Suppr超能文献

风险评估:默认保守主义争议

Risk assessment: the default conservatism controversy.

作者信息

Barnard R C

机构信息

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen, & Hamilton, Washington, DC 20036.

出版信息

Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1995 Jun;21(3):431-8. doi: 10.1006/rtph.1995.1058.

Abstract

EPA cancer risk assessment rests heavily on defaults. Defaults are a reduction of science to generic principles selected as a policy matter on the basis of "conservatism" for use in risk assessment. Conservatism is understood to mean a choice to avoid underestimating risk. The recent report of the National Academy of Sciences (1994) has turned the spotlight on the controversy regarding the use of generic principles as defaults and whether conservatism is the appropriate value criterion for their selection. Defaults had their origin in the early 1970s and the debate has continued regarding the scientific basis for the defaults and whether a conservatism, a value that the NAS said is "beyond science," is appropriate as a basis for the policy choices. This paper briefly examines the CAPRA recommendations to reduce the reliance on defaults, the history of the default conservatism controversy, and EPA's initial draft response to the CAPRA recommendations.

摘要

美国环境保护局(EPA)的癌症风险评估在很大程度上依赖于默认值。默认值是将科学简化为基于“保守主义”作为政策事项选择的通用原则,用于风险评估。保守主义被理解为一种避免低估风险的选择。美国国家科学院最近的报告(1994年)将人们的注意力聚焦在关于使用通用原则作为默认值以及保守主义是否是选择它们的适当价值标准的争议上。默认值起源于20世纪70年代初,关于默认值的科学依据以及NAS所说的“超越科学”的保守主义是否适合作为政策选择的基础的争论仍在继续。本文简要审视了癌症政策与风险评估委员会(CAPRA)减少对默认值依赖的建议、默认保守主义争议的历史以及EPA对CAPRA建议的初步草案回应。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验