Deception and Fraud in the Publication of Scientific Research: Are There Solutions?

A number of events in the U.S. and abroad have refocused the scientific community on historical issues of whether, and how, integrity of our technical literature can be assured. Solutions to this problem are neither simple nor certain. Professional societies have addressed scientific misconduct, and effective responses by the research community will require cooperation of scientific publications. While the incidence of scientific fraud is difficult to estimate with precision and certainly varies with discipline, identified and publicized recent cases beg attention from editorial boards. Several egregious cases are described. The peer review system serves the function of examination and critique by scientists in relevant disciplines to assess submitted papers prior to publication. There is even a developing literature and several specific journals dedicated to the subject of fraud, professional integrity and ways to monitor or correct existing conditions. Underlying the field of professional and scientific publication is a fundamental assumption that data are real and that research actually occurred. Typically, the process is “blind” in both directions, although some journals permit “author-directed” reviews. A reviewer’s responsibilities include ensuring that text properly reflects data, that tables and figures are necessary/appropriate, and that conclusions fairly and reasonably reflect results and the body of information. Thus, existing peer review systems probably cannot detect anything but the most obvious fraud. In addition to imposing or perpetuating stringent review protocols, journals also can amend author guidelines to speak explicitly about publishing requirements. Cases of properly documented fraud warrant immediate public announcement, followed by official withdrawal or retraction. Reflection on these issues led editors of one journal to institute changes in editorial policies and develop a code of ethics for authors, reviewers, and editors. Prevention of dishonest research is already difficult, and we should ensure that this remains the case. Editors should formally commit reviewers/authors to ethical conduct in technical publications prior to publication and review

Interpretation of Biological Data on Indoor Air Quality: Presence Doesn\u27t Equate to Significance

Based on results of residential air tests, homeowners may be advised that a significant mold problem exists in their home, and that extensive cleanup or remediation is required. Those living in such homes may attribute perceived or actual health conditions to reported levels of, or exposure to, molds. Consensus numerical guidelines or agency standards for evaluation of mold exposure do not exist. Toxicological evidence does not support a contention that healthy individuals are at significant health risk from common mold levels. Putative sensitive populations are not well-documented, and the literature is controversial or inconsistent. Factors influencing likelihood that indoor mold exposure contributes to adverse health effects include indoor vs. outdoor mold levels, concentration/types of mold species indoors vs. outdoors, number of samples collected indoors vs. outdoors, and number of sample events. For situations in which prevalence and speciation of indoor mold is indistinguishable from or less than outdoors, adverse health effects cannot be solely or predominantly a result of indoor exposures. Mold concentration data are reviewed from several residences where mold test results were presented as indicating a mold problem . We conclude, despite the fact that extensive and expensive remediation efforts and protracted litigation occurred, these data do not support allegations of adverse health effects from potential exposure to indoor mold in the observed homes

Arsenic Cleanup Criteria for Soils in the US and Abroad: Comparing Guidelines and Understanding Inconsistencies

Widely divergent cleanup targets, guidelines and standards for arsenic in soils have been established by many regulatory, scientific and advisory organizations in the past 25 years, both in the United States and in other countries. In contrast to many other substances, for which guidelines and standards are similar or identical among agencies, arsenic has provided a powerful study in just how many different ways a single issue can be viewed. This paper provides a detailed survey concerning the breadth of arsenic soil criteria that have been proposed and applied, and explores the basic differences in their derivation, which can be based upon toxicological properties, geological background levels, anthropogenic background contributions, and practical site-specific considerations. A broad comparison of extant values in common use for USEPA, individual states, and non-US entities will be presented, coupled with a discussion regarding common examples of the technical bases for arsenic soil cleanup guideline development. Arsenic target levels in many cases can dominate remedial considerations at sites where the applicable criteria are very stringent. Several case studies will be presented to illustrate the problems that are inherent in such variable criteria for this ubiquitous and extraordinarily common substance

Beneficial Use Of C&D Recovered Screen Material In Residential Applications: A Case Study

Florida has established guidelines to encourage recycling and use of recycled materials in a manner protecting public health and the environment. Recovered screened material (RSM) generated at a construction and demolition (C&D) debris recovery facility is a recycled material with reuse potential. In order to reuse RSM, it must be shown that the material poses no significant threat to public health or the environment. The Sun Recycling facilities in Broward and Palm Beach counties are C&D facilities, generating RSM (i.e., soil with wood, concrete, other C&D particles) through mechanical separation using screens. The process generates RSM meeting state requirements for industrial, commercial, and residential use. RSM was used on residential lots in Miramar to elevate low areas (excluding building pads). In accord with Broward County Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and Palm Beach County Department of Health (DOH) permits, Sun facilities perform regular testing of RSM. RSM tests showed arsenic (As) concentrations below state criteria. Quarterly testing did not detect VOCs, SVOCs, or pesticides. RSM was delivered to homesites and mixed with existing site soil. To address concerns raised by some residents, Miramar hired a consultant to collect samples for arsenic and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH), resulting in reports of some As levels above residential criteria. Further sampling/analysis of RSM and local soils in the neighborhood were performed by Broward EPD and Sun. Results of As and speciated TRPH analysis performed by the Miramar, Broward EPD, and Sun will be discussed. A consensus conclusion of acceptable conditions was reached by all parties

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Urban Soil: A Florida Risk Assessment Perspective

Over the past decade, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) have steadily climbed in importance on the CERCLA list of hazardous substances. Though the listing does not necessarily imply that these chemicals exhibit the greatest degree of toxicity, such recognition by ATSDR and USEPA is predicated at least in part on their demonstrated ubiquity, coupled with toxicity considerations. Regulatory agencies increasingly are under pressure to define and interpret data describing urban background levels, and to appropriately determine the relative importance of waste-producing activities and concentrations resulting from typical natural and/or human activity. Three case studies from Florida are presented that confirm the ubiquity of the PAHs at low levels, and that demonstrate the need for more sophisticated and transparent treatment by regulatory agencies. We discuss assessment and risk assessment activities related to two urban redevelopment projects, as well as one property transaction project. In each case, considerable sampling of surficial soils and sediment identified total benzo(a)pyrene-equivalent (BAPE) concentrations in the range of less than 1 ppm to about 5 ppm. Although those concentrations frequently exceeded the default Florida cleanup target level for both residential and commercial/industrial land use by a wide margin, it was concluded that they are completely consistent with levels reported in a great many urban settings. There is an ongoing need to consider the development of a default urban background level for PAHs in areas characterized by busy roadways or multiple industrial facilities, in much the same way that geological or anthropogenic background levels are established for some inorganics

Mercury Exposure Considerations: Evaluating the Chemical Form and Activities of the Individual

Evaluation of exposure to mercury in an environmental or an occupational context is more complex than that for many other substances, insofar as it requires consideration of a combination of factors including the form of mercury present and the associated toxicology (e.g., elemental vs. organic vs. inorganic), as well as characteristics of the individual/exposure being evaluated (e.g., route, frequency, duration, and magnitude of exposure). Given the major differences in absorption of mercury forms by route, it is not sufficient to discuss simply “mercury exposure”, as often occurs in media reports. Methods for addressing each of these characteristics are discussed, and specific case studies are presented to illustrate the practical significance of differences in contact with several common mercury forms that may be encountered under variable exposure circumstances. In addition, a discussion is presented of the variability of responses between adults and children to selected mercury forms, with attention to similarities or differences in observed effects. Finally, common sources of mercury exposure to the general population are discussed, for purposes of comparison with potential exposures in the workplace

Risk Considerations Related To Environmental Arsenic Exposure: Drinking Water Ingestion Versus Dietary Intake Or Soil Exposure

The February 2010 release of the Draft Toxicological Review of Inorganic Arsenic by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provoked discussion of a potential significant downward revision of the arsenic cancer slope factor (CSF), which would be applicable to many oral exposure evaluations. Given the extreme variability in soil cleanup guidelines that are in use throughout the United States and internationally for arsenic, it may be appropriate to more seriously consider bifurcating the manner in which arsenic is evaluated in environmental media. In much the same fashion by which manganese and cadmium presently are evaluated from a risk perspective, arsenic may lend itself to similar evaluation from a drinking water exposure standpoint separately from a dietary or an environmental soil route of exposure. This paper examines the basis for the current oral toxicological guidance with respect to specific exposure route and environmental medium of exposure, and addresses possible means for alternative toxicity guidance related to arsenic, based on differences in exposure through soil or the diet

Deception And Fraud In The Publication Of Scientific Research: Are There Solutions?

A number of events in the U.S. and abroad have refocused the scientific community on historical issues of whether, and how, integrity of our technical literature can be assured. Solutions to this problem are neither simple nor certain. Professional societies have addressed scientific misconduct, and effective responses by the research community will require cooperation of scientific publications. While the incidence of scientific fraud is difficult to estimate with precision and certainly varies with discipline, identified and publicized recent cases beg attention from editorial boards. Several egregious cases are described. The peer review system serves the function of examination and critique by scientists in relevant disciplines to assess submitted papers prior to publication. There is even a developing literature and several specific journals dedicated to the subject of fraud, professional integrity and ways to monitor or correct existing conditions. Underlying the field of professional and scientific publication is a fundamental assumption that data are real and that research actually occurred. Typically, the process is “blind” in both directions, although some journals permit “author-directed” reviews. A reviewer’s responsibilities include ensuring that text properly reflects data, that tables and figures are necessary/appropriate, and that conclusions fairly and reasonably reflect results and the body of information. Thus, existing peer review systems probably cannot detect anything but the most obvious fraud. In addition to imposing or perpetuating stringent review protocols, journals also can amend author guidelines to speak explicitly about publishing requirements. Cases of properly documented fraud warrant immediate public announcement, followed by official withdrawal or retraction. Reflection on these issues led editors of one journal to institute changes in editorial policies and develop a code of ethics for authors, reviewers, and editors. Prevention of dishonest research is already difficult, and we should ensure that this remains the case. Editors should formally commit reviewers/authors to ethical conduct in technical publications prior to publication and review