Upholding science in health, safety and environmental risk assessments and regulations

Michael Aschner, Herman N. Autrup, Sir Colin L Berry, Alan R. Boobis, Samuel M. Cohen, Edmond E. Creppy, Wolfgang Dekant, John Doull, Corrado L. Galli, Jay I. Goodman, Gio B. Gori, Helmut A. Greim, Philippe Joudrier, Norbert E. Kaminski, Curtis D. Klaassen, James E. Klaunig, Marcello Lotti, Hans W J Marquardt, Olavi Pelkonen, I. Glenn SipesKendall B. Wallace, Hiroshi Yamazaki

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A public appeal has been advanced by a large group of scientists, concerned that science has been misused in attempting to quantify and regulate unmeasurable hazards and risks.1 An Appeal for the Integrity of Science and Public Policy. Toxicology, September 4, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.tox.2016.08.015. The appeal recalls that science is unable to evaluate hazards that cannot be measured, and that science in such cases should not be invoked to justify risk assessments in health, safety and environmental regulations. The appeal also notes that most national and international statutes delineating the discretion of regulators are ambiguous about what rules of evidence ought to apply. Those statutes should be revised to ensure that the evidence for regulatory action is grounded on the standards of the scientific method, whenever feasible. When independent scientific evidence is not possible, policies and regulations should be informed by publicly debated trade-offs between socially desirable uses and social perceptions of affordable precaution. This article explores the premises, implications and actions supporting the appeal and its objectives.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)12-16
Number of pages5
JournalToxicology
Volume371
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 14 2016

Fingerprint

Environmental Health
Risk assessment
Hazards
Health
Safety
Environmental regulations
Social Perception
Public Policy
Toxicology

Keywords

  • Animal bioassays
  • Hazard assessment
  • Regulation
  • Regulatory ethics
  • Regulatory policy
  • Risk assessment
  • Scientific evidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Toxicology

Cite this

Aschner, M., Autrup, H. N., Berry, S. C. L., Boobis, A. R., Cohen, S. M., Creppy, E. E., ... Yamazaki, H. (2016). Upholding science in health, safety and environmental risk assessments and regulations. Toxicology, 371, 12-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2016.09.005

Upholding science in health, safety and environmental risk assessments and regulations. / Aschner, Michael; Autrup, Herman N.; Berry, Sir Colin L; Boobis, Alan R.; Cohen, Samuel M.; Creppy, Edmond E.; Dekant, Wolfgang; Doull, John; Galli, Corrado L.; Goodman, Jay I.; Gori, Gio B.; Greim, Helmut A.; Joudrier, Philippe; Kaminski, Norbert E.; Klaassen, Curtis D.; Klaunig, James E.; Lotti, Marcello; Marquardt, Hans W J; Pelkonen, Olavi; Sipes, I. Glenn; Wallace, Kendall B.; Yamazaki, Hiroshi.

In: Toxicology, Vol. 371, 14.09.2016, p. 12-16.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Aschner, M, Autrup, HN, Berry, SCL, Boobis, AR, Cohen, SM, Creppy, EE, Dekant, W, Doull, J, Galli, CL, Goodman, JI, Gori, GB, Greim, HA, Joudrier, P, Kaminski, NE, Klaassen, CD, Klaunig, JE, Lotti, M, Marquardt, HWJ, Pelkonen, O, Sipes, IG, Wallace, KB & Yamazaki, H 2016, 'Upholding science in health, safety and environmental risk assessments and regulations', Toxicology, vol. 371, pp. 12-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2016.09.005
Aschner, Michael ; Autrup, Herman N. ; Berry, Sir Colin L ; Boobis, Alan R. ; Cohen, Samuel M. ; Creppy, Edmond E. ; Dekant, Wolfgang ; Doull, John ; Galli, Corrado L. ; Goodman, Jay I. ; Gori, Gio B. ; Greim, Helmut A. ; Joudrier, Philippe ; Kaminski, Norbert E. ; Klaassen, Curtis D. ; Klaunig, James E. ; Lotti, Marcello ; Marquardt, Hans W J ; Pelkonen, Olavi ; Sipes, I. Glenn ; Wallace, Kendall B. ; Yamazaki, Hiroshi. / Upholding science in health, safety and environmental risk assessments and regulations. In: Toxicology. 2016 ; Vol. 371. pp. 12-16.
@article{c66823b091784ed7aaa1b21a80de4616,
title = "Upholding science in health, safety and environmental risk assessments and regulations",
abstract = "A public appeal has been advanced by a large group of scientists, concerned that science has been misused in attempting to quantify and regulate unmeasurable hazards and risks.1 An Appeal for the Integrity of Science and Public Policy. Toxicology, September 4, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.tox.2016.08.015. The appeal recalls that science is unable to evaluate hazards that cannot be measured, and that science in such cases should not be invoked to justify risk assessments in health, safety and environmental regulations. The appeal also notes that most national and international statutes delineating the discretion of regulators are ambiguous about what rules of evidence ought to apply. Those statutes should be revised to ensure that the evidence for regulatory action is grounded on the standards of the scientific method, whenever feasible. When independent scientific evidence is not possible, policies and regulations should be informed by publicly debated trade-offs between socially desirable uses and social perceptions of affordable precaution. This article explores the premises, implications and actions supporting the appeal and its objectives.",
keywords = "Animal bioassays, Hazard assessment, Regulation, Regulatory ethics, Regulatory policy, Risk assessment, Scientific evidence",
author = "Michael Aschner and Autrup, {Herman N.} and Berry, {Sir Colin L} and Boobis, {Alan R.} and Cohen, {Samuel M.} and Creppy, {Edmond E.} and Wolfgang Dekant and John Doull and Galli, {Corrado L.} and Goodman, {Jay I.} and Gori, {Gio B.} and Greim, {Helmut A.} and Philippe Joudrier and Kaminski, {Norbert E.} and Klaassen, {Curtis D.} and Klaunig, {James E.} and Marcello Lotti and Marquardt, {Hans W J} and Olavi Pelkonen and Sipes, {I. Glenn} and Wallace, {Kendall B.} and Hiroshi Yamazaki",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "14",
doi = "10.1016/j.tox.2016.09.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "371",
pages = "12--16",
journal = "Toxicology",
issn = "0300-483X",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Upholding science in health, safety and environmental risk assessments and regulations

AU - Aschner, Michael

AU - Autrup, Herman N.

AU - Berry, Sir Colin L

AU - Boobis, Alan R.

AU - Cohen, Samuel M.

AU - Creppy, Edmond E.

AU - Dekant, Wolfgang

AU - Doull, John

AU - Galli, Corrado L.

AU - Goodman, Jay I.

AU - Gori, Gio B.

AU - Greim, Helmut A.

AU - Joudrier, Philippe

AU - Kaminski, Norbert E.

AU - Klaassen, Curtis D.

AU - Klaunig, James E.

AU - Lotti, Marcello

AU - Marquardt, Hans W J

AU - Pelkonen, Olavi

AU - Sipes, I. Glenn

AU - Wallace, Kendall B.

AU - Yamazaki, Hiroshi

PY - 2016/9/14

Y1 - 2016/9/14

N2 - A public appeal has been advanced by a large group of scientists, concerned that science has been misused in attempting to quantify and regulate unmeasurable hazards and risks.1 An Appeal for the Integrity of Science and Public Policy. Toxicology, September 4, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.tox.2016.08.015. The appeal recalls that science is unable to evaluate hazards that cannot be measured, and that science in such cases should not be invoked to justify risk assessments in health, safety and environmental regulations. The appeal also notes that most national and international statutes delineating the discretion of regulators are ambiguous about what rules of evidence ought to apply. Those statutes should be revised to ensure that the evidence for regulatory action is grounded on the standards of the scientific method, whenever feasible. When independent scientific evidence is not possible, policies and regulations should be informed by publicly debated trade-offs between socially desirable uses and social perceptions of affordable precaution. This article explores the premises, implications and actions supporting the appeal and its objectives.

AB - A public appeal has been advanced by a large group of scientists, concerned that science has been misused in attempting to quantify and regulate unmeasurable hazards and risks.1 An Appeal for the Integrity of Science and Public Policy. Toxicology, September 4, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.tox.2016.08.015. The appeal recalls that science is unable to evaluate hazards that cannot be measured, and that science in such cases should not be invoked to justify risk assessments in health, safety and environmental regulations. The appeal also notes that most national and international statutes delineating the discretion of regulators are ambiguous about what rules of evidence ought to apply. Those statutes should be revised to ensure that the evidence for regulatory action is grounded on the standards of the scientific method, whenever feasible. When independent scientific evidence is not possible, policies and regulations should be informed by publicly debated trade-offs between socially desirable uses and social perceptions of affordable precaution. This article explores the premises, implications and actions supporting the appeal and its objectives.

KW - Animal bioassays

KW - Hazard assessment

KW - Regulation

KW - Regulatory ethics

KW - Regulatory policy

KW - Risk assessment

KW - Scientific evidence

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994577067&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84994577067&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.tox.2016.09.005

DO - 10.1016/j.tox.2016.09.005

M3 - Article

C2 - 27639665

AN - SCOPUS:84994577067

VL - 371

SP - 12

EP - 16

JO - Toxicology

JF - Toxicology

SN - 0300-483X

ER -