A Review of the Talc Industry's Influence on Federal Regulation and Scientific Standards for Asbestos in Talc.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bird T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8261788 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The lack of regulation and adequate testing of talc-containing personal care products in the U.S. has resulted in the contamination of cosmetics with asbestos. As such, the true exposure of consumers to asbestos is poorly characterized and likely underestimated. In this study, transmission electron microscopy analysis revealed that 3 of 21 powder-based cosmetic products tested were contaminated with amphibole asbestos. One of these contaminated products is expressly marketed for use by children. The presence of asbestos found in products demonstrates the urgency to revise cosmetics policy. Further, talc-based cosmetics may be an overlooked and difficult to characterize source of exposure to asbestos, a known carcinogen.
| S-EPMC7691901 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Teaching of responsible conduct of research is largely predicated on the assumption that there are accepted standards of conduct that can be taught. However there is little evidence of consensus in the scientific community about such standards, at least for the practices of authorship, collaboration, and data management. To assess whether such differences in standards are based on disciplinary differences, a survey, described previously, addressing standards, practices, and perceptions about teaching and learning was distributed in November 2010 to US faculty from 50 graduate programs for the biomedical disciplines of microbiology, neuroscience, nursing, and psychology. Despite evidence of statistically significant differences across the four disciplines, actual differences were quite small. Stricter measures of effect size indicated practically significant disciplinary differences for fewer than 10% of the questions. This suggests that the variation in individual standards of practice within each discipline is at least as great as variation due to differences among disciplines. Therefore, the need for discipline-specific training may not be as important as sometimes thought.
| S-EPMC4375091 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The practice of research is full of ethical challenges, many of which might be addressed through the teaching of responsible conduct of research (RCR). Although such training is increasingly required, there is no clear consensus about either the goals or content of an RCR curriculum. The present study was designed to assess community standards in three domains of research practice: authorship, collaboration, and data management. A survey, developed through advice from content matter experts, focus groups, and interviews, was distributed in November 2010 to U.S. faculty from 50 graduate programs for each of four different disciplines: microbiology, neuroscience, nursing, and psychology. The survey addressed practices and perceived standards, as well as perceptions about teaching and learning. Over 1,300 responses (response rate of 21 %) yielded statistically significant differences in responses to nearly all questions. However the magnitude of these differences was typically small, leaving little reason to argue for community consensus on standards. For nearly all questions asked, the clear finding was that there was nothing approaching consensus. These results may be useful not so much to teach what the standards are, but to increase student awareness of the diversity of those standards in reported practice.
| S-EPMC4057364 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The present investigation was designed to explore the risk of stomach cancer by oral intake of talc powder without asbestos. We conducted a population-based cohort study on a randomly sampled cohort from Taiwan's health insurance database, with population of 1,000,000. The study participants were followed up through 2013. The outcome event of interest was the diagnosis of stomach cancer. The exposure of interest was the prescription of talc powder. Cox regression analyses were performed respectively. There were 584,077 persons without talc exposure and 21,575 talc users, 1849 diagnosed with stomach cancer. Persons with exposure of talc had a higher hazard ratio of stomach cancer (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.54?2.94; p < 0.001). Classification by cumulative exposure of talc yielded adjusted hazard ratios of stomach cancer of 1.58 (95% CI, 0.79?3.17; p = 0.19) and 2.30 (95% CI, 1.48?3.57; p < 0.001) among persons with high (>21 g) and medium (6?21 g) exposure of talc, as compared to the low-exposure counterparts. Our data demonstrated positive association between increased risk of stomach cancer and oral intake of talc without asbestos. Despite the absence of dose-response effect, there might be a link between stomach cancer and talc.
| S-EPMC6427112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:President Trump and his administration have been regarded by news outlets and scholars as one of the most hostile administrations towards scientists and their work. However, no study to-date has empirically measured how federal scientists perceive the Trump administration with respect to their scientific work. In 2018, we distributed a survey to over 63,000 federal scientists from 16 federal agencies to assess their perception of scientific integrity. Here we discuss the results of this survey for a subset of these agencies: Department of Interior (DOI) agencies (the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the US Geological Survey, and the National Park Service); the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). We focus our analysis to 10 key questions fitting within three core categories that relate to perceptions of integrity in science. Additionally, we analyzed responses across agencies and compare responses in the 2018 survey to prior year surveys of federal scientists with similar survey questions. Our results indicate that federal scientists perceive losses of scientific integrity under the Trump Administration. Perceived loss of integrity in science was greater at the DOI and EPA where federal scientists ranked incompetent and untrustworthy leadership as top barriers to science-based decision-making, but this was not the case at the CDC, FDA, and NOAA where scientists positively associated leadership with scientific integrity. We also find that reports of political interference in scientific work and adverse work environments were higher at EPA and FWS in 2018 than in prior years. We did not find similar results at the CDC and FDA. These results suggest that leadership, positive work environments, and clear and comprehensive scientific integrity policies and infrastructure within agencies play important roles in how federal scientists perceive their agency's scientific integrity.
| S-EPMC7179855 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review of compliance with standardized terminology and reporting criteria for radiofrequency (RF) tumor ablation, proposed by the International Working Group on Image-Guided Tumor Ablation in 2003, in the published reports.Materials and methodsLiterature search in the PubMed database was performed using index keywords, PubMed limit system, and eligibility criteria. The entire content of each article was reviewed to assess the terminology used for procedure terms, imaging findings, therapeutic efficacy, follow-up, and complications. Accuracy of the terminology and the use of alternative terms instead of standard terminology were analyzed. In addition, disparities in accuracy of terminology in articles according to the medical specialty and the type of radiology journal were evaluated.ResultsAmong the articles (n = 308) included in this study, the accuracy of the terms 'procedure or session', 'treatment', 'index tumor', 'ablation zone', 'technical success', 'primary technique effectiveness rate', 'secondary technique effectiveness rate', 'local tumor progression', 'major complication', and 'minor complication' was 97% (298/307), 97% (291/300), 8% (25/307), 65% (103/159), 55% (52/94), 33% (42/129), 94% (17/18), 45% (88/195), 99% (79/80), and 100% (77/77), respectively. The overall accuracy of each term showed a tendency to improve over the years. The most commonly used alternative terms for 'technical success' and 'local tumor progression' were 'complete ablation' and 'local (tumor) recurrence', respectively. The accuracy of terminology in articles published in radiology journals was significantly greater than that of terminology in articles published in non-radiology journals, especially in Radiology and The Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology.ConclusionThe proposal for standardization of terminology and reporting criteria for RF tumor ablation has been gaining support according to the recently published scientific reports, especially in the field of radiology. However, more work is still needed for the complete standardization of terminology.
| S-EPMC3909868 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to investigate the association between NLRP3 rs35829419 and CARD8 rs2043211 polymorphisms and the risk of developing pleural plaques, asbestosis, and malignant mesothelioma (MM), and to study the influence of the interactions between polymorphisms and asbestos exposure on the risk of developing these diseases.MethodsThe case-control study included 416 subjects with pleural plaques, 160 patients with asbestosis, 154 subjects with MM and 149 subjects with no asbestos disease. The NLRP3 rs35829419 and CARD8 rs2043211 polymorphisms were determined using real-time PCR-based methods. In the statistical analysis, standard descriptive statistics was followed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression modelling.ResultsAsbestos exposure (medium and high vs low) was associated with the risk for each studied asbestos-related disease. An increased risk of pleural plaques was found for CARD8 rs2043211 at + TT genotypes (OR = 1.48, 95% CI 1.01-2.16, p = 0.042). When the analysis was performed for MM patients as cases, and pleural plaques patients as controls, a decreased MM risk was observed for carriers of CARD8 rs2043211 TT genotype (OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.27-1.00, p = 0.049). The interactions between NLRP3 rs35829419 and CARD8 rs2043211 genotypes did not influence the risk of any asbestos-related disease. However, when testing interactions with asbestos exposure, a decreased risk of asbestosis was found for NLRP3 CA+AA genotypes (OR = 0.09, 95% CI 0.01-0.60, p = 0.014).ConclusionsThe results of our study suggest that NLRP3 and CARD8 polymorphisms could affect the risk of asbestos-related diseases.
| S-EPMC7282242 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Our objective was to examine conflicts of interest between the UK's health-focused All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) and the pharmaceutical industry between 2012 and 2018. APPGs are informal cross-party groups revolving around a particular topic run by and for Members of the UK's Houses of Commons and Lords. They facilitate engagement between parliamentarians and external organisations, disseminate knowledge, and generate debate through meetings, publications, and events. We identified APPGs focusing on physical or mental health, wellbeing, health care, or treatment and extracted details of their payments from external donors disclosed on the Register for All-Party Parliamentary Groups. We identified all donors which were pharmaceutical companies and pharmaceutical industry-funded patient organisations. We established that sixteen of 146 (11%) health-related APPGs had conflicts of interest indicated by reporting payments from thirty-five pharmaceutical companies worth £1,211,345.81 (16.6% of the £7,283,414.90 received by all health-related APPGs). Two APPGs (Health and Cancer) received more than half of the total value provided by drug companies. Fifty APPGs also had received payments from patient organisations with conflicts of interest, indicated by reporting 304 payments worth £986,054.94 from 57 (of 84) patient organisations which had received £27,883,556.3 from pharmaceutical companies across the same period. In total, drug companies and drug industry-funded patient organisations provided a combined total of £2,197,400.75 (30.2% of all funding received by health-related APPGs) and 468 (of 1,177-39.7%) payments to 58 (of 146-39.7%) health-related APPGs, with the APPG for Cancer receiving the most funding. In conclusion, we found evidence of conflicts of interests through APPGs receiving substantial income from pharmaceutical companies. Policy influence exerted by the pharmaceutical industry needs to be examined holistically, with an emphasis on relationships between actors potentially playing part in its lobbying campaigns. We also suggest ways of improving transparency of payment reporting by APPGs and pharmaceutical companies.
| S-EPMC8224875 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Scientific software from all areas of scientific research is pivotal to obtaining novel insights. Yet the coding standards adherence of scientific software is rarely assessed, even though it might lead to incorrect scientific results in the worst case. Therefore, we have developed an open source tool and benchmark called SoftWipe, that provides a relative software coding standards adherence ranking of 48 computational tools from diverse research areas. SoftWipe can be used in the review process of software papers and to inform the scientific software selection process.
| S-EPMC8113446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Covid-19 research made it painfully clear that the scandal of poor medical research, as denounced by Altman in 1994, persists today. The overall quality of medical research remains poor, despite longstanding criticisms. The problems are well known, but the research community fails to properly address them. We suggest that most problems stem from an underlying paradox: although methodology is undeniably the backbone of high-quality and responsible research, science consistently undervalues methodology. The focus remains more on the destination (research claims and metrics) than on the journey. Notwithstanding, research should serve society more than the reputation of those involved. While we notice that many initiatives are being established to improve components of the research cycle, these initiatives are too disjointed. The overall system is monolithic and slow to adapt. We assert that top-down action is needed from journals, universities, funders and governments to break the cycle and put methodology first. These actions should involve the widespread adoption of registered reports, balanced research funding between innovative, incremental and methodological research projects, full recognition and demystification of peer review, improved methodological review of reports, adherence to reporting guidelines, and investment in methodological education and research. Currently, the scientific enterprise is doing a major disservice to patients and society.
| S-EPMC8795888 | biostudies-literature