Regulatory parallels to Daubert: Stakeholder influence, "sound science," and the delayed adoption of health-protective standards

Roni A. Neff, Lynn R. Goldman

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

There is broad agreement that regulatory decisions should be based on evidence. But interested parties have used the "sound science" mantle to demand extended research, analysis, and review of evidence for the sole purpose of delaying health-protective regulation. This historical review shows how the forces behind the "sound science" reasoning leading to the Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc decision on science in the courtroom have operated in parallel in environmental regulation. Like Daubert, certain "sound science" regulatory tools can be used to improve decision quality. However, these tools can also challenge the federal government's ability to safeguard the public's health and well-being. Most recently, political tampering with science provides the foundation for some policymakers to disregard science completely in the environmental regulatory process.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)S81-S91
JournalAmerican journal of public health
Volume95
Issue numberSUPPL. 1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2005
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Regulatory parallels to Daubert: Stakeholder influence, "sound science," and the delayed adoption of health-protective standards'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this