• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Adjudicating cancer causation: scientific, political, and legal conflicts.

作者信息

Gori G B

机构信息

Health Policy Center, Bethesda, Maryland 20816.

出版信息

Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1991 Jun;13(3):309-25. doi: 10.1016/0273-2300(91)90070-c.

DOI:10.1016/0273-2300(91)90070-c
PMID:1947239
Abstract

Lawsuits concerning cancer causation resort to scientific argumentation. Yet, the apparent ambiguities of science confuse the courts, the juries, and the public. This is especially so with regard to official regulatory definitions of cancer causation that carry the weight of law. At the heart of this problem is a prevailing misunderstanding of science and the scientific method, and of the limits of current scientific knowledge about cancer. Moreover, current regulatory policies encourage the public to perceive official cancer risk assessments as if they were scientifically derived and accepted, even though official fine print readily admits they are not. Some recent court decisions have begun to recognize these difficulties with a body of precedent, and this may result in future rulings influenced more by objective appraisals than by reliance upon official but contingent assumptions.

摘要

相似文献

1
Adjudicating cancer causation: scientific, political, and legal conflicts.
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1991 Jun;13(3):309-25. doi: 10.1016/0273-2300(91)90070-c.
2
The war against junk science: the use of expert panels in complex medical-legal scientific litigation.对抗伪科学之战:专家小组在复杂医疗法律科学诉讼中的运用
Biomaterials. 1998 Aug;19(16):1425-32. doi: 10.1016/s0142-9612(98)00052-0.
3
[Death and the moment of death: several legal aspects].[死亡与死亡时刻:若干法律层面]
S Afr Med J. 1975 Jun 7;49(24):976-80.
4
[Neuroscience in the Courtroom: From responsibility to dangerousness, ethical issues raised by the new French law].[法庭上的神经科学:从责任到危险性,法国新法律引发的伦理问题]
Encephale. 2015 Oct;41(5):385-93. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2014.08.014. Epub 2014 Oct 27.
5
Untangling causation issues in law and medicine: hazardous substance litigation.厘清法律与医学中的因果关系问题:有害物质诉讼
Ann Intern Med. 1987 Nov;107(5):741-7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-107-5-741.
6
High court urged to reject Colorado appeal of finding that it must fund rape and incest survivors' abortions.高等法院被敦促驳回科罗拉多州的上诉,该上诉称其不应为强奸和乱伦幸存者的堕胎提供资金。
Reprod Freedom News. 1995 Nov 10;4(20):2.
7
Changing legal standards for proof of causation in hazardous waste tort cases. Plaintiffs' problems and congressional responses.危险废物侵权案件中因果关系证明法律标准的变化。原告面临的问题及国会的应对措施。
Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 1983 Dec;4(4):359-63. doi: 10.1097/00000433-198312000-00016.
8
Baby doe redux? The Department of Health and Human Services and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002: a cautionary note on normative neonatal practice.“婴儿多伊”事件重演?美国卫生与公众服务部及2002年《出生时存活婴儿保护法》:关于规范新生儿医疗行为的警示
Pediatrics. 2005 Oct;116(4):e576-85. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-1590.
9
Legal and scientific probability of causation of cancer and other environmental disease in individuals.个体患癌症及其他环境疾病的因果关系在法律和科学上的可能性。
J Health Polit Policy Law. 1985 Spring;10(1):33-80. doi: 10.1215/03616878-10-1-33.
10
Junking good science: undoing Daubert v Merrill Dow through cross-examination and argument.摒弃可靠科学:通过交叉询问与论证推翻“道伯特诉美国家庭用品公司案”的判决
Am J Public Health. 2006 Jan;96(1):33-7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.063917. Epub 2005 Nov 29.

引用本文的文献

1
Cytochromes P450 and species differences in xenobiotic metabolism and activation of carcinogen.细胞色素P450与外源性物质代谢及致癌物激活中的物种差异。
Environ Health Perspect. 1998 Oct;106(10):633-41. doi: 10.1289/ehp.98106633.