Scientific components in standard setting.

Although it has not, to my knowledge, been precisely articulated, one concept of the scientific component of determination of a standard is that, first, all relevant published data are collected; second, a process is undertaken to derive some consensus on the reliability or meaning of the research; and third, the resulting document is transmitted to those charged with recommending a standard. Such a description can now be seen, I wish to suggest, to be altogether too simplistic. It is not an adequate account of the necessary process, nor does it give any indication that the necessity to set some numerical standard has some interesting consequences, and also necessitates certain kinds of scientific activity which would not otherwise be undertaken. The first reason for stating that this is the case has to do with the fact that a standard can be regarded as an ordinary scientific hypothesis-no different from the kind of hypothesis that evolves as a consequence of laboratory work. Admittedly, a standard has to be expressed as a hypothesis for this relationship to be obvious, but when it is written in the form "if no exposure above x ppm occurs, then no excess of certain events (such as cases of some specific condition) will be observed," the fact that a standard is a scientific hypothesis becomes evident. It will be found to satisfy all the criteria we have for a scientific hypothesis. In particular, it satisfies the requirement, set out in great detail by Sir Karl Popper, that it should be a falsifiable hypothesis. The interesting fact about a hypothesis of this kind is that its strength depends to a considerable extent on interaction of data from different disciplines, of which no one individual can claim to be a master. Hence, the statement of such a hypothesis requires a background of consistency which is not required to anything like the same degree with simpler kinds of hypothesis. Second, all such standard setting brings us into