Information quality in regulatory decision making: Peer review versus good laboratory practice

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 120, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 927-934

  McCarty, Lynn S ^a   Borgert, Christopher J ^b,c   Mihaich, Ellen M ^d  

^a LS McCarty Scientific Research and Consulting   (Canada)

^b Applied Pharmacology and Toxicology Inc   (United States)

^c University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine   (United States)

^d Environmental and Regulatory Resources   (United States)

Author keywords

Data quality; GLP; Peer review; Regulatory decision making; Toxicity tests

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; ORGANIZATION; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TOXICITY TESTING; VALIDATION PROCESS; VALIDITY;

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; PEER REVIEW;

EID: 84864147549     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: 15529924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1104277     Document Type: Review

References (78)

1. AADAP (Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership). 2006a. General Operating Procedure: Quality Assurance Duties and Responsibilities. SOP No. GEN 001.2. Bozeman MT:Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Available: http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/aadap/National%20Aquaculture%20Drug%20Resea rch%20Forum/SOPs/SOP%20001-2%20QualityAssurance.pdf [accessed 1February 2011].
2. AADAP (Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership). 2006b. General Operating Procedure: Quality Assurance Duties and Responsibilities. SOP No. GEN 002.4. Bozeman MT:Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Available: http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/aadap/National Aquaculture Drug Research Forum/SOPs/SOP 002-4 study conduct.pdf [accessed 1February 2011].
3. Akst J. 2010. I hate your paper. Scientist 24:36.
4. Armstrong JS. 1997. Peer review for journals: evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Sci Eng Ethics 3:63-84.
5. Arnold SF, Klotz DM, Collins BM, Vonier PM, Guillette LJ Jr, McLachlan JA. 1996. Synergistic activation of estrogen receptor with combinations of environmental chemicals. Science 272:1489-1492.
6. Bailar JC III, Patterson K. 1985. Journal peer review: the need for a research agenda. N Engl J Med 312:654-657.
7. Barrow CS, Conrad JW Jr. 2006. Assessing the reliability and credibility of industry science and scientists. Environ Health Perspect 114:153-155.
8. Batterman AR, Batterman SL, Jansen KM, Whiteman FW. 1999. Data quality objectives in environmental research planning. Qual Assur 7:181-194.
9. Becker RA, Janus ER, White RD, Kruszewski FH, Brackett RE. 2009. Good Laboratory Practices and safety assessments[Letter]. Environ Health Perspect 117:A482.
10. Becker RA, Janus ER, White RD, Kruszewski FH, Brackett RE. 2010. Good Laboratory Practices: Becker et al. respond [Letter]. Environ Health Perspect 118:A194-A195.
11. Benda WGG, Engles TCE. 2011. The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science. Int J Forecast 27:166-182.
12. Birnbaum LS, Culpepper BT. 1999. Research integrity: a government perspective. Qual Assur 7:217-224.
13. BMJ (British Medical Journal). 2004. Training Material-BMJ Resources. Available: http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers/training-materials [accessed 28 March 2011].
14. Boden LI, Ozonoff D. 2008. Litigation-generated science: why should we care? Environ Health Perspect 116:117-122.
15. Borgert CJ. 2007. Conflict of interest or contravention of science? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 48:4-5.
16. Borgert CJ, Mihaich EM, Ortego LS, Bentley KS, Holmes CM, Levine SL, et al. 2011a. Hypothesis-driven weight of evidence framework for evaluating data within the U.S. EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 61:185-191.
17. Borgert CJ, Mihaich EM, Quill TF, Marty MS, Levine SL, BeckerRA. 2011b. Evaluation of EPA's tier 1 endocrine screening battery and recommendations for improving the interpretation of screening results. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 59:397-411.
18. Burnham JC. 1990. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA 263:1323-1329.
19. Campanario JM. 1998. Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 1. Sci Commun 19:181-211.
20. Cicchetti DV. 1997. Referees, editors, and publication practices: Improving the reliability and usefulness of the peer review system. Sci Eng Ethics 3:51-62.
21. Colborn T, Dumanoski D, Myers JP. 1996. Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival? A Scientific Detective Story. New York:Dutton.
22. DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. 2010. Ensuring integrity in industry-sponsored research; primum non nocere, revisited. JAMA 303:1196-1198.
23. DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services). 2001. Findings of scientific misconduct. Fed Reg 66:52137. Available: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2001-10-12/pdf/01-25608.pdf [accessed 25 June 2011].
24. DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services). 2006. HHS Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated to the Public. Available: http://aspe.hhs.gov/infoquality/Guidelines/index.shtml [accessed 28March 2011].
25. ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). 2008. Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Chapter R.4: Evaluation of Available Information. Helsinki:ECHA.
26. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2006. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food on a Request from the Commission Related to 2,2-Bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane (Bisphenol A). EFSA J 428:1-75.
27. EU (European Union). 2004. Directive 2004/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the Harmonisation of Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions Relating to the Application of the Principles of Good Laboratory Practice and the Verification of Their Applications for Tests on Chemical Substances. Off J Eur Union L50:44-59.
28. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2008. Draft Assessment of Bisphenol A for Use in Food Contact Applications. Washington, DC:FDA.
29. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2012. Bisphenol A (BPA): Use in Food Contact Application. Available: http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm064437.htm [accessed 7June 2012].
30. FIFRA SAP (Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Science Advisory Panel). 2000. Atrazine: Hazard and Dose-Response Assessment and Characterization. Science Advisory Panel Report No. 2000-05. Available: http://www.thecre.com/pdf/finalatrazine.pdf [accessed 25 June 2011].
31. Forristal PM, Wilke DL, McCarty LS. 2008. Improving the quality of risk assessments in Canada using a principle-based approach. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 50:336-344.
32. Gori GB. 2009. Conflict of interest and public policy. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 53:159-160.
33. Government of Canada. 2000. A Framework for Science and Technology Advice: Principles and Guidelines for the Effective Use of Science and Technology Advice in Government Decision Making. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada:Industry Canada. Available: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/C2-500-2000E.pdf [accessed 28 March 2011].
34. Helder T. 2008. Quest for harmonisation: differences and similarities in national programmes for GLP monitoring. A senior inspector's viewpoint. Ann Ist Super Sanita 44:331-334.
35. Henderson M. 2010. End of the peer review show? BMJ 340:738-740.
36. Henry CJ, Conrad JW Jr. 2008. Scientific and legal perspectives on science generated for regulatory activities. Environ Health Perspect 116:136-141.
37. Hobbs DA, Warne MS, Markich SJ. 2005. Evaluation of criteria used to assess the quality of aquatic toxicity data. Integr Environ Assess Manag 1:174-80.
38. Horrobin DF. 1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA 263:1438-1441.
39. Horrobin DF. 2001. Something rotten at the core of science? Trends Pharm Sci 22:51-52.
40. Huntsinger DW. 2008. OECD and USA GLP applications. Ann Ist Super Sanita 44:403-406.
41. Jefferson T. 2006. Quality and value: Models of quality control for scientific research [Blog]. Nature Peer Review Debate; doi:0.1038/nature05031 [Online 29 June 2006].
42. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. 2002. Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. JAMA 287:2784-2789.
43. Jennings C. 2006. The true purpose of peer review [Blog]. Nature Peer Review Debate; doi:10.1038/nature05032 [Online 29 June 2006].
44. Kaiser KA, Cofield SS, Fontaine KR, Glasser SP, ThabaneL, ChuR, et al. 2011. Is funding source related to study reporting quality in obesity or nutrition randomized control trials in top-tier medical journals? Int J Obesity; doi:10.1038/ijo.2011.207 [Online 8November 2011].
45. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, AltmanDG. 2010. Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. JPharmacol Pharmacother 1:94-99.
46. Klimisch H-J, Andreae M, Tillmann U. 1997. A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 25(1):1-5.
47. Kronic DA. 1990. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA 263:1321-1322.
48. Lee K, Bero L. 2006. Increasing accountability. Nature Peer Review Debate: 10.1038/nature05007.
49. Locke S. 1985. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. London:Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.
50. McCook A. 2006. Is peer review broken? The Scientist 20:26-34.
51. McLachlan JA. 1997. Synergistic effect of environmental estrogens [Withdrawn]. Science 277:459-463.
52. Miller RR, Bus JS, Crissman JW. 1999. Toxicology: Judge data or dollars? [Editorial]. Environ Health Perspect 107:A489-A491.
53. Myers JP, vom Saal FS, Akingbemi BT, Arizono K, Belcher S, Colborn T, et al. 2009. Why public health agencies cannot depend on Good Laboratory Practices as a criterion for selecting data: The case of bisphenol A. Environ Health Perspect 117:309-315.
54. National Research Council. 1999. Hormonally Active Agents in the Environment. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
55. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1981a. OECD Principles of Good Laboratory Practice. Paris:Environment Directorate, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
56. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1981b. Concerning the Mutual Acceptance of Data in the Assessment of Chemicals. C(81)30(Final). Paris:Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
57. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1998. OECD Series on Principles of Good Laboratory Practice and Compliance Monitoring. Number1: OECD Principles on Good Laboratory Practice. Paris:Environment Directorate, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
58. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2011. OECD Series on Principles of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and Compliance Monitoring. Available: http://www.oecd.org/document/63/0,3746,en_2649_34381_2346175_1_1_1_1,00. html. [accessed 28March 2011].
59. OMB (U.S. Office of Management and Budget) 2002. Guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by federal agencies. Fed Reg 67:8452-8460.
60. OMB (U.S. Office of Management and Budget). 2004. Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. M-05-03. Washington, DC:OMB.
61. OMB (U.S. Office of Management and Budget). 2007. Updated Principles for Risk Analysis. M-07-24. Washington, DC:OMB.
62. Pinter A, Torok G, Borzsonyi M, Surjan A, Csik M, Kelecsenyi Z, et al. 1990. Long term carcinogenicity bioassay of the herbicide atrazine in F344 rats. Neoplasma 37: 533-544.
63. Rennie D. 2003. Editorial peer review: its development and rationale. In: Peer Review in Health Sciences (GodleeF, Jefferson T, eds). 2nd ed. London:BMJ Books, 1-13.
64. Sass JB, Castleman B, Wallinga D. 2005. Vinyl chloride: a case study of data suppression and misrepresentation. Environ Health Perspect 113:809-812.
65. Schneider K, Schwarz M, Burkholder I, Kopp-Schneider A, Edler L, Kinsner-Ovaskainen A, et al. 2009. "Toxrtool", a new tool to assess the reliability of toxicological data. Toxicol Lett 189:138-144.
66. Schreider J, Barrow C, Birchfield N, Dearfield K, Devlin D, HenryS, et al. 2010. Enhancing the credibility of decisions based on scientific conclusions: Transparency is imperative. Toxicol Sci 116:5-7.
67. Society of Toxicology. 2008. Principles for Research Priorities in Toxicology. Available: http://www.toxicology.org/ai/gm/PrinResearch.asp [accessed 28March 2011].
68. Steen RG. 2011. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics 37:113-117.
69. Tyl RW. 2009. Basic exploratory research versus guideline-compliant studies used for hazard evaluation and risk assessment: Bisphenol A as a case study. Environ Health Perspect 117:1644-1651.
70. Tyl RW. 2010. Good Laboratory Practices: Tyl responds [Letter]. Environ Health Perspect 118:A60-A61.
71. U.S. Congress, House Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Environment and Human Health: The Role of HHS. Hearing. 22 April 2010. 111th Cong., 2nd sess. Washington, DC, transcript at pages 79-80.
72. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Preliminary Draft, Hazard and Dose-response Assessment and Characterization: Atrazine. Available: http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2000/june27/finalparta_atz.pdf [accessed 25June 2011].
73. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Data Quality Assessment: A Reviewer's Guide (EPA QA/G-9R). EPA/240/B-06/002. Washington, DC:U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information.
74. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Weight-of-Evidence: Evaluating Results of EDSP Tier 1 Screening to Identify the Need for Tier 2 Testing. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Washington, DC:U.S. EPA.
75. U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2010. Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in Drinking Water: Risks to Human Health and the Environment. Available: http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=7673 [accessed 27November 2010].
76. vom Saal FS. 1995. Environmental estrogenic chemicals: their impact on embryonic development. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 1:3-15.
77. vom Saal FS, Myers JP. 2010. Good Laboratory Practices are not synonymous with good scientific practices, accurate reporting, or valid data [Letter]. Environ Health Perspect 118:A60.
78. World Health Organization. 2001. Handbook, Good Laboratory Practice (GLP): Quality Practices for Regulated Non-clinical Research and Development. Available: http://www.who.int/entity/tdr/publications/documents/glp-handbook.pdf [accessed 2 March 2011].