ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2014
Science, policy, and the transparency of values.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Development of a Framework for the Culture of Scientific Research.CBE life sciences education · 2021Pooled it
- Scientific Objectivity and the Pursuit of the Public Good.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- Subconscious value influences on science.Studies in history and philosophy of science · 2025Article
- Disclosing and Managing Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Scientific Publications.Research ethics · 2023Article
- Science, Values, and the New Demarcation Problem.Journal for general philosophy of science = Zeitschrift fur allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie · 2023Article
- Authorship Issues When Articles are Retracted Due to Research Misconduct and Then Resubmitted.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Toxicoepigenetics for Risk Assessment: Bridging the Gap Between Basic and Regulatory Science.Epigenetics insights · 2022Article
- Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2021Article
- Public Health and Risk Communication During COVID-19-Enhancing Psychological Needs to Promote Sustainable Behavior Change.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
- Managing value-laden judgements in regulatory science and risk assessment.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Article
- Making Open Science Work for Science and Society.Environmental health perspectives · 2019Article
- Conducting fit-for-purpose food safety risk assessments.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Article
- Value-entanglement and the integrity of scientific research.Studies in history and philosophy of science · 2019Article
- Legitimizing Values in Regulatory Science.Environmental health perspectives · 2019Article
- From a variety of ethics to the integrity and congruence of research on biodiversity conservation.Asian bioethics review · 2018Article
- Evidence Regarding the Impact of Conflicts of Interest on Environmental and Occupational Health Research.Current environmental health reports · 2017Review
- Values in environmental research: Citizens' views of scientists who acknowledge values.PloS one · 2017Article
- Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure Policies of Environmental, Occupational, and Public Health Journals.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2017Article
- The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science.Accountability in research · 2016Article
- Explanatory Judgment, Moral Offense and Value-Free Science.Review of philosophy and psychology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOpposing groups of scientists have recently engaged in a heated dispute over a preliminary European Commission (EC) report on its regulatory policy for endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In addition to the scientific issues at stake, a central question has been how scientists can maintain their objectivity when informing policy makers.
objectivesDrawing from current ethical, conceptual, and empirical studies of objectivity and conflicts of interest in scientific research, we propose guiding principles for communicating scientific findings in a manner that promotes objectivity, public trust, and policy relevance. DISCUSSION: Both conceptual and empirical studies of scientific reasoning have shown that it is unrealistic to prevent policy-relevant scientific research from being influenced by value judgments. Conceptually, the current dispute over the EC report illustrates how scientists are forced to make value judgments about appropriate standards of evidence when informing public policy. Empirical studies provide further evidence that scientists are unavoidably influenced by a variety of potentially subconscious financial, social, political, and personal interests and values.
conclusionsWhen scientific evidence is inconclusive and major regulatory decisions are at stake, it is unrealistic to think that values can be excluded from scientific reasoning. Thus, efforts to suppress or hide interests or values may actually damage scientific objectivity and public trust, whereas a willingness to bring implicit interests and values into the open may be the best path to promoting good science and policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.