Advancing environmental exposure assessment science to benefit society.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Caplin A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6420629 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Advancing environmental exposure assessment science to benefit society.
Caplin Andrew A Ghandehari Masoud M Lim Chris C Glimcher Paul P Thurston George G
Nature communications 20190315 1
Awareness of the human health impacts of exposure to air pollution is growing rapidly. For example, it has become evident that the adverse health effects of air pollution are more pronounced in disadvantaged populations. Policymakers in many jurisdictions have responded to this evidence by enacting initiatives that lead to lower concentrations of air pollutants, such as urban traffic restrictions. In this review, we focus on the interplay between advances in environmental exposure assessment and ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Increasing recognition of the complexity of environmental problems and the need to understand social processes and human values is leading environmental management agencies in many nations, including the USA, to integrate more research from the social sciences through the inclusion of social scientists on interdisciplinary teams. For this study we conducted focus groups at three research laboratories within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development to better understand how inclusion of social sciences influenced the research process and outcomes, and the barriers to and facilitators of integration. The focus groups identified effects on the research process including improved problem framing, the introduction of new methodologies, and greater stakeholder and public inclusion, while research outcomes included the inclusion or refinement of social and environmental perspectives and systems thinking, increased translatability of research, and new partnerships. Barriers identified included lack of familiarity with social sciences which affected perceptions of social sciences and organizational capacity to absorb and apply social science expertise. Facilitators included receptivity of team members, intentional communication strategies, and project structures and organizational commitment that support interdisciplinary work. Finding a key barrier to be lack of clarity about the different roles social sciences play in translational research, we present a conceptual model defining the roles and contributions of social scientists that clarifies the distinction between "integration" of social sciences in research and "application" of skills and knowledge from the social sciences which play distinct but equally important roles in translational research approaches and solutions-driven research. These insights on the ways social sciences contribute to translational research efforts advance integration of social and natural sciences in environmental science research, particularly in applied contexts.
| S-EPMC10031653 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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).
| S-EPMC8596791 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExposure science studies the interactions and outcomes between environmental stressors and human or ecological receptors. To augment its role in understanding human health and the exposome, we aimed to centralize and integrate exposure science data into the broader biological framework of the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD), a public resource that promotes understanding of environmental chemicals and their effects on human health.ObjectivesWe integrated exposure data within the CTD to provide a centralized, freely available resource that facilitates identification of connections between real-world exposures, chemicals, genes/proteins, diseases, biological processes, and molecular pathways.MethodsWe developed a manual curation paradigm that captures exposure data from the scientific literature using controlled vocabularies and free text within the context of four primary exposure concepts: stressor, receptor, exposure event, and exposure outcome. Using data from the Agricultural Health Study, we have illustrated the benefits of both centralization and integration of exposure information with CTD core data.ResultsWe have described our curation process, demonstrated how exposure data can be accessed and analyzed in the CTD, and shown how this integration provides a broad biological context for exposure data to promote mechanistic understanding of environmental influences on human health.ConclusionsCuration and integration of exposure data within the CTD provides researchers with new opportunities to correlate exposures with human health outcomes, to identify underlying potential molecular mechanisms, and to improve understanding about the exposome.CitationGrondin CJ, Davis AP, Wiegers TC, King BL, Wiegers JA, Reif DM, Hoppin JA, Mattingly CJ. 2016. Advancing exposure science through chemical data curation and integration in the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database. Environ Health Perspect 124:1592-1599; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP174.
| S-EPMC5047769 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The way in which we assess researchers has been under the radar in the past few years. Critics argue that current research assessments focus on productivity and that they increase unhealthy pressures on scientists. Yet, the precise ways in which assessments should change is still open for debate. We circulated a survey with Flemish researchers to understand how they work, and how they would rate the relevance of specific indicators used in research assessments. We found that most researchers worked far beyond their expected working schedule. We also found that, although they spent most of their time doing research, respondents wished they could dedicate more time to it and spend less time writing grants and performing other activities such as administrative duties and meetings. When looking at success indicators, we found that indicators related to openness, transparency, quality, and innovation were perceived as highly important in advancing science, but as relatively overlooked in career advancement. Conversely, indicators which denoted of prestige and competition were generally rated as important to career advancement, but irrelevant or even detrimental in advancing science. Open comments from respondents further revealed that, although indicators which indicate openness, transparency, and quality (e.g., publishing open access, publishing negative findings, sharing data, etc.) should ultimately be valued more in research assessments, the resources and support currently in place were insufficient to allow researchers to endorse such practices. In other words, current research assessments are inadequate and ignore practices which are essential in contributing to the advancement of science. Yet, before we change the way in which researchers are being assessed, supporting infrastructures must be put in place to ensure that researchers are able to commit to the activities that may benefit the advancement of science.
| S-EPMC7878066 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe open science movement is transforming scientific practice with the goal of enhancing the transparency, productivity, and reproducibility of research. Nevertheless, transparency is a complex concept, and efforts to promote some forms of transparency may do relatively little to advance other important forms of transparency.ObjectivesDrawing from the literature in history, philosophy, and sociology of science, we aim to distinguish between different forms of scientific transparency. Our goal is to identify strategies for achieving forms of transparency that are relevant not only to scientists but also to decision makers and members of the public.DiscussionWe draw a distinction between "scientifically relevant transparency" and "socially relevant transparency." Most of the prominent strategies associated with the open science movement (e.g., making data publicly available and registering studies) are designed primarily to promote scientifically relevant transparency. To achieve socially relevant transparency, which is particularly important in fields like environmental health, further steps are needed to provide scientific information in ways that are relevant to decision makers and members of the public.ConclusionsPromoting socially relevant transparency will require a range of activities by many different individuals and institutions. We propose an array of strategies that can be pursued by scientists and other scholars, journals, universities, funders, government agencies, and members of the public. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4808.
| S-EPMC6792383 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDecision analysis-a systematic approach to solving complex problems-offers tools and frameworks to support decision making that are increasingly being applied to environmental challenges. Alternatives analysis is a method used in regulation and product design to identify, compare, and evaluate the safety and viability of potential substitutes for hazardous chemicals.ObjectivesWe assessed whether decision science may assist the alternatives analysis decision maker in comparing alternatives across a range of metrics.MethodsA workshop was convened that included representatives from government, academia, business, and civil society and included experts in toxicology, decision science, alternatives assessment, engineering, and law and policy. Participants were divided into two groups and were prompted with targeted questions. Throughout the workshop, the groups periodically came together in plenary sessions to reflect on other groups' findings.ResultsWe concluded that the further incorporation of decision science into alternatives analysis would advance the ability of companies and regulators to select alternatives to harmful ingredients and would also advance the science of decision analysis.ConclusionsWe advance four recommendations: a) engaging the systematic development and evaluation of decision approaches and tools; b) using case studies to advance the integration of decision analysis into alternatives analysis; c) supporting transdisciplinary research; and d) supporting education and outreach efforts. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP483.
| S-EPMC5743447 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Regulatory science, a complex field which draws on science, law, and policy, is a growing discipline in medical-related applications. Competencies help define both a discipline and the criteria to measure high-quality learning experiences. This paper identifies competencies for regulatory science, how they were developed, and broader recommendations to enhance education and training in this burgeoning field, including a multifaceted training approach.
| S-EPMC5351091 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the past few decades, prevention scientists have developed and tested a range of interventions with demonstrated benefits on child and adolescent cognitive, affective, and behavioral health. These evidence-based interventions offer promise of population-level benefit if accompanied by findings of implementation science to facilitate adoption, widespread implementation, and sustainment. Though there have been notable examples of successful efforts to scale up interventions, more work is needed to optimize benefit. Although the traditional pathway from intervention development and testing to implementation has served the research community well-allowing for a systematic advance of evidence-based interventions that appear ready for implementation-progress has been limited by maintaining the hypothesis that evidence generation must be complete prior to implementation. This sets up the challenging dichotomy between fidelity and adaptation and limits the science of adaptation to findings from randomized trials of adapted interventions. The field can do better. This paper argues for the development of strategies to advance the science of adaptation in the context of implementation that would more comprehensively describe the needed fit between interventions and their settings, and embrace opportunities for ongoing learning about optimal intervention delivery over time. Efforts to build the resulting adaptome (pronounced "adapt-ohm") will include the construction of a common data platform to house systematically captured information about variations in delivery of evidence-based interventions across multiple populations and contexts, and provide feedback to intervention developers, as well as the implementation research and practice communities. Finally, the article identifies next steps to jumpstart adaptome data platform development.
| S-EPMC5030159 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeFood and Drug Administration's (FDA) Draft Guidance for Industry on pharmaceutical REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies) assessment and survey methodology highlights physician knowledge-attitudes-behaviors (KAB) surveys as regulatory science tools. This mixed-methods evaluation advances regulatory science and the assessment of FDA REMS programs when using physician surveys. We: (1) reviewed published physician survey response rates; and (2) assessed response bias in a simulation study of secondary survey data using different accrual cut-off strategies.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted of US physician surveys (2000-2014) on pharmaceutical use (n = 75). Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to examine the relationships between response rates and survey design characteristics. The simulation was conducted using secondary data from a population-based physician KAB survey on diabetes risk management with antipsychotic use in Missouri Medicaid (n = 973 accrued over 30 weeks). Survey item responses were compared using Pearson's chi-square tests for two faster completion simulations: Fixed Sample (n = 300) and Fixed Time (8 weeks).ResultsSurvey response rates ranged from 7% to 100% (median = 48%, IQR = 34%-68%). Surveys of targeted populations and surveys using member lists were associated with higher response rates (p = 0.02). In the simulation, 9 of 20 (45%) KAB items, including diabetes screening advocacy, differed significantly using the smaller Fixed Sample strategy (achieved in 12 days) versus full accrual. Fewer response differences were found using the Fixed Time strategy (2 of 20 [10%] items).ConclusionsPublished data on physician surveys report low response rates with most associated with the sample source selected. FDA REMS assessments should include formal evaluation of survey accrual and response bias.
| S-EPMC6799639 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrecision health considers individual lifestyle, genetics, behaviors, and environment context and facilitates interventions aimed at helping individuals achieve well-being and optimal health.PurposeTo present the Nursing Science Precision Health (NSPH) Model and describe the integration of precision health concepts within the domains of symptom and self-management science as reflected in the National Institute of Nursing Research P30 Centers of Excellence and P20 Exploratory Centers.MethodsCenter members developed the NSPH Model and the manuscript based on presentations and discussions at the annual NINR Center Directors Meeting and in follow-up telephone meetings.DiscussionThe NSPH Model comprises four precision components (measurement; characterization of phenotype including lifestyle and environment; characterization of genotype and other biomarkers; and intervention target discovery, design, and delivery) that are underpinned by an information and data science infrastructure.ConclusionNurse scientist leadership is necessary to realize the vision of precision health as reflected in the NSPH Model.
| S-EPMC6688754 | biostudies-literature