5
SciPoll 551: USEPA's Proposed Changes to TSCA Risk Evaluation Framework Rule
The requirement to peer review an entire risk evaluation is removed and should instead be required only for portions of the risk evaluation
Results
(110 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- Disagreeuser-175854It will compromise the thoroughness and reliability of the assessment. While focusing peer review on key portions might streamline the process, comprehensive review is vital for ensuring the overall quality and credibility of the risk evaluation.
- Disagreeuser-499245Less political bias not more is needed. If the agency wants to further its reputation for total BS, keep revising until its the "result" is the work of some unelected, uneducated, useful idiot who doesn't care if real science is cast aside. A new Lysenko is probably waiting in the wings.
- Disagreeuser-691039It will backfire on the subpopulationss with overlooked exposure routes
- Disagreeuser-556032Making a risk evaluation more conservative doesn't make it more correct. By overestimating risk, you do not protect sensitive populations. What ends up happening is that you take the focus off of concerns that should be addressed.
- Disagreeuser-414626As a journal editor I routinely see studies with rotten bits that sneak through peer-review. One area that I have noticed recently is photolysis. The authors use wavelengths of UV radiation that are only found above the Earth's atmosphere and are not relevant to what is experienced at the surface. However, the work seems to sail through peer-review.
- Disagreeuser-573537Any partial evaluation is poorer than a complete evaluation.
- Disagreeuser-378118Nothing better to improve an evaluation, than peer review and should be applied to all segments of the evaluation
- Disagreeuser-521436All aspects of a risk assessment are important for reaching conclusions and therefore should be transparent and peer reviewed.
- Disagreeuser-574398Peer review should include all portions of the document. Eliciting comments or allowing review of only parts of a document will result - at best - in a disjointed report. In many cases, it could result in a risk evaluation that is deficient in some way, as reviewers have only been given some of the information, and therefore can only reliably comment on some of the conclusions.
- Disagreeuser-653570ths a retrograde step, EPA should ensure that the entire risk evaluation is peer reviewed.
- Disagreeuser-931808Would increase risk of poor quality
- Disagreeuser-348103The entire risk evaluation should be peer reviewed by the authority
- Disagreeuser-114825Peer review is essential for any study
- Disagreeuser-754769There is a danger that companies will start leaving evaluations to those who interpret them in a way that is convenient for them.
They should be subject to fair and impartial peer review. - Disagreeuser-553839This removal will amount to enhancing the risk level instead of reducing it. Therefore, the requirement to peer review an entire risk evaluation should be there so that its nuances may be appreciated and realized.
- Disagreeuser-678105Peer review is important.
- No opinionuser-997228Positive aspects
- Efficiency: Focusing peer review efforts on specific portions of a risk evaluation might streamline the process, potentially saving time and resources. This approach could allow for a more targeted and quicker assessment of critical areas that require expert scrutiny.
- Specialized Expertise: Tailoring peer reviews to specific sections might enable the involvement of experts who specialize in particular aspects of the evaluation. This could enhance the depth and accuracy of analysis in those specific areas.
Drawbacks- Fragmented Evaluation: Focusing peer review on specific sections might risk overlooking potential interconnections between different parts of the evaluation. This could potentially result in gaps or inconsistencies in the overall assessment.
- Complexity and Subjectivity: Determining which portions require peer review might introduce subjectivity and complexity into the process. There could be disagreements or differing opinions on which sections are most critical for review.
- Disagreeuser-153764The goal of a rigorous evaluation is to consider all available evidence in toto.
- Disagreeuser-697743Peer review is essential here. Understanding how the risk evaluation was done requires a comprehensive assessment, even if it may take more time.
- Disagreeuser-445218Clearly, review should be comprehensive. If certain area are well developed then the effort will be less for them; however, the review should be comprehensive guided by what the Agency highlights relative to issues.
- Disagreeuser-523578Peer review should apply to all aspects of the intervention.
- DisagreeSciPinion AdminAny credible peer reviewers will want access to all pertinent evidence and its treatment by the analysts/authors.
- Disagreeuser-774962Who is to decide on what portions of the evaluation should be reviewed?
- No opinionSonne72Depends on the situation. For most scientists its good to have the whole overview. At least I prefer that.
- Disagreeuser-841110A complete peer review is preferable, albeit, it isn't clear from the question or what I could find online, what aspects are being removed from peer review. I would agree if the only sections not reviewed had nothing to do with the science.
- Disagreeuser-125195I'm not exactly sure what this question refers to with respect to "an entire risk evaluation", but in my mind peer review is a scientific endeavor focusing on evaluation of the science informing the decision and making suggestions for improvement. It is not appropriate to consider how decision makers took into account the science and weighed that in consideration of other factors such as cost, legal requirements, past court decisions, and the like
- Agreeuser-153519This modification will increase the flexibility of the process and can help speed up the adoption of regulation.