Open Science in regulatory environmental risk assessment

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 Science in regulatory ERA far outweigh its perceived risks. All stakeholders involved in regulatory ERA (e.g., governmental regulatory authorities, private sector, academia, and nongovernmental organizations), as well as professional organizations like the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, can play a key role in supporting the Open Science initiative, by promoting the use of recommended reporting criteria for reliability and relevance of data and tools used in ERA, and by developing a communication strategy for both professionals and nonprofessionals to transparently explain the socioeconomic value judgments and scientific principles underlying regulatory ERA. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;00:1-14.

Open science, the replication crisis, and 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).…”

Updating risk remediation-endpoints for petroleum-contaminated soils? A case study in the Ecuadorian Amazon region

“…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 ].…”

New tools and recommendations for a better management of harmful algal blooms under the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive

“…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).…”