Scientific Hypotheses and Epistemic Policies
The Impact of Contextual Factors on the Generation of Scientific Knowledge
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-429Keywords:
regulatory science, epistemic policies, standard of proof, burden of proof, scientific hypothesesAbstract
Since the 1960s, regulatory science has been understood as the scientific field which generates relevant knowledge for designing and evaluating public policies and regulatory practices. This domain exhibits epistemic differences compared to traditional academic science, due to the existence of contextual factors. These include a greater involvement of external agents, variations in available resources, notable susceptibility to non-epistemic values, or the presence of regulatory agencies and their associated procedures. Contextual factors bring the application of certain courses of action for scientific practice known as epistemic policies, which set standards and burdens of proof that do not coincide with those of academic science. Ultimately, these particularities lead to the acceptance of distinct hypotheses and, therefore, the establishment of different scientific contents.
Downloads
References
Aggett, P. J. (2012). Dose-response relationships in multifunctional food design: assembling the evidence. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 63(S1), 37-42. DOI: 10.3109/09637486.2011.636344.
Andreoletti, A. & Teira, D. (2019). Rules versus standards: what are the costs of epistemic norms in drug regulation? Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(6), 1093-1115. DOI: 10.1177/0162243919828070.
Biesalski, H. K., Aggett, P. J., Anton, R., Bernstein, P. S., Blumberg, J., Heaney, R. P., Henry, J., Nolan, J. M., Richardson, D. P., van Ommen, B., Witkamp, R. F., Rijkers, G. T. & Zöllner, I. (2011). 26th Hohenheim Consensus Conference, September 11, 2010 scientific substantiation of health claims: evidence-based nutrition. Nutrition, 27(10 Suppl.), S1-S20. DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2011.04.002.
Blumberg, J., Heaney, R. P., Huncharek, M., Scholl, T., Stampfer, M., Vieth, R., Weaver, C. M. & Zeisel, S. H. (2010). Evidence-based criteria in the nutritional context. Nutrition Reviews, 68(8), 478-484. DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2010.00307.x.
Bush, V. (1945). Science – The endless frontier. Washington: National Science Foundation.
Chieffi, D., Fanelli, F. & Fusco, V. (2022). Legislation of probiotic foods and supplements. En E. L. de Souza, J. L. de Brito Alves & V. Fusco (Eds.), Probiotics for human nutrition in health and disease (25-44). Cambridge: Academic Press. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-323-89908-6.00013-3.
Cranor, C. F. (1999). Asymmetric information, the precautionary principle, and burdens of proof. En C. Raffensperger & J. Tickner (Eds.), Protecting public health and the environment: Implementing the precautionary principle (74-99). Washington: Island Press.
Douglas, H. (2007). Rejecting the ideal of value-free science. En H. Kincaid, J. Dupré & A. Wylie (Eds.), Value Free Science? Ideas and Illusions (120-140). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Douglas, H. E. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
EFSA (2021). Scientific and technical guidance for the preparation and presentation of a health claim application (revision 3). EFSA Journal, 19(3), 6554, 1-35. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6554.
EPA (2018). Strengthening transparency in regulatory science: a proposed rule. Federal Register, 83, 18768-18774.
European Parliament and Council (2000). Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation, and advertising of foodstuffs. Official Journal of the European Communities, L109, 29–42.
European Parliament and Council (2001). Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Official Journal of the European Union, L311, L311/1-L311/128.
European Parliament and Council (2004). Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency. Official Journal of the European Union, L136, L136/1-L136/90.
European Parliament and Council (2006). Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. Official Journal of the European Union, L404/9-L404/25.
Farnworth, E. D. (2008). The evidence to support health claims for probiotics. The Journal of Nutrition, 138(6), 1250S-1254S. DOI: 10.1093/jn/138.6.1250S.
Hansson, S. O. (2010). Risk: objective or subjective, facts or values. Journal of Risk Research, 13(2), 231-238. DOI: 10.1080/13669870903126226.
Holman, B. & Wilholt, T. (2022). The new demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91(1), 211-220. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.11.011.
Irwin, A., Rothstein, H., Yearley, S. & McCarthy, E. (1997). Regulatory science — Towards a sociological framework. Futures, 29(1), 17-31. DOI: 10.1016/S0016-3287(96)00063-8.
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch. Science advisers as policy makers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2011). What is the regulatory science? Concept and history in United States and in Japan. Clinical Evaluation, 39(1), 167-180.
Koskinen, I. & Rolin, K. (2022). Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate roles for values in transdisciplinary research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91(1), 191-198. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.12.001.
López-Mas, R. & Luján, J. L. (2022). The essentiality of nutrients: a challenge to methodological monism in the scientific substantiation of health claims. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 73(2), 149-153. DOI: 10.1080/09637486.2021.1948508.
Luján, J. L. & López Cerezo, J. A. (2004). Innovación tecnológica, riesgos e incertidumbre. Sobre la relación entre conocimiento científico y las políticas públicas relacionadas con la tecnología. En J. L. Luján & J. Echeverría (Eds.), Gobernar los riesgos: ciencia y valores de la sociedad del riesgo (75-98). Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
Luján, J. L. & Todt, O. (2021). Evidence based methodology: a naturalistic analysis of epistemic policies in regulatory science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(26), 1-19. DOI: 10.1007/s13194-020-00340-7.
Luján, J. L. & Todt, O. (2022). Controversias en ciencia reguladora: Cuatro ejemplos y una propuesta de análisis. XIV Congreso Español de Sociología. Murcia, 29 de junio – 2 de julio.
Luján, J. L. (2023). Evidence-based policies: lessons from regulatory science. Politics & Policy, 51(4), 524-537. DOI: 10.1111/polp.12543.
Moghissi, A. A., Straja, S. R., Love, B. R., Bride, D. K. & Stough, R. R. (2014). Innovation in regulatory science: evolution of a new scientific discipline. Technology and Innovation, 16(2), 155-165. DOI: 10.3727/194982414X14096821477027.
Richardson, D. P. (2012). Preparing dossiers: strength of the evidence and problems of proof. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 71(1), 127-140. DOI: 10.1017/S002966511100317X.
Rijkers, G. T., de Vos, W. M., Brummer, R. J., Morelli, L., Corthier, G., & Marteau, P. (2011). Health benefits and health claims of probiotics: bridging science and marketing. British Journal of Nutrition, 106(9), 1291-1296. DOI: 10.1017/S000711451100287X.
Rodríguez Alcázar, F. J. (2004). Normatividad en filosofía de la ciencia: el caso de la ciencia reguladora. Theoria, 19(2), 173-190.
Sanz Merino, N. (2022). Policy styles and epistemic policies in the regulation of health claims. A comparison of Europe, the United States, and Japan. Social Epistemology, 36(4), 449-465. DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2021.2004467.
Sanz-Merino, N. & Luján, J. L. (2021). Políticas epistémicas y gobernanza. Un análisis comparativo de las regulaciones norteamericana y europea sobre declaraciones de propiedades saludables. Revista Española de Ciencia Política, 55, 93-117. DOI: 10.21308/recp.55.04.
Song, X., Tang, Z., Liu, W., Chen, K., Liang, J., Yuan, B., Lin, H., Zhu, X., Fan, Y., Shi, X., Zhao, P., Yang, L., Zhang, K., Mikos, A. G. & Zhang, X. (2022). Biomaterials and regulatory science. Journal of Materials Science & Technology, 128, 221-227. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmst.2022.04.018.
Teira, D. (2020). On the normative foundations of pharmaceutical regulation. En A. La Caze, & B. Osimani (Eds.), Uncertainty in pharmacology: epistemology, methods, and decisions (417-437). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-29179-2_18.
Todt, O. & Luján, J. L. (2014). Values and decisions: cognitive and noncognitive values in knowledge generation and decision making. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 39(5), 720-743. DOI: 10.1177/0162243914521019.
Todt, O. & Luján, J. L. (2017a). The role of epistemic policies in regulatory science: scientific substantiation of health claims in the European Union. Journal of Risk Research, 20(4), 551-565. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2015.1100661.
Todt, O. & Luján, J. L. (2017b). Health claims and methodological controversy in nutrition science. Risk Analysis, 37(5), 958-968. DOI: 10.1111/risa.12665.
Todt, O. & Luján, J. L. (2017c). Non-cognitive values and methodological learning in decision-oriented science. Foundations of Science, 22(1), 215-234. DOI: 10.1007/s10699-015-9482-3.
Torres González, O. & López Echagüe, C. (2022). Las controversias científico-tecnológicas públicas desde la perspectiva CTS: panorama y desafíos. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad -CTS, 17(50), 109-115. Recuperado de: https://ojs.revistacts.net/index.php/CTS/article/view/294.
Van Loveren, H., Sanz, Y. & Salminen, S. (2012). Health claims in Europe: probiotics and prebiotics as case examples. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 3(1), 247-261. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-food-022811-101206.
Wade, O. (1977). Discusión. En Z. Bankowski, & J. F. Dunne (Eds.), Trends and prospects in drug research and development (107). Ginebra: Scrip/CIOMS.
Weinberg, A. M. (1985). Science and its limits: the regulator’s dilemma. Issues in Science and Technology, 2(1), 59-72.
Worrall, J. (2007). Why there’s no cause to randomize. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 58(3), 451-488. DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axm024.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
