Causal Criteria in Medical and Biological Disciplines: History, Essenceand Radiation Aspect. Report 1. Problem Statement, Conceptionof Causes and Causation, False Associations
In Report 1 of the three-part review, the conceptual formulation and relevance of the problem is first consi-dered, including weak penetration of specific methodologies for causation proving into the experimental and descriptive disciplines associated with exposure to the radiation factor. The philosophical and scientific concepts necessary for understanding the meaning, essence and possibility of practical application of the criteria (rules, principles) for establishing the truth of associations, revealed in medical and biological disciplines, are presented. Five types of definition of the causes and causality have been found, from the simplest explanatory (‘by production') to complex ones, both for deterministic and stochastic effects (necessary and sufficient causes, component causes, probabilistic causes and counterfactual causes). The origins of many of these definitions go to the positions of the known philosophers (mostly D. Hume). A selection of statements is presen-ted, revealing the scientific, practical and social goals of both epidemiology and other causality studies important for human life and activity. These goals are primarily related to the evidence for the truth of the revealed dependencies of effects on agents and impacts, but the ways of their achievement can be based on different rules and ethical foundations based on the tasks, scientific or social. In the second case, the so-called ‘precautionary principle' is used, and the norms of research developed for application in the scientific community are simplified, in many respects being replaced by prevention or at least reduction of risks, even if the reality of the risks does not have strict scientific evidence. Examples of false, but statistically significant associations from various biomedical and social spheres (including effects of radiation exposure), caused by confound factors, are presented. These examples indicate the need to use standardized criteria for assessing the truth of causality.