https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/114976 2026-04-11T17:15:37Z 2026-04-11T17:15:37Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/131183 2025-07-23T23:48:10Z 1984-01-01T00:00:00Z

Legal Considerations of Reproductive Hazards in Industry in the United States Ashford, Nicholas A. Clearly, the human risks posed by reproductive hazards in the work place are both serious and far-reaching. An effective control strategy, then, must be one that emphasises prevention while preserving employment opportunities for the worker. It is hoped that employers will recognise the need for voluntary abatement of reproductive hazards. It must be recognised, however, that employees may need to avail themselves of legal mechanisms to encourage preventive actions. In many cases the most readily available mechanisms for preventive relief will be those created by federal statute; in other instances, private actions may be required. Legislative and statutory mechanisms include standard-setting for reproductive hazards; access to exposure and medical records; the rights of workers to individually refuse hazardous work; and antidiscrimination protection. Private actions include the court injunction; collective bargaining by unions; and suits for damages suffered.

1984-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/131178 2025-07-23T23:49:05Z 2021-01-01T00:00:00Z

Misinformation and What to Do About It Ashford, Nicholas A. Video presentation on Misinformation and What to Do About It by Prof. Nicholas A. Ashford, MIT on 11 June 2021. DISINFORMATION: The Straight Scoop. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvWbvlWfq98

2021-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/131113 2021-07-20T14:46:03Z 2015-06-24T00:00:00Z

The Many-Faceted Nature of the Precautionary Principle: Science, Technology, Social Justice, and Accountability Ashford, Nicholas A. Nicholas Ashford video on “The Many-Faceted Nature of the Precautionary Principle: Science, Technology, Social Justice, and Accountability” presented at the “Symposium on Health Risks, Innovation and Precaution”, Paris, 24 June 2015, sponsored by ANSES, The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety.” Also available at: https://youtu.be/l0slNw371cc

2015-06-24T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/131110 2021-07-20T13:54:48Z 2016-01-01T00:00:00Z

Transformation of the Industrial State During a Perfect Storm Ashford, Nicholas A. Transformation of the Industrial State During a Perfect Storm Presentation at Delft University (Scroll down to my picture then choose “watch lecture”) http://www.tudelft.nl/en/research/thematic-cooperation/delft-research-based-initiatives/delft-energy-initiative/meet-the-energy-leaders/ Also available at https://collegerama.tudelft.nl/Mediasite/Play/b07070661ea24ebca6c4d2f42a34a6fd1d

2016-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/131089 2025-07-23T23:50:31Z 2014-01-01T00:00:00Z

Trade Policy Ashford, Nicholas A. In an otherwise insightful and thoughtful article, Sebastian Pfotenhauer (Trade Policy Is Science Policy,” Issues, Fall 2013) might better have entitled his contribution “Trade Policy Needs to Be Reconciled with Science Policy.” The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the agreements administered by the World Trade Organization, particularly the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), were adopted to promote international trade and increase the economic benefits therefrom. Harmonization of environmental, health, and safety, and (EHS) standards and practices was generally not the goal of these agreements, except perhaps for the TBT agreement, which was predicated on EHS standards being based on “strong science” that could result in uniformity dictated by rigorous scientific consensus focused on risk assessments. Letter to the Editor

2014-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. Hall, Ralph https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/131046 2021-06-25T03:14:20Z 2011-01-01T00:00:00Z

The Importance of Regulation-Induced Innovation for Sustainable Development Ashford, Nicholas A.; Hall, Ralph This article explores the complex relationship between environmental regulation, innovation, and sustainable development within the context of an increasingly globalizing economy. The economic development, environment, and employment aspects of sustainable development are emphasized. We contend that the most crucial problem in achieving sustainability is lock-in or path dependency due to (1) the failure to envision, design, and implement policies that achieve co-optimization, or the mutually reinforcing, of social goals, and (2) entrenched economic and political interests that gain from the present system and advancement of its current trends. The article argues that industrial policy, environmental law and policy, and trade initiatives must be ‗opened up‘ by expanding the practice of multi-purpose policy design, and that these policies must be integrated as well. Sustainable development requires stimulating revolutionary technological innovation through environmental, health, safety, economic, and labor market regulation. Greater support for these changes must also be reinforced by ‗opening up the participatory and political space‘ to enable new voices to contribute to integrated thinking and solutions.

2011-01-01T00:00:00Z Koch, Lars Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/131045 2021-06-25T03:30:55Z 2006-01-01T00:00:00Z

Rethinking the role of information in chemicals policy: implications for TSCA and REACH Koch, Lars; Ashford, Nicholas A.

2006-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/131042 2021-06-25T03:15:49Z 2004-01-01T00:00:00Z

Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Incorporating Science, Technology, Fairness, and Accountability in Environmental, Health, and Safety Decisions Ashford, Nicholas A.

2004-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/131040 2021-06-25T03:17:28Z 2005-01-01T00:00:00Z

Scientific, ethical and legal challenges in work-related genetic testing in the United States Ashford, Nicholas A. Human monitoring in the workplace, sometimes referred to as medical screening, is a collation of practices that focuses on the workers as an indicator that: 1) disease may result on exposure to a toxic substance, radiation, or other traumas (medical surveillance); 2) a toxic substance has been absorbed into the body (biological monitoring); 3) a particular worker may be especially predisposed to disease (genetic screening or other probes of sensitivity); and 4) a pre-clinical disease state exists, indicating that potentially harmful exposure has occurred (genetic monitoring). These monitoring practices, especially when required or carried out by a government agency or the employer, raise serious and complex scientific, legal, and ethical concerns. This article focuses on the practice of “genetic testing” that involves mainly types 3 and 4, i.e., those involving both genetic screening for predisposition to disease, and genetic monitoring for indications of potential harm due to workplace exposure. However, the other two types of monitoring may also be relevant. The article also constructs a philosophic framework for: 1) examining the adequacy of law as an embodiment of ethical values, and sound science, concerning the genetic testing of workers; and 2) identifying possible solutions to the attendant legal and moral dilemmas. In the workplace, the analysis necessarily focuses on three sets of activities involving distinct participants: workers, employers, corporations, physicians – either in-house or under contract – and the government. The sets of activities deserving separate consideration are: 1) requiring the worker to submit to monitoring tests; 2) disseminating the results of the tests; and 3) using the test results. Because the different kinds of monitoring address different stages of the pathway from exposure to disease, and because what is monitored affects different groups of workers differently, specification of exemplar problems and a case-by-case analysis are essential, lest we face useless generalities at the end.

2005-01-01T00:00:00Z Epstein, Samuel S. Ashford, Nicholas A. Blackwelder, Brent Castleman, Barry Cohen, Gary Goldsmith, Edward Anthony, Mazzocchi Young, Quentin https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/131038 2021-06-25T03:00:49Z 2002-01-01T00:00:00Z

The Crisis in U.S. and International Cancer Policy Epstein, Samuel S.; Ashford, Nicholas A.; Blackwelder, Brent; Castleman, Barry; Cohen, Gary; Goldsmith, Edward; Anthony, Mazzocchi; Young, Quentin The incidence of cancer in the United States and other major industrialized nations has escalated to epidemic proportions over recent decades, and greater increases are expected. While smoking is the single largest cause of cancer, the incidence of childhood cancers and a wide range of predominantly nonsmoking- related cancers in men and women has increased greatly. This modern epidemic does not reflect lack of resources of the U.S. cancer establishment, the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society; the NCI budget has increased 20-fold since passage of the 1971 National Cancer Act, while funding for research and public information on primary prevention remains minimal. The cancer establishment bears major responsibility for the cancer epidemic, due to its overwhelming fixation on damage control—screening, diagnosis, treatment, and related molecular research— and indifference to preventing a wide range of avoidable causes of cancer, other than faulty lifestyle, particularly smoking. This mindset is based on a discredited 1981 report by a prominent pro-industry epidemiologist, guesstimating that environmental and occupational exposures were responsible for only 5 percent of cancer mortality, even though a prior chemical industry report admitted that 20 percent was occupational in origin. This report still dominates public policy, despite overwhelming contrary scientific evidence on avoidable causes of cancer from involuntary exposures to a wide range of environmental carcinogens. Since 1998, the ACS has been planning to gain control of national cancer policy, now under federal authority. These plans, developed behind closed doors and under conditions of nontransparency, with recent well-intentioned but mistaken bipartisan Congressional support, pose a major and poorly reversible threat to cancer prevention and to winning the losing war against cancer.

2002-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. Ryan, William C. Caldart, Charles C. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/131036 2021-06-25T03:03:54Z 1983-01-01T00:00:00Z

Law and Science Policy in Federal Regulation of Formaldehyde Ashford, Nicholas A.; Ryan, William C.; Caldart, Charles C.

1983-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/131031 2021-06-25T03:04:37Z 2002-01-01T00:00:00Z

Implementing A Precautionary Approach In Decisions Affecting Health, Safety, And The Environment: Risk, Technology Alternatives, And Tradeoff Analysis Ashford, Nicholas A.

2002-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/130921 2021-06-08T03:00:46Z 1999-01-01T00:00:00Z

Porter Debate Stuck in 1970's Ashford, Nicholas A.

1999-01-01T00:00:00Z Caldart, Charles Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/130911 2021-06-08T03:29:26Z 1999-01-01T00:00:00Z

Negotiations as a means of developing and implementing environmental and occupational health and safety policy Caldart, Charles; Ashford, Nicholas A.

1999-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/130888 2021-06-02T03:33:41Z 1996-01-01T00:00:00Z

Monitoring the Worker and the Community for Chemical Exposure and Disease: Legal and Ethical Considerations in the United States Ashford, Nicholas A. Biomonitoring of workers and communities raises important legal and ethical concerns, but the two contexts are different. Monitoring workers is usually done by, or at the instigation of, the employer who in law is responsible for their health and safety. Whenever worker monitoring leads to the removal of workers, difficult issues emerge affecting labor-management relations, labor law and discrimination law. Resulting legal and ethical questions are usually framed within the context of the employment contract or labor relationship. In contrast, public health or environmental officials may be the driving force behind biomonitoring of the community. No employer-employee relationship exists, and the doctor-patient relationship may be tenuous. The community may often initiate the request for biomonitoring, but the situation is no less contentious. On the basis of an historical view of monitoring events within the U.S. context, mechanisms are suggested that would promote positive interactions between employers and workers, and between individuals and groups in the monitoring of chemically contaminated communities. These suggestions should have relevance to experience in other countries.

1996-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. Clarke, Robin Aloisi de Larderel, Jacqueline Oldenburg, Kirsten de Hoo, Sybren Kryger, John https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/130881 2021-05-29T03:37:18Z 1994-01-01T00:00:00Z

Government Strategies and Policies for Cleaner Production Ashford, Nicholas A.; Clarke, Robin; Aloisi de Larderel, Jacqueline; Oldenburg, Kirsten; de Hoo, Sybren; Kryger, John

1994-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/130879 2021-05-29T03:34:51Z 1994-01-01T00:00:00Z

Monitoring the Worker and the Community Exposure and Disease: Legal and Ethical Considerations in the United States Ashford, Nicholas A.

1994-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. Ayers, Christine Stone, Robert https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/130870 2021-05-29T03:36:21Z 1985-01-01T00:00:00Z

Using Regulation to change the Market for Innovation Ashford, Nicholas A.; Ayers, Christine; Stone, Robert

1985-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. C. William, Ryan Charles, Caldart https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/130651 2021-05-25T03:36:20Z 1983-01-01T00:00:00Z

A Hard Look at Federal Regulation of Formaldehyde: A Departure from Reasoned Decision-Making Ashford, Nicholas A.; C. William, Ryan; Charles, Caldart

1983-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/130642 2021-05-25T03:10:30Z 1983-01-01T00:00:00Z

The Control of Reproductive Hazards in the Workplace: A Prescription for Prevention Ashford, Nicholas A.

1983-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/130639 2021-05-22T03:16:25Z 2009-01-01T00:00:00Z

Reflections on Environmental Liability Schemes in the United States and the European Union: Limitations and Prospects for Improvement Ashford, Nicholas A.

2009-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/130637 2021-05-22T03:33:59Z 2007-01-01T00:00:00Z

The Legacy of the Precautionary Principle in U.S. Law: The Rise of Cost-Benefit Analysis and Risk Assessment as Undermining Factors in Health, Safety, and Environmental Protections Ashford, Nicholas A.

2007-01-01T00:00:00Z Hall, Ralph Ashford, Nicholas A. Arango-Quiroga, Johan Ashford, Robert https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/130629 2021-05-21T03:19:09Z 2019-08-19T00:00:00Z

Universal basic income and inclusive capitalism: consequences for sustainability Hall, Ralph; Ashford, Nicholas A.; Arango-Quiroga, Johan; Ashford, Robert Over the past forty years, income growth for the middle and lower classes has stagnated, while the economy (and with it, economic inequality) has grown significantly. Early automation, the decline of labor unions, changes in corporate taxation, the financialization and globalization of the economy, deindustrialization in the U.S. and many OECD countries, and trade have contributed to these trends. However, the transformative roles of more recent automation and digital technologies/artificial intelligence (AI) are now considered by many as additional and potentially more potent forces undermining the ability of workers to maintain their foothold in the economy. These drivers of change are intensifying the extent to which advancing technology imbedded in increasingly productive real capital is driving productivity. To compound the problem, many solutions presented by industrialized nations to environmental problems rely on hyper-efficient technologies, which if fully implemented, could further advance the displacement of well-paid job opportunities for many. While there are numerous ways to address economic inequality, there is growing interest in using some form of universal basic income (UBI) to enhance income and provide economic stability. However, these approaches rarely consider the potential environmental impact from the likely increase in aggregate demand for goods and services or consider ways to focus this demand on more sustainable forms of consumption. Based on the premise that the problems of income distribution and environmental sustainability must be addressed in an integrated and holistic way, this paper considers how a range of approaches to financing a UBI system, and a complementary market solution based on an ownership-broadening approach to inclusive capitalism, might advance or undermine strategies to improve environmental sustainability.

2019-08-19T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/130623 2021-05-19T03:01:09Z 2021-03-29T00:00:00Z

The Fight Against Misinformation Isn’t Just on Facebook Ashford, Nicholas A.

2021-03-29T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. Moran, Sharon Stone, Robert F. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/116798 2019-04-09T17:15:47Z 1987-10-01T00:00:00Z

The Role of Changes in Statutory/Tort Law and Liability in Preventing and Compensating Damages from Future Releases of Hazardous Waste Ashford, Nicholas A.; Moran, Sharon; Stone, Robert F. with contributions from Gordon Bloom and Daniel Nyhart, a Report to the Special Legislative Commission on Liability for Releases of Oil and Hazardous Material

1987-10-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/116690 2019-04-10T07:27:41Z 1984-01-01T00:00:00Z

The Use of Technical Information in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation: A Brief Guide to the Issues Ashford, Nicholas A.

1984-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/115901 2019-04-10T20:36:44Z 1988-01-01T00:00:00Z

Science and Values in the Regulatory Process Ashford, Nicholas A. This article provides a framework for consideration of values in the use of science in the regulatory process. The science in question includes both the assessment of technologic risk and the assessment of technologic options to reduce those risks. The focus of the inquiry is on the role of the scientist and engineer as analyst or assessor. The difficulties in separating facts and values will be addressed by focusing on the central question: what level of evidence is sufficient to trigger a requirement for regulatory action? For the purposes of this article, the regulatory process includes notification of risks to interested parties, control of technologic hazards and compen- sation for harm caused by technology. The discussion will address the problems in achieving both a fair outcome and a fair process in the regulatory use of science.

1988-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/115855 2019-04-08T07:51:48Z 2018-05-24T00:00:00Z

Nicholas Ashford on Regulation and Innovation Ashford, Nicholas A.

2018-05-24T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/115846 2019-04-08T07:19:01Z 2017-09-06T00:00:00Z

Arkema was not a Natural Disaster. It was a Preventable Accident Waiting to Happen Ashford, Nicholas A.

2017-09-06T00:00:00Z Benidickson, Jamie Fairbairn, Lyle Franklin, Claire Ashford, Nicholas A. Nielsen, Elizabeth Krewski, Daniel https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/115575 2019-04-12T23:04:01Z 2006-10-31T00:00:00Z

The Role of a General Safety Requirement in Canada's Health Protection Regime Benidickson, Jamie; Fairbairn, Lyle; Franklin, Claire; Ashford, Nicholas A.; Nielsen, Elizabeth; Krewski, Daniel

2006-10-31T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. Caldart, Charles https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/115566 2019-04-10T17:29:05Z 2012-07-01T00:00:00Z

The Clean Air Act Ashford, Nicholas A.; Caldart, Charles

2012-07-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/115233 2019-04-08T09:01:08Z 2015-06-24T00:00:00Z

The Many-Faceted Nature of the Precautionary Principle: Science, Technology, Social Justice, and Accountability. Ashford, Nicholas A.

2015-06-24T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/115147 2019-04-10T13:29:28Z 2016-01-01T00:00:00Z

The Flaws in the Emerging Toxics Reform Legislation and How They Can Be Fixed Ashford, Nicholas A.

2016-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. Caldart, Charles C. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/115069 2019-04-12T22:22:48Z 1985-01-01T00:00:00Z

The "Right to Know": Toxics Information Transfer in the Workplace Ashford, Nicholas A.; Caldart, Charles C.

1985-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. Caldart, Charles C. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/115067 2019-04-10T20:33:21Z 2017-01-01T00:00:00Z

Environmental Protection Laws Ashford, Nicholas A.; Caldart, Charles C.

2017-01-01T00:00:00Z Ashford, Nicholas A. Caldart, Charles C. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/115009 2019-04-12T22:23:35Z 2015-01-01T00:00:00Z

Environmental Protection Laws Ashford, Nicholas A.; Caldart, Charles C. The manufacturing, processing, and use of chemicals, materials, tools, machinery, and equipment in industrial, construction, mining, and agricultural workplaces cause environmental, health, and safety hazards and risks. Occupational and environmental factors cause or exacerbate major diseases of the respiratory, cardiovascular, reproductive, and nervous systems and cause system poisoning and some cancers and birth defects. Occupational and environmental disease and injury place heavy economic and social burdens on workers, employers, community residents, and taxpayers.

2015-01-01T00:00:00Z