Suchergebnisse

On 22 April 2017, 10,000 people joined the March for Science London, one of 600 events globally asserting the importance of science against post-truth. Here we report an online and on-the-ground observational study of the London event in its distinct, post-Brexit referendum context. We analyse the motives for marchers' attendance, and their collective enactment of what science is and why and by what it is threatened. Drawing upon Interaction Ritual Theory and the concept of civic epistemology, we develop the notion of populist knowledge practices to capture the 'other' that marchers defined themselves against. We detail how this was performed, and how it articulated a particular vision for science–society relations in Britain. In closing, we argue that the March for Science is one in a chain of anti-populist activist events that retains collective effervescence while transcending specific framings.

In April 2017, scientists and science sympathizers held marches in the United Kingdom as part of a coordinated international March for Science movement that was held in over 600 cities worldwide. This article reports from participant-observation studies of the marches that took place in London and Cardiff. Supplemented with data from 37 interviews from marchers at the London event, the article reports on an analysis of the placards, focusing on marchers' concerns and the language and images through which they expressed those concerns. How did the protesters articulate their concerns and objectives, and how were these articulations used to build a community? The placards did not represent a clear, focused, and unifying message; they instead illustrated disparate concerns ranging from human-induced climate change, Trump and "alternative facts," and local UK specific political issues concerning the country's exit from the European Union. Our analysis shows that placards gave a playful and whimsical character to the march, with slogans displaying significant amounts (and moments) of humor, often formulated through insider jokes, scientific puns, or self-deprecating appropriation of negative stereotypes about scientists. We analyze the march through the social movement literature and as a collective identity-building exercise for an (emergent) community of scientists and sympathizers with long-term aims of establishing a louder voice for scientists, and experts, in public discourse.

A transformation of regulatory toxicology is underway to meet the demands of testing increasing numbers of chemicals whilst reducing reliance on in vivo models. This transformation requires a shift from chemical safety assessment largely based on direct empirical observation of apical toxicity outcomes in whole organisms to predictive approaches in which outcomes and risks are inferred from accumulated mechanistic understanding. In the last decade, Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs) (Ankley et al., 2010; Ankley and Edwards, 2018) have captured the attention of regulators and researchers alike as a systematic approach for organizing knowledge that may support such inferences (Wittwehr et al., 2017). An AOP is a conceptual structured representation of existing toxicological knowledge describing the causally connected sequence of events, across different levels of biological organization, required to produce an adverse effect when an organism is exposed to a stressor. Specifically, AOPs depict a series of key events (KEs) linking a molecular initiating event (MIE, an interaction between a stressor (e.g., endogenous ligand, xenobiotic) and a biomolecule) to an adverse outcome (AO, at organism or population levels). The causal links between 2 KEs are referred to as key event relationships (KERs). AOPs provide a useful framework to connect mechanistic data to adverse effects on human health or wildlife populations as a basis for the identification of cell- or biochemical-based tests that could fit in Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATAs), identifying KEs that could be targeted for the development of New Approach Methods (NAMs), as well as investigating similarities in mechanistic pathways between species. AOPs are also particularly salient for identifying potential Endocrine Disruptors (EDs). Indeed, both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) definition and the scientific criteria adopted by the European Union in 2017 are articulated around three ...

Background: There are several standards which make explicit a consensus view on sound practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences. Until now, no equivalent standard has been published for SRs which focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. Objectives: To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus view on a key set of recommended practices which can function as a standard for the planning and conduct of SRs in the environmental health sciences. Methods: A draft set of practices was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and discussed at an international workshop of 33 participants from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The guidance was revised over six follow-up webinars, multiple rounds of email feedback, and bilateral phone calls, until there was group consensus that a comprehensive framework for the planning and conduct of high-quality environmental health SRs had been articulated. Results: The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) standard is a code of practice consisting of 70 performance elements across eight performance domains, representing the consensus view of a diverse group of experts as to what constitutes "sound and good" practice in the conduct of environmental health SRs. Discussion: COSTER provides a set of practices which, if followed, should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence. COSTER clarifies sound and good practice in a number of controversial aspects of SR conduct, including the management of conflicts of interest, inclusion of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. Not all of the practices are yet commonplace but environmental health SRs would benefit from their use.

Background: There are several standards that offer explicit guidance on good practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences; however, no similarly comprehensive set of recommendations has been published for SRs that focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. Objectives: To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus view on a key set of recommended practices for the planning and conduct of SRs in the environmental health sciences. Methods: A draft set of recommendations was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and developed in a consensus process, which engaged international participation from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The consensus process consisted of a workshop, follow-up webinars, email discussion and bilateral phone calls. Results: The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) recommendations cover 70 SR practices across eight performance domains. Detailed explanations for specific recommendations are made for those identified by the authors as either being novel to SR in general, specific to the environmental health SR context, or potentially controversial to environmental health SR stakeholders. Discussion: COSTER provides a set of recommendations that should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence, and advance discussion of a number of controversial aspects of conduct of EH SRs. Key recommendations include the management of conflicts of interest, handling of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. A process for advancing from COSTER's recommendations to developing a formal standard for EH SRs is also indicated.

Background: There are several standards which make explicit a consensus view on sound practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences. Until now, no equivalent standard has been published for SRs which focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. Objectives: To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus on a core set of requirements for sound practice in planning and conducting a SR in the environmental health sciences. Methods: A draft set of requirements was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and discussed at an international workshop of 33 participants from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The guidance was revised over six follow-up webinars and several rounds of email feedback, until there was group consensus that a comprehensive framework for the planning and conduct of high-quality environmental health SRs had been articulated. Results: The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) standard is a code of practice consisting of 70 requirements across eight performance domains, representing the consensus view of a diverse group of experts as to what constitutes "sound and good" practice in the conduct of environmental health SRs. Discussion: COSTER provides a set of sound-practice requirements which, if followed, should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence. COSTER clarifies sound and good practice in a number of controversial aspects of SR conduct, providing requirements relating to management of conflicts of interest, inclusion of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. Not all of the practices are yet commonplace, but environmental health SRs would benefit from their introduction. Some aspects of SR, such as assessment of external validity at the level of individual study, are not yet sufficiently developed for consensus on sound practice to be achieved.

Background: There are several standards which make explicit a consensus view on sound practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences. Until now, no equivalent standard has been published for SRs which focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. Objectives: To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus on a core set of requirements for sound practice in planning and conducting a SR in the environmental health sciences. Methods: A draft set of requirements was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and discussed at an international workshop of 33 participants from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The guidance was revised over six follow-up webinars and several rounds of email feedback, until there was group consensus that a comprehensive framework for the planning and conduct of high-quality environmental health SRs had been articulated. Results: The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) standard is a code of practice consisting of 70 requirements across eight performance domains, representing the consensus view of a diverse group of experts as to what constitutes "sound and good" practice in the conduct of environmental health SRs. Discussion: COSTER provides a set of sound-practice requirements which, if followed, should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence. COSTER clarifies sound and good practice in a number of controversial aspects of SR conduct, providing requirements relating to management of conflicts of interest, inclusion of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. Not all of the practices are yet commonplace, but environmental health SRs would benefit from their introduction. Some aspects of SR, such as assessment of external validity at the level of individual study, are not yet sufficiently developed for consensus on sound practice to be achieved.

Background There are several standards that offer explicit guidance on good practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences; however, no similarly comprehensive set of recommendations has been published for SRs that focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. Objectives To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus view on a key set of recommended practices for the planning and conduct of SRs in the environmental health sciences. Methods A draft set of recommendations was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and developed in a consensus process, which engaged international participation from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The consensus process consisted of a workshop, follow-up webinars, email discussion and bilateral phone calls. Results The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) recommendations cover 70 SR practices across eight performance domains. Detailed explanations for specific recommendations are made for those identified by the authors as either being novel to SR in general, specific to the environmental health SR context, or potentially controversial to environmental health SR stakeholders. Discussion COSTER provides a set of recommendations that should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence, and advance discussion of a number of controversial aspects of conduct of EH SRs. Key recommendations include the management of conflicts of interest, handling of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. A process for advancing from COSTER's recommendations to developing a formal standard for EH SRs is also indicated.

Abstract The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.

The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU. ; Stockholm University ; http://www.ehjournal.net/content/12/1/69 ; am2014

The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.

The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU. ; ISSN:1476-069X