IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v29y1989i4p537-544.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The logic of a controversy: The case of agent orange in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Hall, Wayne

Abstract

Since 1979 the Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia (VVAA) has claimed that exposure to the herbicide Agent Orange in Vietnam has adversely affected the health of Vietnam veterans and their families. A campaign for government recognition of diseases and disabilities caused by herbicide exposure led in 1983 to the appointment of the Evatt Royal Commission which, after a 2-year inquiry, comprehensively rejected the VVAA's claim. The Evatt Commission's findings have not been accepted by the VVAA and the claim continues to be defended, albeit in a highly qualified form. This controversy exemplifies the way in which a claim can attract public support, and persist despite rejections by Committees of Inquiry. An understanding of the reasons for the persistence of controversy requires an understanding of the logic of rejecting causal claims, the psychology of everyday inductive reasoning, and the interaction between politics and science.

Suggested Citation

  • Hall, Wayne, 1989. "The logic of a controversy: The case of agent orange in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 537-544, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:29:y:1989:i:4:p:537-544
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(89)90199-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:29:y:1989:i:4:p:537-544. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.