The Science and Philosophy of a Method for Assessing Environmental Causes

Abstract

When an environmental impairment has been identified, it becomes necessary to identify the cause so that an appropriate action can be planned. However, causation is difficult to establish—both conceptually and in practice. To ensure that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) method for causal assessment is appropriate and defensible, we reviewed concepts of causation from philosophers, statisticians, epidemiologists, and others. This article summarizes the results of that review and explains how it relates to the USEPA's method. We include a five-step process: (1) identify alternative candidate causes; (2) logically eliminate when possible; (3) diagnose when possible; (4) analyze the strength of evidence for remaining candidate causes; and (5) identify the most likely cause. We also encourage three practices: (1) use a consistent process; (2) do not claim proof of causation; and (3) document the evidence and inferences. This approach allows assessors to identify the most likely cause or, failing that, to reduce the set of possible causes and identify information needs for another iteration of causal assessment.