Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-4 of 4 documents


1. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 11 > Issue: 3
Ray Greek, Niall Shanks, Mark J. Rice The History and Implications of Testing Thalidomide on Animals
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The current use of animals to test for potential teratogenic effects of drugs and other chemicals dates back to the thalidomide disaster of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Controversy surrounds the following questions: 1. What was known about placental transfer of drugs when thalidomide was developed? 2. Was thalidomide tested on animals for teratogenicity prior to its release? 3. Would more animal testing have prevented the thalidomide disaster? 4. What lessons should be learned from the thalidomide disaster regarding animal testing for teratogenicity? We review the literature in order to address these questions.
2. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 11 > Issue: 3
Rosalyn W. Berne A Review of Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin, and Daniel Moore’s “What is Nanotechnology and Why Does It Matter?”
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
3. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 11 > Issue: 2
Barbara Osimani, Federica Russo, Jon Williamson Scientific Evidence and the Law: An Objective Bayesian Formalization of the Precautionary Principle in Pharmaceutical Regulation
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The paper considers the legal tools that have been developed in German pharmaceutical regulation as a result of the precautionary attitude inaugurated by the Contergan decision (1970). These tools are (i) the notion of “well-founded suspicion”, which attenuates the requirements for safety intervention by relaxing the requirement of a proved causal connection between danger and source, and the introduction of (ii) the reversal of proof burden in liability norms. The paper focuses on the first and proposes seeing the precautionary principle as an instance of the requirement that one should maximise expected utility. In order to maximise expected utility certain probabilities are required and it is argued that objective Bayesianism offers the most plausible means to determine the optimal decision in cases where evidence supports diverging choices.
4. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
William B. Griffith A Review of James A. Gross’s Shameful Business: The Case for Human Rights in the American Workplace and R. P. McIntyre’s Are Worker Rights Human Rights?
view |  rights & permissions | cited by