» Articles » PMID: 33913617

Open Science in Regulatory Environmental Risk Assessment

Overview
Date 2021 Apr 29
PMID 33913617
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

A possible way to alleviate the public skepticism toward regulatory science is to increase transparency by making all data and value judgments used in regulatory decision making accessible for public interpretation, ideally early on in the process, and following the concepts of Open Science. This paper discusses the opportunities and challenges in strengthening Open Science initiatives in regulatory environmental risk assessment (ERA). In this discussion paper, we argue that the benefits associated with Open Science in regulatory ERA far outweigh its perceived risks. All stakeholders involved in regulatory ERA (e.g., governmental regulatory authorities, private sector, academia, and nongovernmental organizations), as well as professional organizations like the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, can play a key role in supporting the Open Science initiative, by promoting the use of recommended reporting criteria for reliability and relevance of data and tools used in ERA, and by developing a communication strategy for both professionals and nonprofessionals to transparently explain the socioeconomic value judgments and scientific principles underlying regulatory ERA. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:1229-1242. © 2021 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Citing Articles

Operationalization of the safe and sustainable by design framework for chemicals and materials: challenges and proposed actions.

Abbate E, Ragas A, Caldeira C, Posthuma L, Garmendia Aguirre I, Devic A Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2025; 21(2):245-262.

PMID: 39970383 PMC: 11844345. DOI: 10.1093/inteam/vjae031.


Are Open Science instructions targeted to ecologists and evolutionary biologists sufficient? A literature review of guidelines and journal data policies.

Koivisto E, Mantyla E Ecol Evol. 2024; 14(7):e11698.

PMID: 38994214 PMC: 11237169. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.11698.


Updating risk remediation-endpoints for petroleum-contaminated soils? A case study in the Ecuadorian Amazon region.

Hidalgo-Lasso D, Garcia-Villacis K, Urvina Ulloa J, Marin Tapia D, Gomez Ortega P, Coulon F Heliyon. 2024; 10(9):e30395.

PMID: 38720749 PMC: 11076972. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30395.

References
1.
Wilkinson M, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg I, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A . The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016; 3:160018. PMC: 4792175. DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18. View

2.
Schiltz M . Science Without Publication Paywalls: cOAlition S for the Realisation of Full and Immediate Open Access. PLoS Med. 2018; 15(9):e1002663. PMC: 6122176. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002663. View

3.
Rico A, van den Brink P, Gylstra R, Focks A, Brock T . Developing ecological scenarios for the prospective aquatic risk assessment of pesticides. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2015; 12(3):510-21. DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1718. View

4.
Devos Y, Craig W, Devlin R, Ippolito A, Leggatt R, Romeis J . Using problem formulation for fit-for-purpose pre-market environmental risk assessments of regulated stressors. EFSA J. 2020; 17(Suppl 1):e170708. PMC: 7055725. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170708. View

5.
Munafo M, Nosek B, Bishop D, Button K, Chambers C, Percie du Sert N . A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 2021; 1:0021. PMC: 7610724. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021. View