The Weight of Scientific Evidence in Policy and Law

Krimsky, Sheldon

doi:10.2105/ajph.2004.044727

Cited by 100 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The WoE method has been used extensively for mineral resource assessment and landslide susceptibility analysis (Bonham-Carter et al 1989, Carranza and Hale 2000, Porwal et al 2001, Lee et al 2002, Sterlacchini et al 2004. Following its use in the early 1990s to support US Superfund investigations, it has also become popular for performing risk assessments associated with ecology and environmental health (Krimsky 2005, Sanderson et al 2006, Irvine and Murphy 2009. Its application to the field of hydrogeology is more recent (e.g.…”

Section: Weights Of Evidence Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aquifer vulnerability assessments using DRASTIC, Weights of Evidence and the Analytic Element Method

Abbasi

Mohammadi

Kholghi

et al. 2013

Hydrological Sciences Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In arid and semi-arid regions of the world, sustainable social-economic development relies almost exclusively on the availability of good quality groundwater. Pro-active management of these resources is vital, and reliable assessments of aquifer vulnerability are an important component of the overall management plan. In southwest Iran, the universally popular DRASTIC method of vulnerability assessment was implemented using the Analytic Element Method (AEM) to determine the "depth to water" input parameter, and compared to vulnerability assessments obtained using the standard DRASTIC approach. Vulnerability maps were also prepared through statistical analysis of aquifer characteristics and water quality data using the Weights of Evidence (WoE) approach. A comparison of the four vulnerability maps produced for the region showed DRASTIC, with and without AEM refinement, to be a reliable method of vulnerability assessment. The AEM proved to be a valuable means of estimating the depth to water input parameter when well data are severely limited.Key words groundwater protection; vulnerability assessment; DRASTIC; analytic element method; weight of evidence Evaluation de la vulnérabilité des aquifères à l'aide de DRASTIC, de la méthode de pondération des preuves et de la méthode des éléments analytiques Résumé Dans les régions arides et semi-arides du monde, le développement socio-économique durable repose presque exclusivement sur la disponibilité d'eaux souterraines de bonne qualité. La gestion proactive de ces ressources est vitale, et des évaluations fiables de la vulnérabilité des aquifères sont nécessaires à tout plan de gestion globale. Au Sud-Ouest de l'Iran, la méthode classique DRASTIC d'évaluation de la vulnérabilité a été mise en oeuvre en utilisant la méthode des éléments analytiques (MEA) pour déterminer la variable d'entrée « profondeur de l'eau », et comparée à des évaluations de vulnérabilité obtenues à l'aide de l'approche DRASTIC standard. Des cartes de vulnérabilité ont également été réalisées par analyse statistique des caractéristiques de l'aquifère et des données de qualité de l'eau, en utilisant la méthode de pondération des preuves. Une comparaison des quatre cartes de vulnérabilité produites pour la région a montré que DRASTIC, avec et sans raffinement MEA, est une méthode fiable d'évaluation de la vulnérabilité. La MEA s'est avérée être un précieux moyen d'estimation de la variable d'entrée « profondeur de l'eau » lorsque les données de puits sont très limitées.

show abstract

Section: Weights Of Evidence Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aquifer vulnerability assessments using DRASTIC, Weights of Evidence and the Analytic Element Method

Abbasi

Mohammadi

Kholghi

et al. 2013

Hydrological Sciences Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For some indicator species, the trends are clear and different surveys indicate the same patterns (e.g., increases in Brown Pelican, declines for Mottled Duck), but for others, the evidence is conflicting. Thus, the data in this chapter can be examined with a weight of evidence approach, whereby the different types of data are examined in total to determine population status and trends in the Gulf (Burger 2003;Krimsky 2005;Laiolo 2010). Thus, if all (or almost all) data sets suggest that a given species is increasing, it is likely that it is.…”

Section: Patterns Of Population Changesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian Resources of the Northern Gulf of Mexico

Burger¹

2017

Habitats and Biota of the Gulf of Mexico: Before the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Generally, three objectives of the WOE approach are suggested for regulatory decision-making: i) provision of a "clear and transparent framework" for evaluation of the evidence in risk determination; ii) offer of a consistent and standardized approach to evaluating toxic substances submitted to regulatory agencies; and iii) help of identification of the discretionary assumptions in risk determinations from experts [12][13][14] . The GHS defines WOE as follows 2) : "All available information bearing on the determination of toxicity is considered together, including the results of valid in vitro tests, relevant animal data, and human experience such as epidemiological and clinical studies and well-documented case reports and observations.…”

Section: Evaluation Of Woe Among the Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The issues of a WOE approach in GHS classification include: i) application of WOE depends on the expertise of experts; ii) there are no canonical frameworks for weighting scientific evidence; iii) a process methodology is low on transparency and high on subjectivity; iv) WOE is usually applied in the case where there is no conclusive single study in demonstrating a cause-effect relationship; v) WOE looks like a 'seat-of-the pants' qualitative assessment. Without an explanation of how evidence is "weighed" or "weighted", the WOE approach may be to be a "black box" of scientific judgment 13) . To keep transparency of expert reviews, the review should be objective and taken into consideration of evidence based toxicology 16) .…”

Section: Transparency and Objectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Expert Review for GHS Classification of Chemicals on Health Effects

Morita¹,

Morikawa²

2011

INDUSTRIAL HEALTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemicals (GHS) will make improvements to these situations. The GHS is a scheme recommended by the United Nations issued in 2003, which aims to enhance the protection of human health and the environment by providing an internationally comprehensible system for hazard communication 2) . The classification and labeling of chemicals are key elements of industrial health to reduce the number of chemical accidents. Abstract: Intoxication as a result of chemical accidents is a major issue in industrial health. The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) provides a framework for hazard communication on chemicals using labelling or safety data sheets. The GHS will be expected to reduce the number of chemical accidents by communicating the hazards posed and prompting safety measures to be taken. One of the issues which may be a barrier to effective implementation of the GHS results from discrepancies in GHS classifications of chemicals across countries/regions. The main reasons are the differences in information sources used and in the expertise of people making the classification (Classifiers). The GHS requests expert judgment in a weight of evidence (WOE) approach in the application of the criteria of classification. A WOE approach is an assessment method that considers all available information bearing on the determination of toxicity. The quality and consistency of the data, study design, mechanism or mode of action, dose-effect relationships and biological relevance should be taken into account. Therefore, expert review should be necessary to classify chemicals accurately. However, the GHS does not provide any information on the required level of expertise of the Classifiers, definition of who qualifies as an expert, evaluation methods of WOE or data quality, and the timing of expert judgment and the need for updating/re-classification as new information becomes available. In this paper, key methods and issues in expert reviews are discussed. Examples of expert reviews and recommendations for harmonized classification are also presented.

show abstract

The Weight of Scientific Evidence in Policy and Law

Cited by 100 publications

References 19 publications

Aquifer vulnerability assessments using DRASTIC, Weights of Evidence and the Analytic Element Method

Aquifer vulnerability assessments using DRASTIC, Weights of Evidence and the Analytic Element Method

Avian Resources of the Northern Gulf of Mexico

Expert Review for GHS Classification of Chemicals on Health Effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About