Suchergebnisse

M. Montévil, B. Stiegler, G. Longo, A. Soto, C. Sonnenschein, ANTHROPOCÈNE, EXOSOMATISATION ET NÉGUENTROPIE, dans B. Stiegler (curat.) "BIFURQUER, Eléments de réponses à Antonio Guterres et Greta Thunberg", PARIS, 2020: (AnthropoceneNeguEntrop.pdf) ; International audience ; Économie industrielle, savoirs scientifiques, technologie et ère Anthropocène L'économie industrielle a pris forme entre la fin du XVIIIe siècle et le XIXe siècled'abord en Europe occidentale puis en Amérique du Nord. Outre les productions techniques, elle aura conduit à des productions technologiques-mobilisant des sciences pour produire des biens industriels-: comme Marx l'aura montré en 1857, le capitalisme fait du savoir et de sa valorisation économique son élément premier. La physique de Newton et la métaphysique qui l'accompagne sont à l'origine du cadre épistémique (au sens de Michel Foucault) et épistémologique (au sens de Gaston Bachelard) de cette grande transformation-qui est la condition de ce que Karl Polanyi appellera lui-même « la grande transformation » 1. Dans cette transformation, l'otium (le temps de loisirs productifs) se soumet au negotium (les affaires du monde). Pendant ce temps, les mathématiques sont appliquées à travers des machines à calculer toujours plus puissantes et performatives-appelées computers après la deuxième guerre mondiale. Après des précurseurs tels que Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen 2 , lui-même inspiré par Alfred Lotka, nous soutiendrons dans le présent ouvrage que l'économie politique, dans ce qui est appelé l'ère Anthropocène (thématisée en 2000 par Paul Krutzen, et dont les caractéristiques ont été décrites par Vladimir Vernadsky dès 1926 3) est un défi qui nécessite un réexamen fondamental de ces cadres épistémiques et épistémologiques.

M. Montévil, B. Stiegler, G. Longo, A. Soto, C. Sonnenschein, ANTHROPOCÈNE, EXOSOMATISATION ET NÉGUENTROPIE, dans B. Stiegler (curat.) "BIFURQUER, Eléments de réponses à Antonio Guterres et Greta Thunberg", PARIS, 2020: (AnthropoceneNeguEntrop.pdf) ; International audience ; Économie industrielle, savoirs scientifiques, technologie et ère Anthropocène L'économie industrielle a pris forme entre la fin du XVIIIe siècle et le XIXe siècled'abord en Europe occidentale puis en Amérique du Nord. Outre les productions techniques, elle aura conduit à des productions technologiques-mobilisant des sciences pour produire des biens industriels-: comme Marx l'aura montré en 1857, le capitalisme fait du savoir et de sa valorisation économique son élément premier. La physique de Newton et la métaphysique qui l'accompagne sont à l'origine du cadre épistémique (au sens de Michel Foucault) et épistémologique (au sens de Gaston Bachelard) de cette grande transformation-qui est la condition de ce que Karl Polanyi appellera lui-même « la grande transformation » 1. Dans cette transformation, l'otium (le temps de loisirs productifs) se soumet au negotium (les affaires du monde). Pendant ce temps, les mathématiques sont appliquées à travers des machines à calculer toujours plus puissantes et performatives-appelées computers après la deuxième guerre mondiale. Après des précurseurs tels que Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen 2 , lui-même inspiré par Alfred Lotka, nous soutiendrons dans le présent ouvrage que l'économie politique, dans ce qui est appelé l'ère Anthropocène (thématisée en 2000 par Paul Krutzen, et dont les caractéristiques ont été décrites par Vladimir Vernadsky dès 1926 3) est un défi qui nécessite un réexamen fondamental de ces cadres épistémiques et épistémologiques.

In 1991, a group of 21 scientists gathered at the Wingspread Conference Center to discuss evidence of developmental alterations observed in wildlife populations after chemical exposures. There, the term "endocrine disruptor" was agreed upon to describe a class of chemicals including those that act as agonists and antagonists of the estrogen receptors (ERs), androgen receptor, thyroid hormone receptor, and others. This definition has since evolved, and the field has grown to encompass hundreds of chemicals. Despite significant advances in the study of endocrine disruptors, several controversies have sprung up and continue, including the debate over the existence of nonmonotonic dose response curves, the mechanisms of low-dose effects, and the importance of considering critical periods of exposure in experimental design. One chemical found ubiquitously in our environment, bisphenol-A (BPA), has received a tremendous amount of attention from research scientists, government panels, and the popular press. In this review, we have covered the above-mentioned controversies plus six additional issues that have divided scientists in the field of BPA research, namely: 1) mechanisms of BPA action; 2) levels of human exposure; 3) routes of human exposure; 4) pharmacokinetic models of BPA metabolism; 5) effects of BPA on exposed animals; and 6) links between BPA and cancer. Understanding these topics is essential for educating the public and medical professionals about potential risks associated with developmental exposure to BPA and other endocrine disruptors, the design of rigorously researched programs using both epidemiological and animal studies, and ultimately the development of a sound public health policy.

Bifurcating means: reconstituting a political economy that reconnects local knowledge and practices with macroeconomic circulation and rethinks territoriality at its different scales of locality; developing an economy of contribution on the basis of a contributory income no longer tied to employment and once again valuing work as a knowledge activity; overhauling law, and government and corporate accounting, via economic and social experiments, including in laboratory territories, and in relation to cooperative, local market economies formed into networks and linked to international trade; revaluing research from a long-term perspective, independent of the short-term interests of political and economic powers; reorienting digital technology in the service of territories and territorial cooperation. The collective work that produced this book is based on the claim that today's destructive development model is reaching its ultimate limits, and that its toxicity, which is increasingly massive, manifest and multidimensional (medical, environmental, mental, epistemological, economic – accumulating pockets of insolvency, which become veritable oceans), is generated above all by the fact that the current industrial economy is based in every sector on an obsolete physical model – a mechanism that ignores the constraints of locality in biology and the entropic tendency in reticulated computational information. In these gravely perilous times, we must bifurcate: there is no alternative.

Abstract The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.

This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original DOI. ; BACKGROUND In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.

The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU. ; Stockholm University ; http://www.ehjournal.net/content/12/1/69 ; am2014

The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.

The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU. ; ISSN:1476-069X

The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.

The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.

Abstract: The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU. ; Keywords: Endocrine disrupting chemicals, Environment, Health, Precautionary principle, Regulatory toxicology. ; Springer Open.