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

Lessons from the removal of lead from gasoline for controlling other environmental pollutants: A case study from New Zealand

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It took over two decades to achieve the removal of leaded gasoline in this country. This was despite international evidence and original research conducted in New Zealand on the harm to child cognitive function and behaviour from lead exposure.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To identify lessons from the New Zealand experience of removing leaded gasoline that are potentially relevant to the control of other environmental pollutants.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>From the available documentation, we suggest a number of reasons for the slow policy response to the leaded gasoline hazard. These include: (1) industry power in the form of successful lobbying by the lead additive supplier, Associated Octel; (2) the absence of the precautionary principle as part of risk management policy; and (3) weak policymaking machinery that included: (a) the poor use of health research evidence (from both NZ and internationally), as well as limited use of expertise in academic and non-governmental organisations; (b) lack of personnel competent in addressing technically complex issues; and (c) diffusion of responsibility among government agencies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There is a need for a stronger precautionary approach by policymakers when considering environmental pollutants. Politicians, officials and health workers need to strengthen policymaking processes and effectively counter the industry tactics used to delay regulatory responses.</p

Perspective on the Use of LNT for Radiation Protection and Risk Assessment By The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) bases its risk assessments, regulatory limits, and nonregulatory guidelines for population exposures to low level ionizing radiation on the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis, which assumes that the risk of cancer due to a low dose exposure is proportional to dose, with no threshold. The use of LNT for radiation protection purposes has been repeatedly endorsed by authoritative scientific advisory bodies, including the National Academy of Sciences’ BEIR Committees, whose recommendations form a primary basis of EPA’s risk assessment methodology. Although recent radiobiological findings indicate novel damage and repair processes at low doses, LNT is supported by data from both epidemiology and radiobiology. Given the current state of the science, the consensus positions of key scientific and governmental bodies, as well as the conservatism and calculational convenience of the LNT assumption, it is unlikely that EPA will modify this approach in the near future