Environmental Health Sciences Decision Making Risk Management, Evidence, and Ethics: Workshop Summary (2009) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Summary
Summary
Pages 1-8
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
Thus, according to some of the workshop participants, society is currently at a crossroads in environmental health decision making, and there is a need to look
|
From page 2... ...
Scientists and policy makers therefore need to look at the emerging areas of science to find ways to incorporate this research into the environmental health decision-making process. Alternative View to Environmental Health Mary O'Brien from the Oregon Toxics Alliance furthered the discussion by noting that the presumed goal of environmental health science decision making is to produce less harm to human health and the environment.
|
From page 3... ...
Beyond Precaution Bernard Goldstein of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health noted that many environmental health decisions have been made from a fragmented, narrow, reductionist approach that can often create secondary problems. He echoed the call for a holistic approach for science, but at the same time cautioned about decision making under uncertainty.
|
From page 4... ...
In population health, effectiveness is often a function more of the nature of the intervention than the nature of the evidence; this suggests that the intervention is of such power that it carries with it an additional obligation to consider other aspects of the issues involved. Making decisions at the population level may require fewer points to consider, but their powerful impact requires understanding several factors: the potential health, economic, and social consequences of inaction; the potential health, economic, and social consequences of action; the characterization of uncertainties and mapping strategies as uncertainties resolve; and the systematic assessment and feedback factored into the approach of an intervention, concluded McGinnis.
|
From page 5... ...
. Revisiting Environmental Health Decisions Drawing from his experience at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
|
From page 6... ...
Using a case study, Cogliano illustrated the IARC strategy for addressing conflicts of interest that addressed the issues of best versus impartial experts, and maintain inference as they produce their monographs. Perspectives on Environmental Health Decision Making Throughout the workshop, both during the presentations and discussion periods, a variety of viewpoints were expressed on how to balance issues of conflict of interest and bias and to ensure weighting of evidence for decision making.
|
From page 7... ...
He further stated that peer review of data is not uniformly applied throughout the rule-making process and called for equally rigorous review of all data that may be incorporated into the rule-making process. William Farland of Colorado State University ended the panel discussion by noting that in order to move the environmental health decision-making process forward, there is a need to think strategically about how data can inform risk.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.