A new paradigm for regulatory sciences.
Modern technology
New approach methodologies
Non-animal methods
Paradigm
Paradigm shift
Regulatory sciences
Revolution
Thomas Kuhn
Journal
Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP
ISSN: 1096-0295
Titre abrégé: Regul Toxicol Pharmacol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8214983
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
11
08
2023
revised:
18
10
2023
accepted:
01
11
2023
medline:
4
12
2023
pubmed:
5
11
2023
entrez:
4
11
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Regulatory science, rooted in legal requirements, provides a mechanism for identifying, assessing, and managing harm to humans and the environment from exposure to hazardous substances. A challenge for regulatory authorities is that many governing laws reflect the scientific paradigm of the mid-20th century. By the nature of legislative processes, most laws are not able to readily adapt to incorporate scientific advances that are inherent in an ever-evolving paradigm. Consequently, the issue of rigid legal frameworks has become prominent in global discussions related to the incorporation of reliable and relevant modern technology to fulfill regulatory needs. To explore this issue, we apply Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as a conceptual framework to help understand the natural progression of scientific paradigms (from normal science, to anomaly, to crisis, to revolution, and finally to a new normal), identify where we are now in the paradigm cycle, and to explore a path towards a revolution that enables timely implementation of the best available science to fulfil legal requirements.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37925098
pii: S0273-2300(23)00192-7
doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2023.105524
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Hazardous Substances
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
105524Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Gina M Hilton reports financial support was provided by PETA Science Consortium International eV. John E Doe reports financial support was provided by European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals. Douglas C Wolf reports financial support was provided by Syngenta Crop Protection LLC. Richard A Currie reports financial support was provided by Syngenta Crop Protection LLC. John E Doe reports a relationship with European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals that includes: consulting or advisory. DCW and RAC work for a company that makes products that require approval from government regulatory agencies.