Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
SCIENCE AND ITS LIMITS: THE REGULATOR'S DILEMMA 9 original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. Science and Its Limits: The Regulator's Dilemma Alvin M. Weinberg In his essay "Risk, Science, and Democracy," William D. Ruckelshaus has expressed very clearly what might be called the regulator's dilemma: During the past 15 years, there has been a shift in public emphasis from visible and demonstrable problems such as smog from automobiles and raw sewage, to potential and largely invisible problems, such as the effects of low concentrations of toxic pollutants on human health. This shift is notable for two reasons. First, it has changed the way in which science is applied to practical questions of public health protection and environmental regulation. Second, it has raised difficult questions as to how to manage chronic risks within the context of free and democratic institutions. [Ruckelshaus, 1985; see also Bayer, Bond, and Whipple, in this volume.] When the concerns were obviousâlike smog in Los Angelesâscience could and did give unequivocal answers. For example, smog comes from liquid hydrocarbons, and the answer to smog lay in controlling emissions of these substances. The regulator's course was rather straightforward because the science upon which the regulator based his judgment was operating well within its power. But when the concern was subtleâHow much cancer is caused by 10 percent of background radiation?âscience was being asked a question that lay beyond its power to answer; the question was trans-scientific. Yet the regulator, by law, was expected to regulate, even though science could hardly help in the process. This is the regulator's dilemma. A slightly different version of this paper appears in Issues in Science and Technology vol. 2, no. 1 (Fall 1985):59â72.
