Environmental Assessors Should Use State‐of‐Practice Weight‐of‐Evidence Processes

An innovative index to incorporate transcriptomic data into weight of evidence approaches for environmental risk assessment

“…As recently debated in Suter (2021) and in Johnson et al (2021), when dealing with multiple and heterogeneous bodies of evidence, the use of an integrated framework should be encouraged to comprehend causal relations and correctly estimate the likelihood of hazard posed by chemical contaminants of concern. The integration of different studies can be pursued by means of a quantitative Weight of Evidence (QWoE) approach (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2016), with several examples of methods and applications available in the literature (e.g., Gottardo et al, 2011;Micheletti et al, 2011;Piva et al, 2011;Benedetti et al, 2012;Bebianno et al, 2015;Fan et al, 2015;Barjhoux et al, 2018;Lehtonen et al, 2019).…”

The Future of the Weight‐of‐Evidence Approach: A Response to Suter's Comments

“…We are grateful to Suter ( 2021 ) for noting our effort (Johnson et al, 2021 ) and for the role that he and his co‐workers have played (and continue to play) in championing the weight‐of‐evidence (WoE) approach. As Suter has pointed out, the field is far from stagnant and enjoys continuing debate within parts of the community (Suter, 2021 ).…”

“…We are grateful to Suter ( 2021 ) for noting our effort (Johnson et al, 2021 ) and for the role that he and his co‐workers have played (and continue to play) in championing the weight‐of‐evidence (WoE) approach. As Suter has pointed out, the field is far from stagnant and enjoys continuing debate within parts of the community (Suter, 2021 ). With regard to his response to our article, we see no reason to criticize the Hill criteria (Hill, 1965 ) but find that, while agreeing with Suter that they are not a perfect fit for our field, they are of enduring value and are readily adaptable.…”