Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We argue that a responsible analysis of today's evidence-based risk assessments and risk debates in biology demands a critical or metascientific scrutiny of the uncertainties, assumptions, and threats of error along the manifold steps in risk analysis. Without an accompanying methodological critique, neither sensitivity to social and ethical values, nor conceptual clarification alone, suffices. In this view, restricting the invitation for philosophical involvement to those wearing a “bioethicist” label precludes the vitally important role philosophers of science may be able to play as bioevidentialists . The goal of this paper is to give a brief and partial sketch of how a metascientific scrutiny of risk evidence might work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mayo et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: