08 November 2016

New toxicological standards: Relationship between Research Outcomes and Risk of Bias, Study Sponsorship, and Author Financial Conflicts of Interest

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0162198

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1509880/

The most critical afflictions of toxicology at present relate to its lack of principles commonly accepted as essential to evidence-based practice, an aversion to transparency, and persistent adherence to nonsystematic methods” (Mandroli and  Silbergeld, 2016). “The largest elephant in the room is the failure of toxicology as a field to examine its own biases in terms of conflicts of interest” (LaDou et al. 2010).

“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. (UN 1992)

“The limits of the discipline of toxicology and the delayed promulgation and application of effective regulatory policies based on the use of toxicological principles contributed to the impetus for the precautionary principle largely in order to empower timely preventive actions” (Collegium Ramazzini 2004)


02 October 2016

Ethical Dimensions of Producing and Using Evidence to Inform Policy in a World of Ever-expanding Environmental Health Inequalities

Risk Management and Risk Communication: The Role of Vested Interests in epidemiological science:

http://www.colinsoskolne.com/documents/Soskolne_-_ISEEH,_Budweis,_Czech_Republic,_Aug_28-31_2016.pdf

http://www.colinsoskolne.com/documents/Soskolne_-_Collegium_Ramazzini,_Carpi,_Italy_-_October_28_2016.pdf

http://www.colinsoskolne.com/documents/GEIG_Munich_2016_Soskolne_COI&D_presentation.pdf


February 2016

Making a cancer cluster disappear. 

Read below an article from Center for Public Integrity, winner of Pulizer Price in 2014. By David Heath, Center for Public Integrity

After a record number of brain tumors at a chemical plant, industry launched a flawed study that obscured the extent of the problem:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/02/10/19265/making-cancer-cluster-disappear?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=watchdog&utm_medium=publici-email&goal=0_ffd1d0160d-94aec29d9f-100233081&mc_cid=94aec29d9f&mc_eid=b837362be0


January 2016

New Position Statement on Conflicting Interests

EOM supports the proactive steps of the International Joint Policy Committee of the Societies of Epidemiology (IJPC-SE) to develop a new Position Statement on Conflicting Interests through a consensus-building process

http://www.jpc-se.org/initiatives.htm


28 June 2015, Parma, Italy

The role of epidemiology in public policy

Prof. Colin S. Soskolne (presentation 2015,) 

http://www.ijpc-se.org/documents/Soskolne_-_GEIG_Parma,_Italy_June_28-July_3_2015-as_presented.pdf


Mai 2015

Asbestos industry celebrates sabotage of UN Convention

At the close of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam  May 15, Russia and Kazakhstan – the world’s biggest asbestos exporters – refused to allow chrysotile asbestos to be put on the Convention’s list of hazardous substances These two asbestos exporters were joined by Zimbabwe (which wants to re-open its asbestos mines) and Russia’s ally, Kyrgyzstan. This group of four countries blocked the recommendation of the Convention’s scientific committee and the wishes of the overwhelming majority of countries attending to put chrysotile asbestos on the Convention’s list, which would have required prior informed consent to be obtained before chrysotile asbestos could be exported - See more at: http://www.rightoncanada.ca/?p=2976#sthash.7FlF9MUW.dpuf


April 2015

Nature calls: Conflicts-of-interest statements are needed for research used in risk assessment

Nature calls upon regulatory agencies to demand conflicts-of-interest statements for research used in risk assessment; preempts undue influence in rule making

http://www.foodpackagingforum.org/News/Nature-Regulatory-agencies-must-demand-disclosure


January 2015

Ethical issues in setting RELs

See current example in the US: (Click here for pdf) which was strongly criticized in letters to NIOSH by many scientists, physicians and organisations due to acceptance of a lifetime cancer risk of exposed workers of 1:1000:

You may be aware that the situation in the EU is even worse due to acceptance of a lifetime cancer risk of 4:1000. This current debate on TLVs/RELs based on economic feasibility rather than on sound science is also relevant for setting limits in non-cancerogenic occupational health risks. Citation from ATSCME: “People have the same right to protection at work that they do in other activities.  There can be no justification for setting exposure limits for workers that provide less protection than for the general population, for which de minimis risk is considered to be 1 in 1 million lifetime risk.”


2014

Here you can find a collection of interesting papers concerning ethical aspects of occupational and environmental medicine, especially the influence of industry on scientific research.  

Rabesandratana "Top Choice for French Post Drops Out in Industry Flap" SCIENCE Vol. 343 February 7 2014 586-587