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

Scientific and Legal Perspectives on Science Generated for Regulatory Activities

This article originated from a conference that asked “Should scientific work conducted for purposes of advocacy before regulatory agencies or courts be judged by the same standards as science conducted for other purposes?” In the article, which focuses on the regulatory advocacy context, we argue that it can be and should be. First, we describe a set of standards and practices currently being used to judge the quality of scientific research and testing and explain how these standards and practices assist in judging the quality of research and testing regardless of why the work was conducted. These standards and practices include the federal Information Quality Act, federal Good Laboratory Practice standards, peer review, disclosure of funding sources, and transparency in research policies. The more that scientific information meets these standards and practices, the more likely it is to be of high quality, reliable, reproducible, and credible. We then explore legal issues that may be implicated in any effort to create special rules for science conducted specifically for a regulatory proceeding. Federal administrative law does not provide a basis for treating information in a given proceeding differently depending on its source or the reason for which it was generated. To the contrary, this law positively assures that interested persons have the right to offer their technical expertise toward the solution of regulatory problems. Any proposal to subject scientific information generated for the purpose of a regulatory proceeding to more demanding standards than other scientific information considered in that proceeding would clash with this law and would face significant administrative complexities. In a closely related example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considered but abandoned a program to implement standards aimed at “external” information

Valuation of Government Policies and Projects

Governments play a central role in the allocation of capital and risk in the economy. Evaluating the cost to taxpayers of government investments requires an assumption about the government’s cost of capital. Governments often take their borrowing rate to be their cost of capital, which implicitly treats the market risk associated with their activities as having no cost to taxpayers. This article reviews the theoretical and practical rationale for treating market risk as a cost to governments, presents an interpretive review of the growing literature that applies the concepts and tools of modern finance to evaluating the costs of government policies and projects and suggests directions for future research. Examples considered include deposit insurance, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve’s emergency lending facilities, student loans, real infrastructure investments, and public pension plans

What kind of mixed race/ethnicity data is needed for the 2020/21 global population census round: the cases of the UK, USA, and Canada

In western countries the mixed race/ethnicity population is experiencing a rapid increase in numbers and growing diversity, raising challenges for its capture in censuses and surveys. Methods include exact combinations of interest, multi-ticking, and open response, as exemplified by the censuses of England and Wales, the USA and Canada, and Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively. However, investigations of question face validity, reproducibility of findings, and efficacy of capture reveal quality problems with all three approaches. The low reporting reliability of this population urgently requires research and testing to identify optimal strategies. While there is clearly no one gold standard method of capture and current approaches have developed within national contexts, it is timely to review these methods across the three countries and to make recommendations for the upcoming 2020/21 censuses

Pediatric Cushing disease: disparities in disease severity and outcomes in the Hispanic and African-American populations.

BackgroundLittle is known about the contribution of racial and socioeconomic disparities to severity and outcomes in children with Cushing disease (CD).MethodsA total of 129 children with CD, 45 Hispanic/Latino or African-American (HI/AA) and 84 non-Hispanic White (non-HW), were included in this study. A 10-point index for rating severity (CD severity) incorporated the degree of hypercortisolemia, glucose tolerance, hypertension, anthropomorphic measurements, disease duration, and tumor characteristics. Race, ethnicity, age, gender, local obesity prevalence, estimated median income, and access to care were assessed in regression analyses of CD severity.ResultsThe mean CD severity in the HI/AA group was worse than that in the non-HW group (4.9±2.0 vs. 4.1±1.9, P=0.023); driving factors included higher cortisol levels and larger tumor size. Multiple regression models confirmed that race (P=0.027) and older age (P=0.014) were the most important predictors of worse CD severity. When followed up a median of 2.3 years after surgery, the relative risk for persistent CD combined with recurrence was 2.8 times higher in the HI/AA group compared with that in the non-HW group (95% confidence interval: 1.2-6.5).ConclusionOur data show that the driving forces for the discrepancy in severity of CD are older age and race/ethnicity. Importantly, the risk for persistent and recurrent CD was higher in minority children

Valuation of ecosystem services to inform management of multiple-use landscapes

Public agencies worldwide are increasingly adopting an ecosystem service framework to manage lands serving multiple uses. Yet, reliable, practical, and well-tailored methods remain a major limitation in moving from conceptual to actionable approaches. Together with one of the largest federal land managing agencies, we co-develop and co-demonstrate an ecosystem services approach tailored to specific decisions, through a process with potentially widespread relevance. With the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), we focus on balancing military training with biodiversity and resource conservation under both budgetary and land-use pressures at a representative installation. In an iterative process of co-design and application, we define, map, and quantify multiple ecosystem services under realistic management options. Resource management budget emerges as a major determinant of the degree to which managers can sustain both necessary training environments – a DoD-specific ecosystem service – and a prairie ecosystem with species of conservation concern. We also found clear tradeoffs between training intensity and forest-related services. Our co-developed approach brings otherwise hidden values and tradeoffs to the fore in a balanced way that can help public agencies safeguard priority services under potentially conflicting uses and budget limitations