Research on the phenomenon of hormesis (i.e., low-dose stimulatory effects caused by normally inhibitory or toxic substances) has recently provoked a good deal of debate. Formal mechanisms for deliberation and public participation are increasingly popular strategies for responding to controversial decisions in environmental policy, but they have been used only to a limited extent in response to scientific research itself. This commentary introduces natural scientists to some of the social scientific literature on these issues and argues for the importance of “diagnosing” whether controversial areas of policy relevant research would benefit from some form of deliberation. It provides a tentative diagnosis in the case of hormesis research, recommending a varied deliberative approach. There are many reasons to pursue broadly based deliberation in response to hormesis, including the potential to promote more productive research projects, alleviate public distrust, and prevent bias. Deliberative proceedings in this case should address judgments associated with at least four activities: (1) choosing projects and designing studies, (2) developing terminology, (3) interpreting and evaluating studies, and (4) applying research results to public policy. Although an advisory group composed primarily of experts might provide an adequate starting point, more intensive deliberative processes would be valuable before developing major changes to regulatory policy.
1 Renn O . Model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management. Environ Sci Technol1999; 33: 3049–3055.
2.
2 Fiorino D . Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Human Values1990; 15: 226–243.
3.
3 O Renn T Webler P Wiedemann , (). Fairness and competence in citizen participation.Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1995.
4.
4 Kleinman D . Democratizations of science and technology. In: D Kleinman , (ed), Science, technology, and democracy.Albany: SUNY Press; 2000. p. 139–165.
5.
5 Beierle T . Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Policy Stud Rev1999; 16: 76–103.
6.
6 Beierle T . The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal2002; 22: 739–749.
7.
7 Irvin R Stansbury J . Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort. Public Adm Rev2004; 64: 55–65.
8.
8 Renn O . An ethical appraisal of hormesis: towards a rational discourse on the acceptability of risks and benefits. Hum Exp Toxicol (in press).
9.
9 Joss S Durant J . Public participation in science: the role of consensus conferences in Europe.London: Science Museum; 1995.
10.
10 Sclove R . Democracy and technology.New York: Guilford Press; 1995.
11.
11 Rogers-Hayden T Pidgeon N . Reflecting upon the UK’s citizens’ jury on nanotechnologies: NanoJury UK. Nanotechnol Law Bus2006; 3: 167–178.
12.
12 Wynne B . Sheep farming after Chernobyl: a case study in communicating scientific information. Environment1989; 31: 11–15, 33–39.
13.
13 Brown P Mikkelsen E . No safe place: toxic waste, leukemia, and community action.Berkeley: SAGE Publications; 1990.
14.
14 Irwin A . Citizen science: a study of people, expertise, and sustainable development.London: Routledge; 1995.
15.
15 Couch S Kroll-Smith S . Environmental movements and expert knowledge: evidence for a new populism. In: S Kroll-Smith P Brown V Gunter , (eds), Illness and the environment: a reader in contested medicine.New York: New York University Press; 2000. p. 384–404.
16.
16 Epstein S . Democracy, expertise, and AIDS treatment activism. In: D Kleinman , (ed), Science, technology, and democracy.Albany: SUNY Press; 2000. p. 15–32.
17.
17 NRC. Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society.Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1996.
18.
18 Douglas H . Inserting the public into science. In: S Maasen P Weingart , (eds), Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making.Dordrecht: Springer; 2005. p. 153–169.
19.
19 Shrader-Frechette KS . Evaluating the expertise of experts. Risk: Health Saf Environ1995; 6: 115–126.
20.
20 Fischer F . Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: from theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sci1993; 26: 165–187.
21.
21 Longino H . Science as social knowledge.Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1990.
22.
22 P Machamer G Wolters . Science, values, and objectivity.Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 2004.
23.
23 H Kincaid J Dupre A Wylie . Value-free science? Ideals and illusions.Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
24.
24 Kleinman D . Science and technology in society: from biotechnology to the internet.Malden, MA: Blackwell; 2005.
25.
25 Calabrese EJ Baldwin LA . Chemical hormesis: scientific foundations.College Station, TX: Texas Institute for the Advancement of Chemical Technology; 1998.
26.
26 Calabrese EJ Baldwin LA . The hormetic dose-response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology. Toxicol Sci2003; 71: 246–250.
27.
27 Calabrese EJ Baldwin LA . Toxicology rethinks its central belief. Nature2003; 421: 691–692.
28.
28 Cook R Calabrese EJ . The importance of hormesis to public health. Environ Health Perspect2006; 114: 1631–1635.
29.
29 Thayer KA Melnick R Burns K Davis D Huff J . Fundamental flaws of hormesis for public health decisions. Environ Health Perspect2005; 113: 1271–1276.
30.
30 Mushak P . Hormesis and its place in nonmonotonic dose-response relationships: some scientific reality checks. Environ Health Perspect2007; 115: 500–506.
31.
31 Shrader-Frechette KS . Ideological toxicology: invalid logic, science, ethics about low-dose pollution. Hum Exp Toxicol (in press).
32.
32 Calabrese EJ Staudenmayer JW Stanek EJ Hoffmann GR . Hormesis outperforms threshold model in National Cancer Institute antitumor drug screening database. Toxicol Sci2006; 94: 368–378.
33.
33 Elliott KC . Conceptual clarification and policy-related science: the case of chemical hormesis. Perspect Sci2000; 8: 346–366.
34.
34 Calabrese EJ Baldwin LA . Defining hormesis. Hum Exp Toxicol2002; 21: 91–97.
35.
35 Chapman P . Defining hormesis: comments on Calabrese and Baldwin (2002). Hum Exp Toxicol2002; 21: 99–101.
36.
36 Axelrod D Burns K Davis D von Larebeke N . “Hormesis”—an inappropriate extrapolation from the specific to the universal. Int J Occup Environ Health2004; 10: 335–339.
37.
37 Van der Woude H Alink G Rietjens I . The definition of hormesis and its implications for in vitro to in vivo extrapolation and risk assessment. Crit Rev Toxicol2005; 35: 603–607.
38.
38 Weltje L vom Saal F Oehlmann J . Reproductive stimulation by low doses of xenoestrogens contrasts with the view of hormesis as an adaptive response. Hum Exp Toxicol2005; 24: 431–437.
39.
39 Calabrese EJ . Hormesis: why it is important to toxicology and toxicologists. Environ Toxicol Chem2008; 27: 1451–1474.
40.
40 Elliott KC . Hormesis, ethics, and public policy: an overview. Hum Exp Toxicol (in press).
41.
41 Zapponi G Marcello I . Low-dose risk, hormesis, analogical and logical thinking. Ann N Y Acad Sci2006; 1076: 839–857.
42.
42 Crump K . Limitations in the National Cancer Institute antitumor drug screening database for evaluating hormesis. Toxicol Sci2007; 98: 599–601.
43.
43 Calabrese EJ Staudenmayer JW Stanek EJ Hoffmann GR . Hormesis and high throughput studies: Crump’s analysis lacks credibility. Toxicol Sci2007; 98: 602–603.
44.
44 Elliott KC . Hormesis and environmental policy: an ethical analysis. Public Aff Q2006; 20: 31–53.
46 Bryan CS Call TJ Elliott KC . The ethics of infection control: philosophical frameworks. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2007; 28: 1077–1084.
47.
47 Calabrese EJ Baldwin LA . Hormesis: the dose-response revolution. Annu Rev Pharmacol2003; 43: 175–197.
48.
48 Renn O . Implications of the hormesis hypothesis for risk perception and communication. Hum Exp Toxicol1998; 17: 431–438.
49.
49 Kaiser J . Sipping from a poisoned chalice. Science2003; 302: 376–379.
50.
50 Beder S . Global spin.Rev. ed.White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green; 2000.
51.
51 Elliott KC . Scientific judgment and the limits of conflict of interest policies. Account Res2008; 15: 1–29.
52.
52 Calabrese EJ . Hormesis: from marginalization to mainstream: a case for hormesis as the default dose-response model in risk assessment. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol2004; 197: 125–136.
53.
53 Jefferson T Wager E Davidoff F . Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. J Am Med Assoc2002; 287: 2786–2790.
54.
54 Wager E Jefferson T . Shortcomings of peer review in biomedical journals. Learned Publishing2001; 14: 257–263.
