Air pollution and lung cancer.

Economic Growth, Human Development, and Welfare" of the 2018 Report of the International Panel on Social Progress (IPSP). Mission of the IPSP: The International Panel on Social Progress (IPSP) will harness the competence of hundreds of experts about social issues and will deliver a report addressed to all social actors, movements, organizations, politicians and decision-makers, in order to provide them with the best expertise on questions that bear on social change. The Panel will seek consensus whenever possible but will not hide controversies and will honestly present up-to-date arguments and analyses, and debates about them, in an accessible way. The Panel will have no partisan political agenda, but will aim at restoring hope in social progress and stimulating intellectual and public debates. Different political and philosophical views may conceive of social progress in different ways, emphasizing values such as freedom, dignity, or equality. The Panel will retain full independence from political parties, governments, and organizations with a partisan agenda. While the Panel will primarily work for the dissemination of knowledge to all relevant actors in society, it will also foster research on the topics it will study and help to revive interest for research in social long-term prospective analysis

Economic Growth, Human Development, and Welfare

> En 2017, des scientifiques et des citoyens ont affirmé le rôle et l’importance de l’activité scientifique pour les sociétés humaines, en participant, le 22 avril, à des « marches pour les sciences » [1] (➜), les sciences, et non la science, pour signifier des formes très différentes de connaissance, celle de la preuve, apportée par la médecine ou la biologie, comme celle associée au « regard éloigné » de l’anthropologue Claude Lévi-Strauss, par exemple [2, 3]. Au-delà de la critique des mesures prises par Donald Trump sur l’exploitation des ressources minières et sa politique à l’égard du changement climatique1, l’enjeu de telles marches est crucial. Pourquoi Trump ciblet-il en effet ainsi le monde de la recherche ? Comme l’écrivent les signataires de la tribune parue dans le journal Le Monde « ... Pour la même raison qu’il cible le journalisme d’investigation : les scientifiques comme les journalistes utilisent une méthode basée sur la collecte, la vérification et l’analyse des faits. Impossible pour eux de souscrire à la fabrication pure et simple et à l’utilisation de pseudo-faits (« alternative facts ») et de « post-vérités ».1 Pour appréhender cet enjeu, tenons-nous en à une question : de quelle manière l’activité scientifique peut-elle être mise en cause, une fois écartée l’hypothèse de « méconduites de recherche » [4] (➜). On peut tout d’abord avancer que les résultats scientifiques sont par nature « relatifs », au sens où ils dépendent des circonstances de leur fabrication, de la structure de l’esprit humain, des conditions techniques et matérielles de la science, etc. Cet argument est, en quelque sorte, appliqué à l’activité scientifique, celui que Pascal énonce dans sa célèbre formule « vérité en deçà des Pyrénées, erreur audelà » [5]. Adopter un tel argument, c’est ne pas comprendre – ou ne pas vouloir comprendre – en quoi consiste l’activité scientifique. On peut certes qualifier ses résultats de « relatifs », mais en un tout autre sens que celui suggéré par la formule pascalienne. Françoise Balibar, physicienne et historienne des sciences, rappelle que le terme de relativité s’applique à la science pour signifier qu’elle saisit des relations, et ce, « par un acte délibéré et fondateur, celui par lequel Galilée a créé une physique mathématique » [6]. D’où la colère du philosophe Henri Bergson, au début du siècle dernier. Selon lui, la théorie einsteinienne était particulièrement mal nommée, car susceptible d’induire l’idée

/pdf/du-bon-usage-du-scepticisme-a-l-egard-des-sciences-4er5ntja9o.pdf

Du bon usage du scepticisme à l’égard des sciences

Something in the air

This article shows why it is important to do normative or practical philosophy of science, especially philosophy of science that criticizes and evaluates contemporary use of scientific methods to analyze welfare-affecting societal problems. The article (1) introduces the scientific, ethical, and social problem of environmental injustice—disproportionate environmental and pollution threats that are responsible for roughly 40% of all preventable disease and death. Next it (2) explains that many deadly threats (like pollution) continue in part because of “special-interest science”, methodologically flawed science that is done to promote corporate profits, rather than truth, then (3) argues that philosophers of science should use normative or practical philosophy of science to critique and expose special-interest science. To illustrate special-interest science, the article (4) provides two case studies, on diesel-particulate-matter pollution and on organophophate-pesticide pollution, and (5) shows how diesel and pesticide polluters use special-interest science. For instance, they often ignore observational data, illegitimately demand statistically significant evidence of harm from observational data, use small sample sizes, do the wrong tests, or demand certainty—rather than a preponderance of evidence—to justify a conclusion about pollution harm. They also use flawed normative arguments to defend both diesel and pesticide pollution. The article (6) concludes that, given the epistemic, scientific, human-welfare toll of special-interest science, philosophers of science need to do normative or practical philosophy of science that exposes these scientific flaws.

Normative Philosophy of Science: Responding to Special-Interest Science

Of 188 government-monitored air toxics, diesel particulate matter (DPM) causes seven times more cancer than all the other 187 air toxics combined, including benzene, lead, and mercury. Yet, DPM is the only air toxic not regulated more stringently under the Clean Air Act, as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP). One reason is that regulators use flawed standards of scientific evidence. The article argues (1) that DPM meets all six specified evidentiary criteria, any one of which is sufficient for HAP regulation and (2) that regulators’ standards of evidence for denying HAP status to DPM (no DPM unit-risk estimate, inadequate dose-response data, alleged weak mechanistic data) err logically and scientifically, set the evidence bar too high, delay regulation, and allow 21,000 avoidable DPM deaths annually in the U.S.

/pdf/commentary-flawed-scientific-evidence-standards-delay-diesel-4emx5mb5ne.pdf

Commentary: Flawed Scientific-Evidence Standards Delay Diesel Regulations

Purpose Infliximab promotes remission in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and rheumatologic disease (RD) Rapid infliximab infusions (RI) reduce infusion time from 2 hours to 1 hour and can enhance access to care, as defined by capacity, safety, and patient characteristics Our hypothesis for the study described here was that use of RI can enhance access for patients Methods Data on all patients receiving infliximab for IBD or RD at our outpatient infusion center from February 2016 to August 2017 were retrospectively analyzed Demographic and clinical information were collected Results Of 348 patients who received infliximab, 205 had IBD and 143 had RD In terms of capacity, 40% of patients received RI, resulting in a 161% decrease in average daily infusion time and a 98% increase in average daily available scheduled infusion chair time (P = 0720) In terms of safety, 4 patients switched back to standard infusions after RI, after 3 specifically had reactions to RI In terms of patient characteristics, more patients with RD versus IBD received RI (P = 0020) Among the patients with RD, a lower proportion receiving RI were female (P = 0043) For the patients with IBD, a higher proportion receiving RI were white (P = 0048) Among both patients with RD and patients with IBD, a higher proportion receiving RI had private insurance (P = 0016 and P = 0018, respectively) Conclusion RI were safe and increased available chair time Females with RD, patients of non-White race with IBD, and patients with public insurance were less likely to receive RI Future directions include patient surveys and evaluation of implicit bias against patient factors that may impact access to RI

Antoinette Pusateri

Papers

Commentary: Flawed Scientific-Evidence Standards Delay Diesel Regulations

Impact of rapid infliximab infusions on access at a large academic tertiary medical center.