Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy describes toxic substance regulation as composed of two stages. Stage I (facts) uses empirical data and scientific judgment to characterize human exposure and risk. Stage II (values) uses social and political judgment to decide regulatory action based on significance of the risk, benefits of the agent, and costs of its control. This paper argues that such a view represents an unrealistic and unattainable goal. We present examples showing how values enter virtually every part of risk analysis, and we review work on the vagaries in human judgment concerning both facts and values. These issues indicate that U.S. regulatory policy needs reconsideration.
Alice S. Whittemore (Tue,) studied this question.