How about “The Toxicology Debate: Balancing Industry and Public Health in Chemical Regulation in India”

One of the key concerns raised by Dourson’s critics is that his work has frequently involved downplaying the risks posed by chemicals. For example, he has been accused of using flawed or incomplete data to conclude that certain chemicals are safe at higher exposure levels than other scientists would consider acceptable.

This has led some to argue that Dourson’s work has contributed to a culture of regulatory capture, in which industry interests are prioritized over public health and safety. Critics argue that the regulatory system should be based on the precautionary principle, which holds that in situations where there is uncertainty about the risks posed by a particular chemical or substance, regulators should err on the side of caution and take steps to protect public health.

Another concern raised about Dourson’s work is that it has often been funded by the chemical industry itself. This has led some to question whether his research has been biased or influenced by his financial ties to the industry. Some have argued that there needs to be greater transparency in the funding sources for scientific research, in order to ensure that the regulatory system is based on sound science rather than industry interests.

Despite the controversy surrounding his work, Dourson has continued to defend his research methods and his qualifications as a toxicologist. He has also continued to argue that his work is based on sound science and that he is committed to protecting public health and safety. However, the debate over his work is likely to continue as regulators grapple with how to ensure that the chemicals we are exposed to are safe.