that do not meet the levels of exposure that prevents health threats must be have a warning label.  Although commercial products are regulated by the CPSC, toxins have been found in unacceptable levels in many products.  For example, lead was detected in glassware and ceramics that could be used to deliver such low pH liquids as wine.  This would allow the lead component to leach and contaminate the food or drink ingested.  In addition, bottles of cola were found to contain lead concentrations on the decal decorating the bottle causing a potential for hand to mouth exposure.

The consequences of such contamination are to human health primarily and, financially, to the companies selling such a product.  In California, lawsuits are brought against these companies because of stringent laws protecting the consumer.  This talk will examine the cases where such products were found to be defective.

The Public Trust and Air Quality

Norman Anderson, M.S.P.H., American Lung Association of Maine, 122 State Street, Augusta, ME 04330, Tel: 207-621-4059 x109; 1-888-241-6566 x109, Fax: 207-626-2919, Email: nanderson@mainelung.org

As we approach the fortieth anniversary of the Clean Air Act, it is worthwhile to review the basic philosophical underpinnings that place limits on private ownership for the public good. This presentation will examine the Public Trust Doctrine, which dates back to the time of the Emperor Justinian, in relationship to protecting the public from the harmful effects of air pollution. It will focus on issues that have emerged since the 1970 Clean Air Act, such as exposures to environmental tobacco smoke. It will also focus localized situations in which significant exposures can occur in the surrounding population, such as the emerging health threat of outdoor wood boilers. A central concern in all these instances is what the primary responsibility of government should be as the keeper of the public trust.

Ethics in Technical Publications: How Can the System Identify and Address Scientific Fraud?

Christopher M. Teaf, Center for Biomedical & Toxicological Research, Florida State University, 2035 Dirac Dr., Tallahassee, FL, 32310, Tel: 850-644-3453, Fax: 850-574-6704, Email: cteaf@mailer.fsu.edu
Barry L. Johnson, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 2618 Riverglenn Circle, Atlanta, GA, 30338, Tel: 770-451-9411, Fax 770-451-9411, Email: bljradm@aol.com.

Well-publicized events in Norway , South Korea and elsewhere in recent years have refocused the scientific community on historical issues of whether, and how, continued integrity of our technical literature can be assured. Solutions to this thorny problem are neither simple nor certain. Many professional societies in our field have addressed scientific misconduct, and effective responses by the research community will require cooperation of scientific publications worldwide. While no one argues that the practice of scientific fraud is common, recent cases beg attention from editorial boards. The peer review system serves the valuable function of examination and critique by scientists in relevant disciplines, for the purpose of assessing submitted papers prior to publication. Implicit in that process is the fundamental assumption that data are real and that research actually occurred. Typically, the process is “blind” in both directions, with neither author nor reviewer aware of the other’s identity, although some journals permit “author-directed” reviews under specified conditions. A reviewer’s responsibilities include ensuring that text properly reflects the data, that tables and figures are necessary and appropriate, and that conclusions fairly and reasonably reflect analytical results and the body of information available on the subject. Thus, the existing system probably is not capable of detecting anything but the most egregious fraud. In addition to imposing or perpetuating stringent review protocols, journals also can amend author guidelines to speak explicitly about publishing requirements. Cases of properly documented fraudulent research warrant immediate public announcement, to be followed by official withdrawal or retraction of the article(s). Reflection on these difficult issues led the editors of one journal to institute changes in editorial policies and develop a code of ethics for editors, authors and reviewers. While acknowledging that prevention of dishonest research is a daunting proposition, we should make it as difficult as possible to publish fraudulent science. Editors should commit reviewers and authors to ethical conduct in technical publications.  

Top