David A. Bella

Cancer, Carcinogens and Dispersal: A Disciplinary Dysfunction

This article compares the paradigms (shared goals, objectives, methods, and assumptions) of toxicology and environmental engineering. With respect to carcinogens, the different paradigms appear to be inconsistent with each other. Environmental engineers implicitly assume nonlinear (threshold) dose-response relationships while toxicologists tend to employ a linear dose-response relationship for carcinogens in the low-dose range. This difference becomes significant when one considers the dispersal of carcinogens to reduce maximum concentrations. Environmental engineers tend to assume that dispersal is desirable though the assumption is often implicit. Toxicologists, in general, do not examine dispersal but much of their work suggests that dispersal is not desirable. The experimental and theoretical research of both disciplines as traditionally practiced is not likely to resolve this inconsistency. An experimental approach is outlined that could address these inconsistencies. Many disciplines are involved in the assessment and management of carcinogens. Two broad disciplinary groups will be discussed herein: toxicologists and environmental engineers (including many applied scientists and managers). Each of these groups can be characterized by a dominant paradigm [1] which can be described as a constellation of shared expectations, goals, objectives, methods, and assumptions. Such paradigms provide the basis for professional action, discipline, and problem identification within each group. At the same time, these paradigms can insulate each of these groups from important problems. Moreover,

Resource Management and Moral Accountability

One hopes that the world will be better in some moral sense because of environmental management and planning. It is reasoned that this hope depends in part upon a social process of moral accountability with respect to the control of resources. Such accountability is examined without assuming any particular value system. The paper examines how accountability can be avoided, distorted and directed away from those with the most control toward those with the least control.