Assuring access to data for chemical evaluations

Lynn R. Goldman, Ellen Silbergeld

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: A database for studies used for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pesticide and chemical reviews would be an excellent resource for increasing transparency and improving systematic assessments of pesticides and chemicals. There is increased demand for disclosure of raw data from studies used by the U.S. EPA in these reviews. oB je c t iv e s: Because the Information Quality Act (IQA) of 2001 provides an avenue for request of raw data, we reviewed all IQA requests to the U.S. EPA in 2002-2012 and the U.S. EPA's responses. We identified other mechanisms to access such data: public access databases, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and reanalysis by a third party. Discussion: Only two IQA requests to the U.S. EPA were for raw data. Both of these were fulfilled under FOIA, not the IQA. Barriers to the U.S. EPA's proactive collection of all such data include costs to the U.S. EPA and researchers, signifcant time burdens for researchers, and major regulatory delays. Te U.S. EPA regulatory authority in this area is weak, especially for research conducted in the past, not funded by the U.S. government, and/or conducted abroad. Te U.S. EPA is also constrained by industry confidential business information (CBI) claims for regulatory testing data under U.S. chemical and pesticide laws. The National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database systematically collects statistical data about clinical trials but not raw data; this database may be a model for data from studies of chemicals and pesticides. Conclusions: A database that registers studies and obtains systematic sets of parameters and results would be more feasible than a system that attempts to make all raw data available proactively. Such a proposal would not obviate rights under the IQA to obtain raw data at a later point.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)149-152
Number of pages4
JournalEnvironmental Health Perspectives
Volume121
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2013

Fingerprint

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Pesticides
Databases
Research Personnel
Clinical Trials
Confidentiality
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Disclosure
Industry
Costs and Cost Analysis
Research

Keywords

  • Access to information
  • Chemicals
  • Hazardous
  • Pesticides
  • Review
  • Systematic

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Assuring access to data for chemical evaluations. / Goldman, Lynn R.; Silbergeld, Ellen.

In: Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 121, No. 2, 02.2013, p. 149-152.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6db03fa43ebc49ff868464d41527b01a,
title = "Assuring access to data for chemical evaluations",
abstract = "Background: A database for studies used for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pesticide and chemical reviews would be an excellent resource for increasing transparency and improving systematic assessments of pesticides and chemicals. There is increased demand for disclosure of raw data from studies used by the U.S. EPA in these reviews. oB je c t iv e s: Because the Information Quality Act (IQA) of 2001 provides an avenue for request of raw data, we reviewed all IQA requests to the U.S. EPA in 2002-2012 and the U.S. EPA's responses. We identified other mechanisms to access such data: public access databases, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and reanalysis by a third party. Discussion: Only two IQA requests to the U.S. EPA were for raw data. Both of these were fulfilled under FOIA, not the IQA. Barriers to the U.S. EPA's proactive collection of all such data include costs to the U.S. EPA and researchers, signifcant time burdens for researchers, and major regulatory delays. Te U.S. EPA regulatory authority in this area is weak, especially for research conducted in the past, not funded by the U.S. government, and/or conducted abroad. Te U.S. EPA is also constrained by industry confidential business information (CBI) claims for regulatory testing data under U.S. chemical and pesticide laws. The National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database systematically collects statistical data about clinical trials but not raw data; this database may be a model for data from studies of chemicals and pesticides. Conclusions: A database that registers studies and obtains systematic sets of parameters and results would be more feasible than a system that attempts to make all raw data available proactively. Such a proposal would not obviate rights under the IQA to obtain raw data at a later point.",
keywords = "Access to information, Chemicals, Hazardous, Pesticides, Review, Systematic",
author = "Goldman, {Lynn R.} and Ellen Silbergeld",
year = "2013",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1289/ehp.1206101",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "121",
pages = "149--152",
journal = "Environmental Health Perspectives",
issn = "0091-6765",
publisher = "Public Health Services, US Dept of Health and Human Services",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assuring access to data for chemical evaluations

AU - Goldman, Lynn R.

AU - Silbergeld, Ellen

PY - 2013/2

Y1 - 2013/2

N2 - Background: A database for studies used for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pesticide and chemical reviews would be an excellent resource for increasing transparency and improving systematic assessments of pesticides and chemicals. There is increased demand for disclosure of raw data from studies used by the U.S. EPA in these reviews. oB je c t iv e s: Because the Information Quality Act (IQA) of 2001 provides an avenue for request of raw data, we reviewed all IQA requests to the U.S. EPA in 2002-2012 and the U.S. EPA's responses. We identified other mechanisms to access such data: public access databases, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and reanalysis by a third party. Discussion: Only two IQA requests to the U.S. EPA were for raw data. Both of these were fulfilled under FOIA, not the IQA. Barriers to the U.S. EPA's proactive collection of all such data include costs to the U.S. EPA and researchers, signifcant time burdens for researchers, and major regulatory delays. Te U.S. EPA regulatory authority in this area is weak, especially for research conducted in the past, not funded by the U.S. government, and/or conducted abroad. Te U.S. EPA is also constrained by industry confidential business information (CBI) claims for regulatory testing data under U.S. chemical and pesticide laws. The National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database systematically collects statistical data about clinical trials but not raw data; this database may be a model for data from studies of chemicals and pesticides. Conclusions: A database that registers studies and obtains systematic sets of parameters and results would be more feasible than a system that attempts to make all raw data available proactively. Such a proposal would not obviate rights under the IQA to obtain raw data at a later point.

AB - Background: A database for studies used for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pesticide and chemical reviews would be an excellent resource for increasing transparency and improving systematic assessments of pesticides and chemicals. There is increased demand for disclosure of raw data from studies used by the U.S. EPA in these reviews. oB je c t iv e s: Because the Information Quality Act (IQA) of 2001 provides an avenue for request of raw data, we reviewed all IQA requests to the U.S. EPA in 2002-2012 and the U.S. EPA's responses. We identified other mechanisms to access such data: public access databases, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and reanalysis by a third party. Discussion: Only two IQA requests to the U.S. EPA were for raw data. Both of these were fulfilled under FOIA, not the IQA. Barriers to the U.S. EPA's proactive collection of all such data include costs to the U.S. EPA and researchers, signifcant time burdens for researchers, and major regulatory delays. Te U.S. EPA regulatory authority in this area is weak, especially for research conducted in the past, not funded by the U.S. government, and/or conducted abroad. Te U.S. EPA is also constrained by industry confidential business information (CBI) claims for regulatory testing data under U.S. chemical and pesticide laws. The National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database systematically collects statistical data about clinical trials but not raw data; this database may be a model for data from studies of chemicals and pesticides. Conclusions: A database that registers studies and obtains systematic sets of parameters and results would be more feasible than a system that attempts to make all raw data available proactively. Such a proposal would not obviate rights under the IQA to obtain raw data at a later point.

KW - Access to information

KW - Chemicals

KW - Hazardous

KW - Pesticides

KW - Review

KW - Systematic

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84873342492&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84873342492&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1289/ehp.1206101

DO - 10.1289/ehp.1206101

M3 - Article

C2 - 23229062

AN - SCOPUS:84873342492

VL - 121

SP - 149

EP - 152

JO - Environmental Health Perspectives

JF - Environmental Health Perspectives

SN - 0091-6765

IS - 2

ER -