HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Krimsky, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Krimsky, S. Related Collections Other Race/Ethnicity Socioeconomic Factors Urban Health

Sheldon Krimsky, PhD

The author is with the Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts University.

Correspondence: Request for reprints should be sent to Sheldon Krimsky, PhD, Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155 (e-mail: sheldon.krimsky{at}tufts.edu).

The term "weight of evidence" (WOE) appears in regulatory rules and decisions. However, there has been little discussion about the meaning, variations of use, and epistemic significance of WOE for setting health and safety standards.

This article gives an overview of the role of WOE in regulatory science, discusses alternative views about the methodology underlying the concept, and places WOE in the context of the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc (1993). I argue that whereas the WOE approach to evaluating scientific evidence is gaining favor among regulators, its applications in judicial processes may be in conflict with some interpretations of how the Daubert criteria for judging reliable evidence should be applied.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. W. Green and R. E. Glasgow Evaluating the Relevance, Generalization, and Applicability of Research: Issues in External Validation and Translation Methodology Eval Health Prof, March 1, 2006; 29(1): 126 - 153. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Michaels Scientific Evidence and Public Policy Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S5 - S7. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. J. Hoppin and R. Clapp Science and Regulation: Current Impasse and Future Solutions Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S8 - S12. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Melnick A Daubert Motion: A Legal Strategy to Exclude Essential Scientific Evidence in Toxic Tort Litigation Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S30 - S34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]