煙草公司使用的否認辦法是有先例的:就是鉛是否對人有害的這個“證實過程”發明出來的。

來源: Lily168 2015-03-04 11:37:37 [] [博客] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (2865 bytes)
本文內容已被 [ Lily168 ] 在 2015-03-04 12:00:30 編輯過。如有問題,請報告版主或論壇管理刪除.
煙草公司打官司時常用的一個辯護就是“相關性不等於因果性”。因此能拖延很長時間。

煙草公司使用的辦法是有先例的:就是鉛是否對人有害的這個“證實過程”發明出來的。

加州理工的geochemist Clair Cameron Patterson在1965年就指出鉛的危害性,但經曆了和Robert A. Kehoe針鋒相對的漫長過程。20多年後,美國政府才禁止在汽油裏加鉛。由於這個措施,到1990年代後期,美國人血鉛含量減少了80%。

Robert Kehoe是個有名的毒物學者,是鑒定物質毒性的專家。在爭辯/證實鉛是否有害過程中,有一個以他命名的“Kehoe Paradigm”:

While the Kehoe Paradigm (also called Kehoe Rule) assumes that in the absence of clear evidence of risk there is no risk of significance, the Precautionary Principle assumes that there is a possible risk until proven otherwise.

The Show me the data approach (即Kehoe's Paradigm) made it critical for the industry to fund and control the research in lead toxicity. This was done through the Kettering Laboratory under Kehoe’s direction. The Kehoe Paradigm worked for the lead industry, as all that was necessary now was to characterize any criticism as fraught with uncertainty. In the case of lead toxicity, Kehoe's laboratory dominated the scene for decades, attesting to the safety of leaded gasoline and deconstructing any criticism. The credibility of his research was bolstered for decades by the support of the U.S. Public Health Service and American Medical Association. [4]

Using Kehoe's paradigm, Ethyl Corporation was a winner in either situation: if its product would prove to be safe, it would be seen as a responsible party. If, however, its product was unsafe it would take decades to prove this with certainty in a process that could be prolonged by challenging the methods and results and calling for more data. Meanwhile, production was profitable and ultimately the owners would be insulated from responsibility.[4] Kitman indicates that the strategy taken by the lead industry, namely the use of Kehoe's Paradigm, "provided a model for the asbestos, tobacco, pesticide and nuclear power industries, and other(s) ... for evading clear evidence that their products are harmful by hiding behind the mantle of scientific uncertainty".[4]

我不想借此來說,質疑霧霾致癌一說的人都是在使用Kehoe伎倆。隻是最近有討論鉛中毒的事,今天又想起那些煙草致癌打官司的過程,聯想在一起了。


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson

所有跟帖: 

讀到過Patterson的公案過程中涉及smear campaign,相關利益集團吃相很難看。 -viewfinder- 給 viewfinder 發送悄悄話 viewfinder 的博客首頁 (139 bytes) () 03/04/2015 postreply 12:10:03

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”