Assessing the Reliability and Credibility of Industry Science and Scientists

The chemical industry extensively researches and tests its products to implement product stewardship commitments and to ensure compliance with governmental requirements. In this commentary we argue that a wide variety of mechanisms enable policymakers and the public to assure themselves that studies performed or funded by industry are identified as such, meet high scientific standards, and are not suppressed when their findings are adverse to industry’s interests. The more a given study follows these practices and standards, the more confidence one can place in it. No federal laws, rules, or policies express a presumption that scientific work should be ignored or given lesser weight because of the source of its funding. To the contrary, Congress has consistently mandated that agencies allow interested or affected parties to provide information to them and fairly consider that information. All participants in scientific review panels should disclose sources of potential biases and conflicts of interest. The former should be considered in seeking a balanced panel rather than being used as a basis for disqualification. Conflicts of interest generally do require disqualification, except where outweighed by the need for a person’s services. Within these constraints, chemical industry scientists can serve important and legitimate functions on scientific advisory panels and should not be unjustifiably prevented from contributing to their work

How emergency managers (mis?)interpret forecasts

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146849/1/disa12293.pd

Enhancing Credibility of Chemical Safety Studies: Emerging Consensus on Key Assessment Criteria

Objectives: We examined the extent to which consensus exists on the criteria that should be used for assessing the credibility of a scientific work, regardless of its funding source, and explored how these criteria might be implemented. Data sources: Three publications, all presented at a session of the 2009 annual meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis, have proposed a range of criteria for evaluating the credibility of scientific studies. At least two other similar sets of criteria have recently been proposed elsewhere. Data extraction/synthesis: In this article we review these criteria, highlight the commonalities among them, and integrate them into a list of 10 criteria. We also discuss issues inherent in any attempt to implement the criteria systematically. Con c l u s i o n s: Recommendations by many scientists and policy experts converge on a finite list of criteria for assessing the credibility of a scientific study without regard to funding source. These criteria should be formalized through a consensus process or a governmental initiative that includes discussion and pilot application of a system for reproducibly implementing them. Formal establishment of such a system should enable the debate regarding chemical studies to move beyond funding issues and focus on scientific merit

Validation of Self-Report Measures Using Ratings By Others

A set of ratings by others was obtained in conjunction with a collection of self-report data on subjective quality of life. Respondents and two or three "relevant others" nominated by them rated the respondents' satisfaction with aspects of their life. The correlations between respondent-respondent, respondent-other, and other-other ratings provide estimates of the convergent and discriminant validity of the self-ratings and ratings by others. The results of these analyses provide evidence for the external validity of self-ratings in the quality of life area. More importantly, they illustrate the possibility of using ratings by other as a validation criterion for self-ratings in general. The validity of ratings by others who vary in their relationship with their respondents is also explored, and suggestions for further uses of ratings by others are providedPeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/69039/2/10.1177_004912417600400305.pd

Accounting for Science: The Independence of Public Research in the New, Subterranean Administrative Law

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is putting the final touches on a system designed to account for the science used by federal agencies in their administrative missions. There are reasons for concern that OMB\u27s new programs could be used to skew the system by which regulatory science is generated in the first place

DoD Range Rule Withdrawn with a View Towards Reproposal

During the Department of Defense\u27s Environmental Cleanup Stakeholders Forum in St. Louis, Missouri, in November 2000, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Ms. Sherri Goodman, announced that she had withdrawn the Range Rule from the Office of Management and Budget, with the intent to repropose the Rule. This Note outlines the reasons why Ms. Goodman withdrew the Rule from the Office of Management and Budget and explains the interim directives to be issued by the Department of Defense

Quality improvement prototype: Johnson Space Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The Johnson Space Flight Center was recognized by the Office of Management and Budget as a model for its high standards of quality. Included are an executive summary of the center's activities, an organizational overview, techniques for improving quality, the status of the quality effort and a listing of key personnel