Upholding science in health, safety and environmental risk assessments and regulations

Michael Aschner (1) , Herman N. Autrup (2) , Sir Colin L. Berry (3) , Alan R. Boobis (4) , Samuel M. Cohen (5) , Edmond E. Creppy (6) , Wolfgang Dekant (7) , John Doull (8) , Corrado L. Galli (9) , Jay I. Goodman (10) , Gio B. Gori (11) , Helmut A. Greim (12) , Philippe Joudrier (13) , Norbert E. Kaminski (14) , Curtis D. Klaassen (15) , James E. Klaunig (16) , Marcello Lotti (17) , Hans W.J. Marquardt (18) , Olavi Pelkonen (19) , I. Glenn Sipes (20) , Kendall B. Wallace (21) , Hiroshi Yamazaki (22)

1 Molecular Pharmacology
2 Institute of Public Health
3 Pathology
4 Department of Medicine
5 Department of Pathology and Microbiology
6 Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences
7 Department of Toxicology
8 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutics
9 Toxicology and Risk Assessment, Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences
10 Michigan State University [East Lansing]
11 Health Policy Center
12 TUM - Technische Universität Munchen - Technical University Munich - Université Technique de Munich
13 UMR IATE - Ingénierie des Agro-polymères et Technologies Émergentes
14 Institute for Integrative Toxicology
15 Dept. of Environmental and Occupational Health
16 Department of Environmental Health
17 Department of Cardiology, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, School of Medicine
18 Experimental and Clinical Toxicology
19 Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine
20 Pharmacology
21 Medical School Duluth
22 Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics

A public appeal has been advanced by a large group of scientists, concerned that science has been misused in attempting to quantify and regulate unmeasurable hazards and risks.1 The appeal recalls that science is unable to evaluate hazards that cannot be measured, and that science in such cases should not be invoked to justify risk assessments in health, safety and environmental regulations. The appeal also notes that most national and international statutes delineating the discretion of regulators are ambiguous about what rules of evidence ought to apply. Those statutes should be revised to ensure that the evidence for regulatory action is grounded on the standards of the scientific method, whenever feasible. When independent scientific evidence is not possible, policies and regulations should be informed by publicly debated trade-offs between socially desirable uses and social perceptions of affordable precaution. This article explores the premises, implications and actions supporting the appeal and its objectives.

Mots clés: Scientific evidence; Regulation; Regulatory policy; Regulatory ethics; Animal bioassays; Hazard assessment; risk assessment; scientific controversy; agronomic research; medical research

Mots clés: évaluation des risques; incertitude de mesure; controverse scientifique; recherche agronomique; recherche médicale

Domaines: Sciences du Vivant [q-bio]

Michael Aschner, Herman N. Autrup, Sir Colin L. Berry, Alan R. Boobis, Samuel M. Cohen, et al.. Upholding science in health, safety and environmental risk assessments and regulations. Toxicology, 2016, 371, pp.12-16. ⟨10.1016/j.tox.2016.09.005⟩. ⟨hal-01837467⟩