Abstract:A possible way to alleviate the public skepticism toward regulatory science is to increase transparency by making all data and value judgments used in regulatory decision making accessible for public interpretation, ideally early on in the process, and following the concepts of Open Science. This paper discusses the opportunities and challenges in strengthening Open Science initiatives in regulatory environmental risk assessment (ERA). In this discussion paper, we argue that the benefits associated with Open S… Show more
“…Michaels (2008) argues that regulated industries misuse protections for confidential business information (CBI) to protect data on the hazards of their products from public scrutiny (249)(250)(251) and that open data requirements should be applied equally to independent, government-sponsored, and industry-sponsored study data (253-255). 7 Brock et al (2021) is likely to be highly burdensome for scientists, especially those who work with sensitive data such as patient medical records. In this scenario, many researchers would be likely to do open science poorly or simply ignore open science requirements (the findings of Obels et al (2020) suggest this has happened in psychology).…”
the replication crisis, and environmental public health Concerns about a crisis of mass irreplicability across scientific fields ("the replication crisis") have stimulated a movement for open science, encouraging or even requiring researchers to publish their raw data and analysis code. Recently, a rule at the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) would have imposed a strong open data requirement. The rule prompted significant public discussion about whether open science practices are appropriate for fields of environmental public health. The aims of this paper are to assess (1) whether the replication crisis extends to fields of environmental public health; and (2) in general whether open science requirements can address the replication crisis. There is little empirical evidence for or against mass irreplicability in environmental public health specifically. Without such evidence, strong claims about whether the replication crisis extends to environmental public health -or not -seem premature. By distinguishing three concepts -reproducibility, replicability, and robustness -it is clear that open data initiatives can promote reproducibility and robustness but do little to promote replicability. I conclude by reviewing some of the other benefits of open science, and offer some suggestions for funding streams to mitigate the costs of adoption of open science practices in environmental public health.
“…Michaels (2008) argues that regulated industries misuse protections for confidential business information (CBI) to protect data on the hazards of their products from public scrutiny (249)(250)(251) and that open data requirements should be applied equally to independent, government-sponsored, and industry-sponsored study data (253-255). 7 Brock et al (2021) is likely to be highly burdensome for scientists, especially those who work with sensitive data such as patient medical records. In this scenario, many researchers would be likely to do open science poorly or simply ignore open science requirements (the findings of Obels et al (2020) suggest this has happened in psychology).…”
the replication crisis, and environmental public health Concerns about a crisis of mass irreplicability across scientific fields ("the replication crisis") have stimulated a movement for open science, encouraging or even requiring researchers to publish their raw data and analysis code. Recently, a rule at the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) would have imposed a strong open data requirement. The rule prompted significant public discussion about whether open science practices are appropriate for fields of environmental public health. The aims of this paper are to assess (1) whether the replication crisis extends to fields of environmental public health; and (2) in general whether open science requirements can address the replication crisis. There is little empirical evidence for or against mass irreplicability in environmental public health specifically. Without such evidence, strong claims about whether the replication crisis extends to environmental public health -or not -seem premature. By distinguishing three concepts -reproducibility, replicability, and robustness -it is clear that open data initiatives can promote reproducibility and robustness but do little to promote replicability. I conclude by reviewing some of the other benefits of open science, and offer some suggestions for funding streams to mitigate the costs of adoption of open science practices in environmental public health.
“…Finally, to ensure the successful adoption of a paradigm shift in environmental legislation, it is essential to adopt principles of Open Science, making data and judgment criteria transparent and accessible to the public. This transparency is crucial in fostering public trust and acceptance, ultimately facilitating the implementation of effective remediation strategies [ 48 ].…”
“…Minelli et al (2021) concluded from their study on open access to research projects and data that, despite the initial and still existing mistrust, it is more than just a best practice because it improves the transparency of research (thus increasing the credibility of researchers, the reproducibility of science and the re-use of products), supports many international initiatives and regulations, and encourages collaboration between scientists from different fields and laboratories. However, the (re)use of these data in a regulatory context needs to be carefully evaluated for relevance and reliability, ideally by using the same criteria for the different studies producing them (Brock et al, 2021).…”
Section: International Cooperation Monitoring Synergies and Data Mana...mentioning
Marine harmful algal blooms (HABs), caused by various aquatic microalgae, pose significant risks to ecosystems, some socio-economic activities and human health. Traditionally managed as a public health issue through reactive control measures such as beach closures, seafood trade bans or closure of mollusc production areas, the multifaceted linkages of HABs with environmental and socio-economic factors require more comprehensive ecosystem-based management approach tools to support policies. This study promotes a coordinated understanding and implementation of HAB assessment and management under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), targeting the achievement of Good Environmental Status (GES) in European marine waters. We introduce two novel tools: GES4HABs (GES for HABs) decision tree, and MAMBO (environMental mAtrix for the Management of BlOoms), a decision support matrix. These tools aim to streamline HABs reporting and prioritize resource allocation and management interventions. The GES4HABs decision tree defines a sequence of decision steps to identify HAB management strategies according to their state (evaluated against predefined baselines) and causes (anthropic or natural). MAMBO is proposed to address different HABs and their interaction with human and environmental pressures. The matrix utilizes two axes: natural trophic status and level of human influence, capturing major aspects such as nutrient supply. While acknowledging the limitations of this simplified framework, MAMBO categorizes marine regions into quadrants of varying management viability. Regions with high human influence and eutrophic conditions are identified as most suitable for effective management intervention, whereas regions with minimal or mixed human influence are deemed less amenable to active management. In addition, we explore and describe various indicators, monitoring methods and initiatives that may be relevant to support assessments of HAB status and associated pressures and impacts in the MSFD reporting. Finally, we provide some recommendations to promote the consideration of HABs in ecosystem-based management strategies, intensify efforts for harmonizing and defining best practices of analysis, monitoring and assessment methodologies, and foster international and cross-sectoral coordination to optimize resources, efforts and roles.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.