Skip to main content Skip to page footer
elni logo elni logo

Better reporting of science to improve regulatory decision-making

Marlene Ågerstrand

elni Review 2020, pp. 12-15. https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2020.003

The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) introduces recommendations for reporting ecotoxicity studies. The purpose of this is to facilitate the use of these studies in research as well as regulatory assessments. Compliance with these reporting recommendations will depend on individual researchers as well as scientific journals’ willingness to adopt and promote them.

Access full article

References

  1. Alcock, MacGillivray, and Busby. Understanding the mismatch between the demands of risk assessment and practice of scientists – the case of Deca- BDE. Environ. Int. (2011) 37, 216–225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2010.06.002.
  2. Beronius et al. Risk to all or none? A comparative analysis of controversies in the health risk assessment of bisphenol A. Reprod. Toxicol. (2010) 29, 132–146.
  3. Boone et al., Pesticide regulation amid the infuence of industry, BioScience, (2014), 64(10), 917–922.
  4. Portier et al. Differences in the carcinogenic evaluation of glyphosate between the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). J Epidemiol Community Health (2016) 70(8), 741–745. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-207005.
  5. Mie, Rudén, and Grandjean. Safety of Safety Evaluation of Pesticides: developmental neurotoxicity of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl. Environmental Health (2018) 17, 77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-018-0421-y.
  6. Moermond et al. CRED: Criteria for reporting and evaluating ecotoxicity data. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (2016) 35(5), 297-1309.
  7. Beronius et al. Testing and refining the Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) web-based platform for evaluating the reliability and relevance of in vivo toxicity studies. J Appl Toxicol. (2018) 38:1460-1470. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.3648.
  8. Vandenbroucke et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med (2007) 4:e297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297.
  9. Percie du Sert et al. The ARRIVE guidelines 2019: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. bioRxiv (2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/703181.
  10. Ågerstrand. In Response: Reporting recommendations to ensure reliability and reproducibility of ecotoxicity studies—A tripartite initiative. ET&C Perspective (2016) 35(5), 1072-1073. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3358.
  11. Führ and Bizer. REACH as a paradigm shift in chemical policy – responsive regulation and behavioural models. Journal of Cleaner Production (JCLP), 15, 2007 (4), 327-334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.10.003.
  12. European Environmental Agency. Volume 1: Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000 (2002). Volume 2: Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation (2013).
  13. Ågerstrand et al. Emerging investigator series: use of behavioural endpoints in the regulation of chemicals. Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts (2020) 22, 49-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EM00463G.
  14. Harris and Sumpter. Could the Quality of Published Ecotoxicological Research Be Better? Environ. Sci. Technol (2015) 49(16):9495–9496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01465.
  15. Ågerstrand, Edvardsson, and Rudén. Bad Reporting or Bad Science? Systematic Data Evaluation as a Means to Improve the Use of Peer-Reviewed Studies in Risk Assessments of Chemicals. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal (2014) 20, 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2013.854139.
  16. SETAC. Technical Issue Paper: Recommended Minimum Reporting Information for Environmental Toxicity Studies. (2019). Pensacola (FL): SETAC.
  17. Wilkinson et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data (2016) 3: 160018.
  18. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Author Guidelines.
  19. Ågerstrand et al. An academic researcher's guide to increased impact on regulatory assessment of chemicals. Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts, (2017) 19, 644.
  20. Hanson et al. How we can make ecotoxicology more valuable to environmental protection. Science of the Total Environment (2017) 578:228-235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.160.
  21. Hurst and Percie du Sert. The ARRIVE guidelines survey. Open Science Framework. (2017). DOI: https://osf.io/g8t5q/register/565fb3678c5e4a66b5582f67.  
  22. Fraser et al. Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution. PLoS One. (2018) 13(7):e0200303.
  23. The Academy of Medical Sciences. Reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research: Improving research practice. (2015).
  24. Hair, Macleod, and Sena. A Randomised Controlled Trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance With the ARRIVE Guidelines (IICARus). Res Integr Peer Rev (2019) 12;4:12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3.
  25. The NPQIP Collaborative group. Did a change in Nature journals’ editorial policy for life sciences research improve reporting? BMJ Open Science (2019) 3:e000035.
  26. Han et al. A checklist is associated with increased quality of reporting preclinical biomedical research: A systematic review. Plos One (2017) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183591.  
  27. Anthes 2015. Hospital checklists are meant to save lives — so why do they often fail? Nature news feature. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/523516a.
  28. Ågerstrand et al. Refining tools to bridge the gap between academia and chemical regulation: perspectives for WikiREACH. Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts (2017) 19, 1466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/C7EM00422B.