Background Critical knowledge of what we know about health and disease, risk factors, causation, prevention, and treatment, derives from epidemiology. Unfortunately, its methods and language can be misused and improperly applied. A repertoire of methods, techniques, arguments, and tactics are used by some people to manipulate science, usually in the service of powerful interests, and particularly those with a financial stake related to toxic agents. Such interests work to foment uncertainty, cast doubt, and mislead decision makers by seeding confusion about cause-and-effect relating to population health. We have compiled a toolkit of the methods used by those whose interests are not aligned with the public health sciences. Professional epidemiologists, as well as those who rely on their work, will thereby be more readily equipped to detect bias and flaws resulting from financial conflict-of-interest, improper study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, bringing greater clarity—not only to the advancement of knowledge, but, more immediately, to policy debates. Methods The summary of techniques used to manipulate epidemiological findings, compiled as part of the 2020 Position Statement of the International Network for Epidemiology in Policy (INEP) entitled Conflict-of-Interest and Disclosure in Epidemiology, has been expanded and further elucidated in this commentary. Results Some level of uncertainty is inherent in science. However, corrupted and incomplete literature contributes to confuse, foment further uncertainty, and cast doubt about the evidence under consideration. Confusion delays scientific advancement and leads to the inability of policymakers to make changes that, if enacted, would—supported by the body of valid evidence—protect, maintain, and improve public health. An accessible toolkit is provided that brings attention to the misuse of the methods of epidemiology. Its usefulness is as a compendium of what those trained in epidemiology, as well as those reviewing epidemiological studies, should identify methodologically when assessing the transparency and validity of any epidemiological inquiry, evaluation, or argument. The problems resulting from financial conflicting interests and the misuse of scientific methods, in conjunction with the strategies that can be used to safeguard public health against them, apply not only to epidemiologists, but also to other public health professionals. Conclusions This novel toolkit is for use in protecting the public. It is provided to assist public health professionals as gatekeepers of their respective specialty and subspecialty disciplines whose mission includes protecting, maintaining, and improving the public’s health. It is intended to serve our roles as educators, reviewers, and researchers.

The challenges of regulating industrial chemicals remain unresolved in the United States. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 was the first legislation to extend coverage to the regulation of industrial chemicals, both existing and newly registered. However, decisions related to both law and science that were made in passing this law inevitably rendered it ineffectual. Attempts to fix these shortcomings have not been successful. In light of the European Union's passage of innovative principles and requirements for chemical regulation, it is no longer possible to deny the opportunity and need for reform in US law and practice.

No abstract

No abstract

The present regulation of carcinogens is quite slow; hundreds of substances that have tested positive for carcinogenicity in animal bioassays have not been addressed by the U.S. regulatory system. This carries with it unappreciated social, economic, and public health costs. However, there are readily available expedited approximation procedures for assessing the potency of carcinogens whose use has substantial benefits that outweigh any costs from less science-intensive and less extensively documented assessments. These benefits can be seen by using a model to suggest the magnitude of social costs in regulating carcinogens by current conventional methods compared with expedited procedures for assessing the potency of known carcinogens. Two scenarios, one in accordance with current agency presumptions and one which assumes extreme unreliability in animal data and in the accuracy of potency assessments, compare conventional science-intensive and expedited procedures. On both, the total social costs of expedited procedures are lower than conventional procedures across a wide range of values assigned for individual mistakes of under regulation and over regulation. It appears better to evaluate a larger universe of known carcinogens somewhat less intensively for each substance than to evaluate a small proportion of that same universe very carefully and delay considering the rest.