SXC.HU, SUPERCOLORLast August the National Football League (NFL) agreed to pay players $765 million to settle a lawsuit involving head trauma and neurodegenerative disease. While our understanding of head injury impacts on high school and college footballers remains incomplete, there is enough evidence to compel universities to assess their responsibilities and organize their diverse capabilities to address the problem.
Key to such an assessment is recognizing that the burden of proof varies for purposes of science and purposes of policy, and that both levels of proof are subject to significant ambiguity. Failure to grapple with these ambiguities could leave some universities sounding much like other organizations and private companies that have stubbornly denied responsibility for dangerous products.
A common deception used to refute mounting scientific evidence is to argue that the burden of proof for policy change must rise to scientific standards. However, proof for purposes of science is an elusive concept, since nearly every scientific explanation raises further questions. Throughout the 1960s, ‘70s, and ‘80s, the tobacco industry consistently refuted strong correlative evidence about smoking and lung cancer by citing gaps in mechanistic ...
