Mushak Paul, Elliott Kevin C
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2015 Dec;25(4):335-67. doi: 10.1353/ken.2015.0030.
The ability of powerful and well-funded interest groups to steer scientific research in ways that advance their goals has become a significant social concern. This steering ability is increasingly being recognized in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and in findings of deliberative scientific bodies. This paper provides a case study that illustrates some of the major strategies that can be used to structure and advance a controversial research field. It focuses on hormesis, described as a type of dose-response relationship in toxicology and biology showing low-dose stimulation but high-dose inhibition, or the reverse. Hormesis proponents tout its significance, arguing that substances toxic at high doses and beneficial at lower doses should be regulated less stringently. We identify five strategies employed by hormesis proponents to foster its acceptance: (1) creating institutions focused on supporting hormesis; (2) developing terminology, study designs, and data interpretations that cast it in a favorable light; (3) using bibliometric techniques and surveys to attract attention; (4) aggressively advocating for the phenomenon and challenging critics; and (5) working with outside interest groups to apply the hormesis phenomenon in the economic and political spheres. We also suggest a number of oversight strategies that can be implemented to help promote credible and socially responsible research in cases like this one.
资金雄厚的强大利益集团以推进其目标的方式引导科学研究的能力已成为一个重大的社会问题。这种引导能力在同行评议的科学文献和审议性科学机构的研究结果中越来越受到认可。本文提供了一个案例研究,说明了一些可用于构建和推进一个有争议的研究领域的主要策略。它聚焦于兴奋效应,在毒理学和生物学中被描述为一种剂量反应关系,即低剂量刺激但高剂量抑制,或者相反。兴奋效应的支持者吹捧其重要性,认为高剂量有毒而低剂量有益的物质应受到较宽松的监管。我们确定了兴奋效应支持者用来促进其被接受的五种策略:(1)创建专注于支持兴奋效应的机构;(2)开发能以有利方式呈现它的术语、研究设计和数据解释;(3)使用文献计量技术和调查来吸引关注;(4)积极倡导这一现象并挑战批评者;(5)与外部利益集团合作,将兴奋效应现象应用于经济和政治领域。我们还提出了一些可以实施的监督策略,以帮助在这类情况下促进可信且对社会负责的研究。