Display options
Cite
Moghissi AA, Calderone RA, Estupigan C, et al. Requirements for Transparency and Communicability of Regulatory Science. Dose Response. 2018;16(4):1559325818813056doi: 10.1177/1559325818813056.
Moghissi, A. A., Calderone, R. A., Estupigan, C., Koch, R., Manfredi, K., & Vanderdys, V. (2018). Requirements for Transparency and Communicability of Regulatory Science. Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society, 16(4), 1559325818813056. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325818813056
Moghissi, A Alan, et al. "Requirements for Transparency and Communicability of Regulatory Science." Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society vol. 16,4 (2018): 1559325818813056. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325818813056
Moghissi AA, Calderone RA, Estupigan C, Koch R, Manfredi K, Vanderdys V. Requirements for Transparency and Communicability of Regulatory Science. Dose Response. 2018 Dec 03;16(4):1559325818813056. doi: 10.1177/1559325818813056. eCollection 2018. PMID: 30546279; PMCID: PMC6287310.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Dose Response. 2018 Dec 03;16(4):1559325818813056. doi: 10.1177/1559325818813056. eCollection 2018.

Requirements for Transparency and Communicability of Regulatory Science.

Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society

A Alan Moghissi, Richard A Calderone, Camille Estupigan, Rae Koch, Kelsey Manfredi, Vanessa Vanderdys

Affiliations

  1. Georgetown School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
  2. Institute for Regulatory Science, Alexandria, VA, USA.

PMID: 30546279 PMCID: PMC6287310 DOI: 10.1177/1559325818813056

Abstract

This article presents the results of a study attempting to provide examples that implement transparency and communicability elements of Ethical Rules Principle of Best Available Regulatory Science (BARS) and Metrics for Evaluation of Regulatory Science Claims (MERSC). It starts with an overview of regulatory science and briefly summarizes principles of BARS and key pillars of MERSC. Subsequently, the BARS/MERSC system is used to evaluate the linear nonthreshold (LNT) process used in cancer assessments and the similar process used for evaluating in particulate matter (PM) exposure. The study identifies 3 parts in dose-response curves, where the first part is reproducible science and the second part includes uncertainties and often requires the application of precautionary principle. The primary reason for disagreements on LNT and PM is a lack of recognition that the third part is based on desire of regulators to be protective, a policy decision process. Two PM epidemiological examples are included in this study to demonstrate the point. The regulatory process would benefit from recognizing the distinction between science and policy and excluding policy from regulatory science. Furthermore, the society would greatly benefit from increased transparency in the regulatory process and compliance with the Jeffersonian communication principle.

Keywords: Jeffersonian communication principle; linear nonthreshold; particulate matter; regulatory science

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: For a period, A

References

  1. Dose Response. 2018 May 29;16(2):1559325818769728 - PubMed
  2. N Engl J Med. 1993 Dec 9;329(24):1753-9 - PubMed
  3. Arch Toxicol. 2013 Sep;87(9):1621-33 - PubMed
  4. Dose Response. 2018 Jan 22;16(1):1559325817749413 - PubMed
  5. Proc R Soc Med. 1965 May;58:295-300 - PubMed
  6. Dose Response. 2017 Dec 13;15(4):1559325817746303 - PubMed
  7. Dose Response. 2018 Jan 22;16(1):1559325817746304 - PubMed
  8. Science. 2018 May 4;360(6388):472-473 - PubMed
  9. Environ Pollut. 2018 Oct;241:289-302 - PubMed
  10. Environ Res. 2017 Oct;158:773-788 - PubMed
  11. Environ Res. 2016 Jul;148:535-546 - PubMed

Publication Types