A Case for Caution: An Evaluation of Calabrese and Baldwin\u27s Studies of Chemical Hormesis

Suggesting a need for more research, Mr. Elliott argues that it is too soon for risk-assessment policy to account for recent challenges to a toxicological linear dose-response assumption

Conceptual Clarification and Policy-Related Science: The Case of Chemical Hormesis

This paper examines the epistemological warrant for a toxicological phenomenon known as chemical hormesis. First, it argues that conceptual confusion contributes significantly to current disagreements about the status of chemical hormesis as a biological hypothesis. Second, it analyzes seven distinct concepts of chemical hormesis, arguing that none are completely satisfactory. Finally, it suggests three ramifications of this analysis for ongoing debates about the epistemological status of chemical hormesis. This serves as a case study supporting the value of philosophical methodologies such as conceptual clarification for addressing contemporary scientific disputes, including policy-related scientific disputes that may be heavily influencedby social and political factors

A Novel Account of Scientific Anomaly: Help for the Dispute over Low-Dose Biochemical Effects

The biological effects of low doses of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals are currently a matter of significant scientific controversy. This paper argues that philosophers of science can contribute to alleviating this controversy by examining it with the aid of a novel account of scientific anomaly. Specifically, analysis of contemporary research on chemical hormesis (i.e.. alleged beneficial biological effects produced by low doses of substances that are harmful at higher doses) suggests that scientists may initially describe anomalous phenomena in terms of multiple distinct \u27 characterizations, eachof which is compatible with current empirical evidence. By focusing attention on this feature of scientific anomalies, philosophers of science can alleviate the controversy over low-dose chemical effects in at least two ways: (I) they can pinpoint the significant ways in which particular characterizations frame the controversy, and (2) they can identify the methodological value judgments at stake in researchers\u27 choice of characterizations

Error as Means to Discovery

This paper argues, first, that recent studies of experimentation, most notably by Deborah Mayo, provide the conceptual resources to describe scientific discovery’s early stages as error-probing processes. Second, it shows that this description yields greater understanding of those early stages, including the challenges that they pose, the research strategies associated with them, and their influence on the rest of the discovery process. Throughout, the paper examines the phenomenon of ‘‘chemical hormesis’’ (i.e., anomalous low-dose effects from toxic chemicals) as a case study that is important not only for the biological sciences but also for contemporary public policy. The resulting analysis is significant for at least two reasons. First, by elucidating the importance of discovery’s earliest stages, it expands previous accounts by philosophers such as William Wimsatt and Lindley Darden. Second, it identifies the discovery process as yet another philosophical topic on which the detailed studies of the ‘‘new experimentalists’’ can shed new light

Moral Molecules and Love Drugs: Objectivity, Understanding, and Backtracking

A case study of the ways that research on genetic and neurochemical changes that affect the social and sexual behavior of voles gets framed in the media illustrates the tensions science communicators often face between the dual goals of promoting public understanding while maintaining their objectivity. As a response to this ethical challenge, we argue that communicators could improve existing practices by striving to enable “backtracking.

Organizational Purchasing Theory: A Review and Assessment

Mark C. Hall is an Associate Professor in the Department of Marketing at Mankato State University. C.P. Rao is University Professor in the Department of Marketing at the University of Arkansas. Kevin M. Elliott is an Associate Professor in the Department of Marketing at Mankato State University

Student Technology Readiness And Its Impact On Cultural Competency

The creation of an effective learning environment requires cultural competency – the ability to interact effectively with people of different cultures.  Cultural competency means knowing and understanding the people that you serve. This study compares American and Chinese student’s readiness and willingness to use innovative technology by assessing their technology readiness through the use of the Technology Readiness Index (Parasuraman, 2000).  The findings show that Chinese students exhibit higher levels of discomfort and insecurity, and lower levels of optimism and innovativeness with regard to using new technology.  Implications for cross-cultural technology-based learning environments are also provided

Philosophical Foundations for Citizen Science

Citizen science is increasingly being recognized as an important approach for gathering data, addressing community needs, and creating fruitful engagement between citizens and professional scientists. Nevertheless, the implementation of citizen science projects can be hampered by a variety of barriers. Some of these are practical (e.g., lack of funding or lack of training for both professional scientists and volunteers), but others are theoretical barriers having to do with concerns about whether citizen science lives up to standards of good scientific practice. These concerns about the overall quality of citizen science are ethically significant, because it is ethically problematic to waste resources on low-quality research, and it is also problematic to denigrate or dismiss research that is of high quality. Scholarship from the philosophy of science is well-placed to address these theoretical barriers, insofar as it is fundamentally concerned about the nature of good scientific inquiry. This paper examines three important concerns: (1) the worry that citizen science is not appropriately hypothesis-driven; (2) the worry that citizen science does not generate sufficiently high-quality data or use sufficiently rigorous methods; and (3) the worry that citizen science is tainted by advocacy and is therefore not sufficiently disinterested. We show that even though some of these concerns may be relevant to specific instances of citizen science, none of these three concerns provides a compelling reason to challenge the overall quality of citizen science in principle