A case for deliberation in response to hormesis research.

Research on the phenomenon of hormesis (i.e., low-dose stimulatory effects caused by normally inhibitory or toxic substances) has recently provoked a good deal of debate. Formal mechanisms for deliberation and public participation are increasingly popular strategies for responding to controversial decisions in environmental policy, but they have been used only to a limited extent in response to scientific research itself. This commentary introduces natural scientists to some of the social scientific literature on these issues and argues for the importance of "diagnosing" whether controversial areas of policy relevant research would benefit from some form of deliberation. It provides a tentative diagnosis in the case of hormesis research, recommending a varied deliberative approach. There are many reasons to pursue broadly based deliberation in response to hormesis, including the potential to promote more productive research projects, alleviate public distrust, and prevent bias. Deliberative proceedings in this case should address judgments associated with at least four activities: (1) choosing projects and designing studies, (2) developing terminology, (3) interpreting and evaluating studies, and (4) applying research results to public policy. Although an advisory group composed primarily of experts might provide an adequate starting point, more intensive deliberative processes would be valuable before developing major changes to regulatory policy.