IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v27y2007i6p1609-1621.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Engaging Expert Peers in the Development of Risk Assessments

Author

Listed:
  • Jacqueline Patterson
  • M. E. (Bette) Meek
  • Joan E. Strawson
  • Robert G. Liteplo

Abstract

The participation of external technical experts in the development of risk assessment documents and methodologies has expanded and evolved in recent years. Many government agencies and authoritative organizations have experts peer review important works to evaluate the scientific and technical defensibility and judge the strength of the assumptions and conclusions (OMB, 2004; IPCS, 2005; IARC, 2006; Health Canada, 2007; U.S. EPA, 2006). Expert advice has been solicited in other forms of peer involvement, including peer consultation in, for example, the U.S. EPA's Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP). This article discusses how the principles and practices of peer review can be extended to other types of peer involvement activities (i.e., peer input and peer consultation) to develop high‐quality risk assessment work products. A comprehensive process for incorporating peer input, peer consultation, and peer review into risk assessment science is outlined. Four key principles for peer involvement—independence, inclusion of appropriate experts, transparency, and a robust scientific process—are discussed. Recent examples of peer involvement in the development of Health Canada's Priority Substances and Domestic Substance List (DSL) programs under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) serve to highlight the concepts.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacqueline Patterson & M. E. (Bette) Meek & Joan E. Strawson & Robert G. Liteplo, 2007. "Engaging Expert Peers in the Development of Risk Assessments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1609-1621, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:27:y:2007:i:6:p:1609-1621
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00992.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00992.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00992.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dorothy E. Patton & Stephen S. Olin, 2006. "Scientific Peer Review to Inform Regulatory Decision Making: Leadership Responsibilities and Cautions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 5-16, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nancy Elizabeth Fenton & Susan J. Elliott & Lisa Cicutto & Ann E. Clarke & Laurie Harada & Elizabeth McPhee, 2011. "Illustrating Risk: Anaphylaxis Through the Eyes of the Food‐Allergic Child," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 171-183, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gilbert S. Omenn, 2006. "Commentary on Scientific Peer Review to Inform Regulatory Decision Making: Roles and Perspectives of Scientists," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 37-39, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:27:y:2007:i:6:p:1609-1621. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.