Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.” We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels. We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option

Developing a conceptual framework for an evaluation system for the NIAID HIV/AIDS clinical trials networks

Globally, health research organizations are called upon to re-examine their policies and practices to more efficiently and effectively address current scientific and social needs, as well as increasing public demands for accountability

Is Area-Wide Pest Management Useful? The Case of Citrus Greening.

Citrus greening currently poses a severe threat to citrus production worldwide. No treatment or management strategy is yet available to cure the disease. Scientists recommend controlling the vector of the disease, and area-wide pest management has been proposed as a superior alternative to individual pest management. We analyzed a unique dataset of farm-level citrus yields that allowed us to test this hypothesis. We found that yields of blocks located in an area with higher participation in coordinated sprays were 28%, 73% and 98% percent higher in 2012/13, 2013/14, and 2014/15, respectively, compared to the yields of blocks under the same management but located in an area with lower participation; providing evidence on the efficiency of a well-performing pest management area to deal with HLB. However, participation in CHMAs has not been commensurate with this evidence. We present survey data that provide insights about producers’ preferences and attitudes toward the area-wide pest management program. Despite the economic benefit we found area-wide pest management can provide, the strategic uncertainty involved in relying on neighbors seems to impose too high of a cost for most growers, who end up not coordinating sprays

Advancing Alternative Analysis: Integration of Decision Science.

Decision analysis-a systematic approach to solving complex problems-offers tools and frameworks to support decision making that are increasingly being applied to environmental challenges. Alternatives analysis is a method used in regulation and product design to identify, compare, and evaluate the safety and viability of potential substitutes for hazardous chemicals.Assess whether decision science may assist the alternatives analysis decision maker in comparing alternatives across a range of metrics.A workshop was convened that included representatives from government, academia, business, and civil society and included experts in toxicology, decision science, alternatives assessment, engineering, and law and policy. Participants were divided into two groups and prompted with targeted questions. Throughout the workshop, the groups periodically came together in plenary sessions to reflect on other groups' findings.We conclude the further incorporation of decision science into alternatives analysis would advance the ability of companies and regulators to select alternatives to harmful ingredients, and would also advance the science of decision analysis.We advance four recommendations: (1) engaging the systematic development and evaluation of decision approaches and tools; (2) using case studies to advance the integration of decision analysis into alternatives analysis; (3) supporting transdisciplinary research; and (4) supporting education and outreach efforts

Application of the U.S. EPA Mode of Action Framework for Purposes of Guiding Future Research: A Case Study Involving the Oral Carcinogenicity of Hexavalent Chromium

Mode of action (MOA) analysis provides a systematic description of key events leading to adverse health effects in animal bioassays for the purpose of informing human health risk assessment. Uncertainties and data gaps identified in the MOA analysis may also be used to guide future research to improve understanding of the MOAs underlying a specific toxic response and foster development of toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic models. An MOA analysis, consistent with approaches outlined in the MOA Framework as described in the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, was conducted to evaluate small intestinal tumors observed in mice chronically exposed to relatively high concentrations of hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) in drinking water. Based on review of the literature, key events in the MOA are hypothesized to include saturation of the reductive capacity of the upper gastrointestinal tract, absorption of Cr(VI) into the intestinal epithelium, oxidative stress and inflammation, cell proliferation, direct and/or indirect DNA modification, and mutagenesis. Although available data generally support the plausibility of these key events, several unresolved questions and data gaps were identified, highlighting the need for obtaining critical toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic data in the target tissue and in the low-dose range. Experimental assays that can address these data gaps are discussed along with strategies for comparisons between responsive and nonresponsive tissues and species. This analysis provides a practical application of MOA Framework guidance and is instructive for the design of studies to improve upon the information available for quantitative risk assessment

Human Health Risk Assessment For Arsenic: A Critical Review

Millions of people are exposed to arsenic resulting in a range of health implications.This paper provides an up-to-date review of the different sources of arsenic (water, soil and food), indicators of human exposure (biomarker assessment of hair, nail, urine and blood), epidemiological and toxicological studies on carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health outcomes, and risk assessment approaches. The review demonstrates a need for more work evaluating the risks of different arsenic species such as; arsenate, arsenite monomethylarsonic acid, monomethylarsonous acid, dimethylarsinic acid and dimethylarsinous acid as well as a need to better integrate the different exposure sources in risk assessments