Is there such a thing as a “best scientific methodology” in regulatory (decision-oriented) science? By examining cases from varying regulatory processes, we argue that there is no best scientific method for generating decision-relevant data. In addition, in regulatory science, the most suitable methodologies often differ from what is considered best practice in knowledge-oriented (academic) science. In data generation for regulatory purposes, we are faced with a wide spectrum of preferred methodologies as well as controversy as to methodological choice. What goes by the most adequate scientific method can and will—justifiably and rationally—vary significantly according to context and use. In order to make this argument, we analyze four case studies, two from risk assessment and two from benefit assessment. Our analysis shows that it is the noncognitive objectives of a particular regulatory process that determine what counts as the most appropriate scientific method. We use the concept of bounded rationality to indicate that those methodological choices, despite being context-dependent, can be interpreted as rational.
BagchiD., ed. 2019. Nutraceutical and Functional Food Regulations in the United States and Around the World, 3rd ed. New York: Academic Press.
2.
BastA.BriggsW.CalabreseE.FenechM.HanekampJ.HeaneyR.RijkersG.SchwittersB.VerhoevenP.. 2013. “Scientism, Legalism and Precaution—Contending with Regulating Nutrition and Health Claims in Europe.” European Food and Feed Law Review8 (6): 401–9.
3.
BlaauboerB.BoobisA.BradfordB.CockburnA.ConstableA.DaneshianM.EdwardsG., et al.2016. “Considering New Methodologies in Strategies for Safety Assessment of Foods and Food Ingredients.” Food and Chemical Toxicology91 (2016): 19–35.
4.
BlumbergJ.HeaneyR.HuncharekM.SchollT.StampferM.ViethR.WeaverC.ZeiselS.. 2010. “Evidence-based Criteria in the Nutritional Context.” Nutrition Reviews68 (8): 478–84.
5.
CartwrightN.HardieJ.. 2012. Evidence-based Policy. A Practical Guide to Doing It Better. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
ClewellH.2005. “Use of Mode of Action in Risk Assessment: Past, Present, and Future.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology42 (1): 3–14.
7.
CranorC.1993. Regulating Toxic Substances. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
CranorC.1995. “The Social Benefits of Expedited Risk Assessment.” Risk Analysis15 (1995): 353–58.
9.
CranorC.2011. Legally Poisoned: How the Law Puts Us at Risk From Toxicants. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
CranorC.2017. Tragic Failures. New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
de BoerA.2019. “Scientific Assessments in European Food Law: Making it Future-proof.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology108(Nov. 2019):104437. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.104437.
12.
de BoerA.BastA.. 2015. “International Legislation on Nutrition and Health Claims.” Food Policy55 (2015): 61–70.
13.
de BoerA.VosE.BastA.. 2014. “Implementation of the Nutrition and Health Claim Regulation—The Case of Antioxidants.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology68 (3): 475–87.
14.
DouglasH.2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
15.
ElliottK.2011. Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2016. “General Guidance for Stakeholders on Health Claim Applications.” EFSA Journal14 (4367): 1–38.
17.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2017. “Scientific and Technical Guidance for the Preparation and Presentation of a Health Claim Application.” EFSA Journal15 (4680): 1–31.
18.
European Commission. 2008. “Commission Regulation (EC) No 353/2008 of 18 April 2008 Establishing Implementation Rules for Applications for Authorisation of Health Claims as Provided for in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council.” Official Journal of the European Union51 (L.109):11–16.
19.
European Parliament and Council. 2006. “Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on Nutrition and Health Claims Made on Foods.” Official Journal of the European Union49 (L.404):9–25.
20.
GiereR.1988. Explaining Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
GigerenzerG.2000. Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
GlanvilleJ.KingS.GuarnerF.HillC.SandersM.. 2015. “A Review of the Systematic Review Process and Its Applicability for Use in Evaluating Evidence for Health Claims on Probiotic Foods in the European Union.” Nutrition Journal14 (2015): 16. doi: 10.1186/s12937-015-0004-5.
HowickJ.GlasziouP.AronsonJ.. 2009. “The Evolution of Evidence Hierarchies: What Can Bradford Hill’s Guidelines for Causation Contribute?” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine102 (5): 186–94.
25.
IllariP.RussoF.WilliamsonJ., eds. 2011. Causality in the Sciences. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
JasanoffS.1990. The Fifth Branch. Science Advisers as Policy Makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27.
LujánJ. L.TodtO.. 2021. “Evidence Based Methodology: A Naturalistic Analysis of Epistemic Policies in Regulatory Science.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science11 (1): 1–19.
28.
MarksH.2003. “Rigorous Uncertainty: Why RA Fisher Is Important.” International Journal of Epidemiology32 (6): 932–37.
29.
MayoD.HollanderR., eds. 1991. Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management. New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
MichaelsD.2008. Doubt is Their Product. New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
MichaelsD.MonfortonC.. 2005. “Manufacturing Uncertainty.” American Journal of Public Health95 (S1): 39–48.
32.
National Research Council. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33.
Navas-CarreteroS.MartinezJ.. 2015. “Cause-effect Relationships in Nutritional Intervention Studies for Health Claims Substantiation: Guidance for Trial Design.” International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition66 (S1): S53–61.
34.
RaffenspergerC.TicknerJ., eds. 1999. Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington, DC: Island Press.
35.
RichardsonD.2012. “Preparing Dossiers: Strength of the Evidence and Problems of Proof.” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society71 (1): 127–40.
36.
SamuelsR.StichS.. 2004. “Rationality and Psychology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Rationality, edited by MeleA.RawlingP., 278–300. New York: Oxford University Press.
37.
Shrader-FrechetteK.2004. “Comparativist Rationality and Epidemiological Epistemology: Theory Choice in Cases of Nuclear-weapons Risk.” Topoi23 (2): 153–63.
38.
Shrader-FrechetteK.2014. Tainted: How Philosophy of Science Can Expose Bad Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
SimonH.1956. “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment.” Psychological Review63 (2): 129–38.
40.
SteelD.2010. “Epistemic Values and the Argument from Inductive Risk.” Philosophy of Science77 (1): 14–34.
41.
SunsteinC.2002. Risk and Reason: Safety, Law and the Environment. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
42.
TodtO.LujánJ. L.. 2017. “Health Claims and Methodological Controversy in Nutrition Science.” Risk Analysis37 (5): 958–68.
43.
Valtueña MartínezS.SianiA.. 2017. “Health Claims Made on Food in the EU: The Edge between Scientific Knowledge and Regulatory Requirements.” Trends in Food Science & Technology69 (2017): 315–23.
44.
VerhagenH.van LoverenH.. 2016. “Status of Nutrition and Health Claims in Europe by Mid 2015.” Trends in Food Science & Technology56 (2016): 39–45.
45.
VisioliF.2012. “Can Experimental Pharmacology Be Always Applied to Human Nutrition?” International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition63 (S1): 10–13.
46.
WeedD.2005. “Weight of Evidence.” Risk Analysis25 (6): 1545–57.
