In this paper we argue for a naturalistic solution to some of the methodological controversies in regulatory science, on the basis of two case studies: toxicology (risk assessment) and health claim regulation (benefit assessment). We analyze the debates related to the scientific evidence that is considered necessary for regulatory decision making in each of those two fields, with a particular attention to the interactions between scientific and regulatory aspects. This analysis allows us to identify two general stances in the debate: a) one that argues for more permissive standards of evidence and for methodological pluralism, and b) an opposing one that not only defends strict evidence requirements but also stipulates the use of one particular (or at most a few) scientific methodologies for data generation. We argue that the real-world outcomes produced by alternative regulatory options are a vital piece of information that allows for the empirical assessment of these two stances. In particular, this information on outcomes makes it possible to analyze which standards of evidence and scientific methods generate the most useful knowledge as input for regulatory decision making. Our conclusion is that instead of an a priori selection of methodologies and standards, such decisions ought to be based on empirical evidence related to real-world outcomes.

在本文中，我们基于两个案例研究：毒理学（风险评估）和健康声明监管（收益评估），为监管科学中的一些方法论争议寻求一种自然解决方案。我们分析与这两个领域中的监管决策所必需的科学证据相关的辩论，并特别关注科学与监管方面之间的相互作用。这种分析使我们能够确定辩论中的两种一般立场：a）主张更宽松的证据标准和方法论多元化，b）反对的不仅捍卫严格的证据要求，而且规定使用一种特定的证据。 （或最多几种）科学的数据生成方法。我们认为，替代性监管方案所产生的现实结果是至关重要的信息，可以对这两种立场进行实证评估。尤其是，有关结果的信息可以分析哪些证据标准和科学方法产生最有用的知识，作为监管决策的输入。我们的结论是，这些决策应该基于与现实世界结果相关的经验证据，而不是先验地选择方法和标准。这些关于结果的信息使得有可能分析哪些证据标准和科学方法产生最有用的知识作为监管决策的输入。我们的结论是，这些决策应该基于与现实世界结果相关的经验证据，而不是先验地选择方法和标准。这些关于结果的信息使得有可能分析哪些证据标准和科学方法产生最有用的知识作为监管决策的输入。我们的结论是，这些决策应该基于与现实世界结果相关的经验证据，而不是先验地选择方法和标准。