Environmental Health Sciences Decision Making Risk Management, Evidence, and Ethics: Workshop Summary (2009) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Stakeholder Perspectives on Environmental Health Sciences Decision Making
4 Stakeholder Perspectives on Environmental Health Sciences Decision Making
Pages 45-48
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 45... ...
David Michaels of The George Washington University suggested that neither of these interpretations was a result of intentional misleading; however, the public may have been served better if, following these conflicting interpretations, an independent review had been conducted. He further noted that eliminating all conflict of interest also would mean barring individuals who are employed by product defense or litigation support firms from serving on federal scientific advisory panels.
|
From page 46... ...
Some characteristics of good research can strengthen its credibility: • Using good lab practices and good epidemiological practices, which include such tools as research protocols, auditable data management practices, and publication of all results. • Protecting human subjects in all settings, including private institutions (oversight by institutional review boards also addresses the value and quality of research)
|
From page 47... ...
Balbus called for equally rigorous review of all data that may be incorporated into the rule-making process. Data Development for Risk Assessment In order to move the environmental health decision-making process forward, there is a need to think strategically about how data can inform risk, noted William Farland of Colorado State University.
|
From page 48... ...
As part of a new paradigm, researchers and policy makers would carefully consider whether current federal regulations are in fact designed to adequately protect individuals, especially those in vulnerable subpopulations. Any procedural change, noted Farland, is an opportunity to engage stakeholders on how these regulations are structured to address these populations and under what context.
|
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.