Obfuscating transparency? |
|
Author: | Aschner, Michael1; Autrup, Herman2; Berry, Colin L.3; |
Organizations: |
1Department of Molecular Pharmacology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA 2Institute of Public Health, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark 3Emeritus of Pathology, Queen Mary, London, UK
4Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
5Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA 6Department of Toxicology, University of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany 7Toxicology and Risk Assessment, Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy 8Pharmacology & Toxicology Department, Michigan State University East Lansing, MI, USA 9The Health Policy Center, Editor, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Bethesda, MD, USA 10Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany 11Pharmacology & Toxicology, Director, Institute for Integrative Toxicology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA 12Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutics, College of Medicine, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA 13Department of Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Indiana University Bloomington, IN, USA 14Department of Cardiology, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy 15Experimental and Clinical Toxicology, University of Hamburg Medical School, Hambug, Germany 16Department of, Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy 17Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland 18Pharmacology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA 19Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Duluth, MN, USA 20The Japanese Society for the Study of Xenobiotics, Showa Pharmaceutical University, Machida, Tokyo, Japan |
Format: | article |
Version: | accepted version |
Access: | open |
Online Access: | PDF Full Text (PDF, 0.3 MB) |
Persistent link: | http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi-fe2019102534718 |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Elsevier,
2018
|
Publish Date: | 2019-10-25 |
Description: |
AbstractSeveral recent and prominent articles in Science and Nature deliberately mischaracterized the nature of genuine scientific evidence. Those articles take issue with the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s recent proposal to structure its policies and rules only from studies with transparently published raw data. The articles claim it is an effort to obfuscate with transparency, by eliminating a host of studies not offering raw data. A remarkable declaration by a Science editorial is that properly trained experts can verify the scientific evidence of studies without access to raw data, We assert the Agency’s proposal must be sustained. Transparency in reporting is a fundamental ethical imperative of objective scientific research justifying massive official regulations and policies. Putative hazards bereft of independent scientific evidence will continue to stoke public anxieties, calling for precautionary regulations and policies. These should rely not on spurious science but on transparent tradeoffs between the smallest exposures compatible with utility and with social perceptions of affordable precaution. see all
|
Series: |
Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology |
ISSN: | 0273-2300 |
ISSN-E: | 1096-0295 |
ISSN-L: | 0273-2300 |
Volume: | 97 |
Pages: | A1 - A3 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.07.004 |
OADOI: | https://oadoi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.07.004 |
Type of Publication: |
B1 Journal article |
Field of Science: |
317 Pharmacy |
Subjects: | |
Copyright information: |
© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |