Doseâ"response models: how might we think about linearity and nonlinearity?

We add to the issues raised by Dr David Ropeikâ(TM)s article Risk Communication and Non-Linearity (forthcoming, BELLE Newsletter , 2008) regarding the thinking about the acceptance of linear and nonlinear (hormetic) doseâ"response models. We summarize some of the perceptual aspects discussed by...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Human & experimental toxicology 2009-01, Vol.28 (1), p.29
1. Verfasser: Ricci, PF
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page 29
container_title Human & experimental toxicology
container_volume 28
creator Ricci, PF
description We add to the issues raised by Dr David Ropeikâ(TM)s article Risk Communication and Non-Linearity (forthcoming, BELLE Newsletter , 2008) regarding the thinking about the acceptance of linear and nonlinear (hormetic) doseâ"response models. We summarize some of the perceptual aspects discussed by Ropeik (2008) and comment on decision-making by the single decision-maker. It seems that the heuristics discussed by Ropeik (2008) are related to those private decision-makers who may not benefit from extensive technical, scientific, and legal advice sufficiently to make well-informed decisions and, perhaps more importantly, may not have the funds for that advice. Doseâ"response models are intangible, abstract quantities: unlike private goods and services, they are not priced by the market. We suggest a duality between the private and the public decision-maker that in the end may loose its crispness, because it can occur in the same person. Nonetheless, this duality is evident at the analysis phase of decision-making, relative to the decision phase, and thus, provides a convenient way to address the issues addressed by Ropeik (2008). In particular, for at least legal and common sense reasons, the public decision-maker must follow a scientific-analytical causal process â" as represented by models of doseâ"response â" to select and justify her choice of one over the other. Whether the final decision as to which model is to be used in regulatory law is a matter that goes beyond the analytical aspects of the choice and is governed by political and other aspects of governance. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0960327109103524
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_220814653</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1731424861</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_2208146533</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNyrsOgjAYhuHGaCIedsc_7OhfClRcHDzEwdGdYKgCQou0hHg73oo3piTG2elL3ucjZEZxTinnCwwDZC6nGFJkvuv1iEU9zh0MkfWJ1bHT-ZCMtM4RMQh9apHjVmnxetq10JWSWkCpElHoFaSqhTK7pgZaASbN5A3is2oMFJkUcZ2ZB8QyAankL6wnZHCJCy2m3x0Te787bQ5OVat7I7SJctXU8kOR6-KSeoHP2F-nN3TrRAE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>220814653</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Doseâ"response models: how might we think about linearity and nonlinearity?</title><source>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Ricci, PF</creator><creatorcontrib>Ricci, PF</creatorcontrib><description>We add to the issues raised by Dr David Ropeikâ(TM)s article Risk Communication and Non-Linearity (forthcoming, BELLE Newsletter , 2008) regarding the thinking about the acceptance of linear and nonlinear (hormetic) doseâ"response models. We summarize some of the perceptual aspects discussed by Ropeik (2008) and comment on decision-making by the single decision-maker. It seems that the heuristics discussed by Ropeik (2008) are related to those private decision-makers who may not benefit from extensive technical, scientific, and legal advice sufficiently to make well-informed decisions and, perhaps more importantly, may not have the funds for that advice. Doseâ"response models are intangible, abstract quantities: unlike private goods and services, they are not priced by the market. We suggest a duality between the private and the public decision-maker that in the end may loose its crispness, because it can occur in the same person. Nonetheless, this duality is evident at the analysis phase of decision-making, relative to the decision phase, and thus, provides a convenient way to address the issues addressed by Ropeik (2008). In particular, for at least legal and common sense reasons, the public decision-maker must follow a scientific-analytical causal process â" as represented by models of doseâ"response â" to select and justify her choice of one over the other. Whether the final decision as to which model is to be used in regulatory law is a matter that goes beyond the analytical aspects of the choice and is governed by political and other aspects of governance. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0960-3271</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1477-0903</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0960327109103524</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Sage Publications Ltd</publisher><subject>Decision making ; Expected utility ; Perceptions ; September 11 terrorist attacks-2001 ; Terrorism</subject><ispartof>Human &amp; experimental toxicology, 2009-01, Vol.28 (1), p.29</ispartof><rights>SAGE Publications © Jan 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ricci, PF</creatorcontrib><title>Doseâ"response models: how might we think about linearity and nonlinearity?</title><title>Human &amp; experimental toxicology</title><description>We add to the issues raised by Dr David Ropeikâ(TM)s article Risk Communication and Non-Linearity (forthcoming, BELLE Newsletter , 2008) regarding the thinking about the acceptance of linear and nonlinear (hormetic) doseâ"response models. We summarize some of the perceptual aspects discussed by Ropeik (2008) and comment on decision-making by the single decision-maker. It seems that the heuristics discussed by Ropeik (2008) are related to those private decision-makers who may not benefit from extensive technical, scientific, and legal advice sufficiently to make well-informed decisions and, perhaps more importantly, may not have the funds for that advice. Doseâ"response models are intangible, abstract quantities: unlike private goods and services, they are not priced by the market. We suggest a duality between the private and the public decision-maker that in the end may loose its crispness, because it can occur in the same person. Nonetheless, this duality is evident at the analysis phase of decision-making, relative to the decision phase, and thus, provides a convenient way to address the issues addressed by Ropeik (2008). In particular, for at least legal and common sense reasons, the public decision-maker must follow a scientific-analytical causal process â" as represented by models of doseâ"response â" to select and justify her choice of one over the other. Whether the final decision as to which model is to be used in regulatory law is a matter that goes beyond the analytical aspects of the choice and is governed by political and other aspects of governance. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Expected utility</subject><subject>Perceptions</subject><subject>September 11 terrorist attacks-2001</subject><subject>Terrorism</subject><issn>0960-3271</issn><issn>1477-0903</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNqNyrsOgjAYhuHGaCIedsc_7OhfClRcHDzEwdGdYKgCQou0hHg73oo3piTG2elL3ucjZEZxTinnCwwDZC6nGFJkvuv1iEU9zh0MkfWJ1bHT-ZCMtM4RMQh9apHjVmnxetq10JWSWkCpElHoFaSqhTK7pgZaASbN5A3is2oMFJkUcZ2ZB8QyAankL6wnZHCJCy2m3x0Te787bQ5OVat7I7SJctXU8kOR6-KSeoHP2F-nN3TrRAE</recordid><startdate>20090101</startdate><enddate>20090101</enddate><creator>Ricci, PF</creator><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090101</creationdate><title>Doseâ"response models: how might we think about linearity and nonlinearity?</title><author>Ricci, PF</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_2208146533</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Expected utility</topic><topic>Perceptions</topic><topic>September 11 terrorist attacks-2001</topic><topic>Terrorism</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ricci, PF</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Human &amp; experimental toxicology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ricci, PF</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Doseâ"response models: how might we think about linearity and nonlinearity?</atitle><jtitle>Human &amp; experimental toxicology</jtitle><date>2009-01-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>29</spage><pages>29-</pages><issn>0960-3271</issn><eissn>1477-0903</eissn><abstract>We add to the issues raised by Dr David Ropeikâ(TM)s article Risk Communication and Non-Linearity (forthcoming, BELLE Newsletter , 2008) regarding the thinking about the acceptance of linear and nonlinear (hormetic) doseâ"response models. We summarize some of the perceptual aspects discussed by Ropeik (2008) and comment on decision-making by the single decision-maker. It seems that the heuristics discussed by Ropeik (2008) are related to those private decision-makers who may not benefit from extensive technical, scientific, and legal advice sufficiently to make well-informed decisions and, perhaps more importantly, may not have the funds for that advice. Doseâ"response models are intangible, abstract quantities: unlike private goods and services, they are not priced by the market. We suggest a duality between the private and the public decision-maker that in the end may loose its crispness, because it can occur in the same person. Nonetheless, this duality is evident at the analysis phase of decision-making, relative to the decision phase, and thus, provides a convenient way to address the issues addressed by Ropeik (2008). In particular, for at least legal and common sense reasons, the public decision-maker must follow a scientific-analytical causal process â" as represented by models of doseâ"response â" to select and justify her choice of one over the other. Whether the final decision as to which model is to be used in regulatory law is a matter that goes beyond the analytical aspects of the choice and is governed by political and other aspects of governance. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Sage Publications Ltd</pub><doi>10.1177/0960327109103524</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0960-3271
ispartof Human & experimental toxicology, 2009-01, Vol.28 (1), p.29
issn 0960-3271
1477-0903
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_220814653
source Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Decision making
Expected utility
Perceptions
September 11 terrorist attacks-2001
Terrorism
title Doseâ"response models: how might we think about linearity and nonlinearity?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T13%3A57%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Dose%C3%A2%22response%20models:%20how%20might%20we%20think%20about%20linearity%20and%20nonlinearity?&rft.jtitle=Human%20&%20experimental%20toxicology&rft.au=Ricci,%20PF&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=29&rft.pages=29-&rft.issn=0960-3271&rft.eissn=1477-0903&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0960327109103524&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E1731424861%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=220814653&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true