Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Strength Of Rational Model Of Decision Making
Strength Of Rational Model Of Decision Making
Advantages of rational decision making
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Strength Of Rational Model Of Decision Making
Risk Assessment Tools in Decision Making
Article Review
Risk assessment is a tool especially used in decision-making by the scientific and regulatory community. In Making Good Decisions, Peter Montague discusses the use of risk assessment, points out its lack of usefulness in his opinion, and posits that the current use of risk assessment today is largely unethical. He states that "Risk Assessment is one way of making decisions, but it is not the only way, and it is not the best way." (Montague, date unknown, p.1) Decision making in itself carries a substantial amount of risk because decisions are made in a less-than-perfect world. One never has all the information possible (Harris, 1998) and every decision charts a course into an unknown future. However, there are times where the potential for injury to people, animals or the environment in that unknown future should be evaluated and be considered in the development of alternatives. It is particularly important in the determination of appropriate courses of action when introduction of new chemicals into an environment or population is being contemplated.
Montague uses the four-step process definition of risk assessment described by the National Academy of Sciences and then discusses how each step has failed to have an impact on good decisions.' In step 1, Hazard Identification, he states that toxic endpoints' such as cancers and reproductive toxicities "are simply ignored." He continues in step 2, Dose-Response Assessment, with discussion of the effects of dose size on risk. He implies that because there are many ways to estimate or extrapolate the data from lab animals to humans, it causes the results to be manipulated until the answer that supports a particular plan of action is found. He implies that, at least informally, an alternative has already been isolated for implementation. In step 3, Exposure Assessment, Montague again asserts that "many sources of exposure are usually ignored." Finally in step 4, Risk Characterization, the type of population to be affected is analyzed. Here, Montague declares that "in practice, the characteristics of a particular population are usually ignored and averages are used instead." (Montague, date unknown, p. 2)
Montague continues in the remainder of the article to dispute the utility of risk assessment in decision-making. He alleges that "risk assessments never describe the real world" and "most people cannot understand or participate in a risk assessment" because it is a "mathematical technique.
Similar to what the article states, we have seen that risk is something that can go wrong, which we are unaware until a crisis happens. Many people tend to ignore the short tails of distribution saying they don't matter because there's a low possibility that it will occur. Think back to one such “perfect storm” that happened back in ...
Stokes, W.S. “Animals and the 3 R’s on Toxicology Research and Testing.” Human and Experimental Toxicology December 2015: 7. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 February
Sophisticated methods of testing are now being applied to human cells in petri dishes. Human volunteers are also being used and micro dosed with samples so small that they do not cause adverse reactions. The argument exists that these alternative testing methods are not only more cost effective but also more relevant because they are conducted using human cells and specimens; a method that isn’t hindered by species differences. In addition, computer generated models are being used to produce virtual reconstructions in order to test toxicity. Computer generated models cannot suffer the abuse nor can they that animals can. It is unfortunate that the law doesn’t require the use of valid alternatives, even if they are
and Europe, which include reduction of animal use, refine animal study techniques, and animal testing replacement. According to Dana ,Bidnall, “Animals are also used, and subsequently killed, every year in many other types of laboratory experiments, from military testing to simulated car crashes to deliberately introduced diseases such as AIDS and Alzheimer 's”(49). Bidnal also states that, “These experiments take place in labs at universities, pharmaceutical companies, and testing agencies, and on farms and military bases around the world”(49). The author suggest,”Researchers who conduct experiments on animals argue that it would be unethical to test substances with potentially adverse side effects on humans; animals are good surrogates because their responses are similar to humans”(49).Bidnal contends with ,”However, some animals are chosen for other reasons”(49). According to Bindal, “Animal testing is not the only option in toxicity testing”(50). Bidnal states, “Alternatives are widely available and include human clinical and epidemiological studies; experiments with cadavers, volunteers,and patients; computer simulation and mathematical models; and in vitro (test tube) tissue culture techniques, to name just a
When you reach for a cosmetic product or even medication you do so in confidence that these products have been tested and are safe for you to use. You use these products knowing that they have been tested repeatedly, but do you know how they have been tested? It turns out that many of the products that you use every day such as cosmetics and even medication have been tested thoroughly on animals (Abbot). These test that are being ran are supposed to be for our safety but in many cases “the results of testing on animals are different from the results of testing on humans because we have different physiologies and metabolisms” (Callanan 20). These test on animals are not only unnecessary and sometimes give false results but they cause harm to
Environmental risks and hazards provide the world with some of the most important issue pressing obstacles. Being able to manage risks and hazards on an environmental level can save many lives and create economic benefits in the process. The Flint, Michigan water crisis is such an example of this. When the water supply of a small urban Michigan town became tainted with lead, the pressure was put on the officials in order to manage the dangers surrounding that problem. Some of the ways at which reducing the risk and hazard would be to understand them better. One way to do this is to put prejudices aside and to understand the human condition. In other words, perceiving risk appropriately and being able to take risk out of the equation in order to protect the lives of humans.
The National Research Council in the United States has expressed its vision of “a not-so-distant future in which virtually all routine toxicity testing would be conducted in human cells or cell lines”, and science leaders around the world have reaffirmed this view. The sequencing of the human genome and birth of functional genomics, the explosive growth of computer power and computational biology, and high-speed robot automation of cell-based screening systems, to name a few, has sparked a quiet revolution in biology. Together, these innovations have produced new tools and ways of thinking that can help uncover exactly how chemicals and drugs disrupt normal processes in the human body at the level of cells and molecules. From there, scientists can use computers to interpret and integrate this information with data from human and population level studies. The resulting predictions regarding human safety and risk are potentially more relevant to people in the real world than animal tests. The wider field of human health research could benefit from a similar shift in theory. Many disease areas have seen little or no progress despite decades of animal research. Some 300 million people currently suffer from asthma, yet only two types of
this is called toxicological or other product safety estimate. And some tests are used for a assort...
Safer alternatives are out there, and they are becoming more accurate as technology improves. Let’s face it, this is the 21st century. As technology keeps advancing, animal testing just seems pointless in our modern world. Scientists have developed effective, non-animal research methods that are cheaper, faster, and more accurate than animal tests. This includes vitro and micro dosing testing as well as computer models. Vitro testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more precise results than animal testing because human cells can be used. Micro dosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers whose blood is then analyzed. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. Out of all the hundreds of techniques available, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85 percent. All these new forms of testing are the way of the future. It’s time to let animals be free instead of living these in barbaric conditions of science
Rather, it is centered around comprehension the key risks an organization confronts then going for broke at the best time in the wake of utilizing the most suitable safety measures (Valderrey, 2016). Even in the best of times, in the event that you are to oversee risk successfully, you should make to a great degree decision making ability calls including information and measurements, have an unmistakable feeling of how all the moving parts cooperate, and convey that well. In the most noticeably awful of times, risk management can go into disrepair. Recorded models can come up short, liquidity can become scarce, and relationships can get to be more grounded all of a
Many of the sources documented in her piece are unreliable. These “cases” were accidents, resulting from careless acts of one or more persons involved. In other cases, the damage to local wildlife was the failure of those who used the pesticide without the consideration of the effects it might have. The way the piece is written evokes a certain response from the reader and her approach has resulted in a wider understanding of the simple fact that these are chemicals, poisons, we are using when spraying pesticides. More importantly, the population may understand the more careful approach and control in every step of the way these poisons must travel, from research to laboratory to government approval to being used in the field.
Approximately two to four million animals have been used in safety tests. Safety tests are conducted with a wide range of chemicals and products, including drugs, vaccines, cosmetics, household cleaners, and packing materials. This raises issues such as the ethics and humaneness of deliberately poisoning animals, thus harming them, for the sake of marketing a new cosmetic or household product.
Animal testing is one the most beyond cruelty against animals. It is estimated about 7 million innocent animals are electrocuted, blinded, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated, killed in the name of science. By private institutions, households products, cosmetics companies, government agencies, educational institutions and scientific centers. From the products we use every day, such as soap, make-up, furniture polish, cleaning products, and perfumes. Over 1 million dogs, cats, primates, sheep, hamsters and guinea pigs are used in labs each year. Of those, over 86,000 are dogs and cat. All companies are most likely to test on animals to make patients feel safe and are more likely to trust medicines if they know they have been tested on animals first (PETA, N.D, page 1). These tests are done only to protect companies from consumer lawsuits. Although it’s not quite true, Humans and animals don’t always react in the same way to drugs. In the UK an estimated 10,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs, all these drugs have passed animal tests. Animal testing is often unpredictable in how products will work on people. Some estimates say up to 92 percent of tests passed on animals failed when tried on humans (Procon.org, 2014, page 1). Animal testing can’t show all the potential uses for a drug. The test results are...
In somewhat of an attempt to make a decision each person wants to carefully examine the unknown. In using sort of a checks and balances a person would weigh out the risk factor to be involved. Frost uses the line, 'And looked down one as far as I
Many pesticides, that of which have many unanswered questions regarding the potential health risk have been authorized by the EPA Office of Pesticide ...