IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v35y2015i2p186-192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Weight of Evidence Approaches to Chemical Evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • Randall Lutter
  • Linda Abbott
  • Rick Becker
  • Chris Borgert
  • Ann Bradley
  • Gail Charnley
  • Susan Dudley
  • Alan Felsot
  • Nancy Golden
  • George Gray
  • Daland Juberg
  • Mary Mitchell
  • Nancy Rachman
  • Lorenz Rhomberg
  • Keith Solomon
  • Stephen Sundlof
  • Kate Willett

Abstract

Federal and other regulatory agencies often use or claim to use a weight of evidence (WoE) approach in chemical evaluation. Their approaches to the use of WoE, however, differ significantly, rely heavily on subjective professional judgment, and merit improvement. We review uses of WoE approaches in key articles in the peer‐reviewed scientific literature, and find significant variations. We find that a hypothesis‐based WoE approach, developed by Lorenz Rhomberg et al., can provide a stronger scientific basis for chemical assessment while improving transparency and preserving the appropriate scope of professional judgment. Their approach, while still evolving, relies on the explicit specification of the hypothesized basis for using the information at hand to infer the ability of an agent to cause human health impacts or, more broadly, affect other endpoints of concern. We describe and endorse such a hypothesis‐based WoE approach to chemical evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Randall Lutter & Linda Abbott & Rick Becker & Chris Borgert & Ann Bradley & Gail Charnley & Susan Dudley & Alan Felsot & Nancy Golden & George Gray & Daland Juberg & Mary Mitchell & Nancy Rachman & Lo, 2015. "Improving Weight of Evidence Approaches to Chemical Evaluations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 186-192, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:2:p:186-192
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12277
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12277
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12277?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. Douglas L. Weed, 2005. "Weight of Evidence: A Review of Concept and Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1545-1557, December.
    2. Willy Aspinall, 2010. "A route to more tractable expert advice," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7279), pages 294-295, January.
    3. Krimsky, S., 2005. "The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(S1), pages 129-136.
    4. Igor Linkov & Paul Welle & Drew Loney & Alex Tkachuk & Laure Canis & J. B. Kim & Todd Bridges, 2011. "Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Weight of Evidence Evaluation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(8), pages 1211-1225, August.
    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. Quan Xiao & Shanshan Wan & Fucai Lu & Shun Li, 2019. "Risk Assessment for Engagement in Sharing Economy of Manufacturing Enterprises: A Matter–Element Extension Based Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-29, September.

    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. Igor Linkov & F. Kyle Satterstrom, 2006. "Weight of Evidence: What Is the State of the Science?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 573-575, June.
    2. Peter Wiedemann & Holger Schütz & Albena Spangenberg & Harald F. Krug, 2011. "Evidence Maps: Communicating Risk Assessments in Societal Controversies: The Case of Engineered Nanoparticles," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1770-1783, November.
    3. Meissner, Philip & Brands, Christian & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "Quantifiying blind spots and weak signals in executive judgment: A structured integration of expert judgment into the scenario development process," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 244-253.
    4. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    5. Fernando Reboredo, 2013. "Socio-economic, environmental, and governance impacts of illegal logging," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 295-304, June.
    6. Stapleton, L.M. & Hanna, P. & Ravenscroft, N. & Church, A., 2014. "A flexible ecosystem services proto-typology based on public opinion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 83-90.
    7. Hanea, A.M. & McBride, M.F. & Burgman, M.A. & Wintle, B.C. & Fidler, F. & Flander, L. & Twardy, C.R. & Manning, B. & Mascaro, S., 2017. "I nvestigate D iscuss E stimate A ggregate for structured expert judgement," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 267-279.
    8. Mark A Burgman & Marissa McBride & Raquel Ashton & Andrew Speirs-Bridge & Louisa Flander & Bonnie Wintle & Fiona Fidler & Libby Rumpff & Charles Twardy, 2011. "Expert Status and Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-7, July.
    9. Douglas L. Weed, 2006. "Vision, Values, and Verisimilitude: The Author's Response," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 577-577, June.
    10. Igor Linkov & Matthew D. Wood & Renae Ditmer & Anthony Cox & Robert Ross, 2013. "Collective risk management: insights and opportunities for DoD decision-makers," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 335-340, September.
    11. Gruetzemacher, Ross & Paradice, David & Lee, Kang Bok, 2020. "Forecasting extreme labor displacement: A survey of AI practitioners," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    12. Martine J. Barons & Lael E. Walsh & Edward E. Salakpi & Linda Nichols, 2024. "A Decision Support System for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Loss Reduction under Uncertain Agricultural Policy Frameworks," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, March.
    13. Colson, Abigail R. & Cooke, Roger M., 2017. "Cross validation for the classical model of structured expert judgment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 109-120.
    14. Oliver Todt & José Luis Luján, 2014. "Analyzing Precautionary Regulation: Do Precaution, Science, and Innovation Go Together?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(12), pages 2163-2173, December.
    15. Kragt, M.E. & Pannell, D.J. & McVittie, A. & Stott, A.W. & Vosough Ahmadi, B. & Wilson, P., 2016. "Improving interdisciplinary collaboration in bio-economic modelling for agricultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 217-224.
    16. Anca M. Hanea & Marissa F. McBride & Mark A. Burgman & Bonnie C. Wintle, 2018. "The Value of Performance Weights and Discussion in Aggregated Expert Judgments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1781-1794, September.
    17. Jeremy Rohmer & Eric Chojnacki, 2021. "Forecast of environment systems using expert judgements: performance comparison between the possibilistic and the classical model," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 131-146, March.
    18. Bolger, Fergus & Wright, George, 2017. "Use of expert knowledge to anticipate the future: Issues, analysis and directions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 230-243.
    19. Igor Linkov & Susan Cormier & Joshua Gold & F. Kyle Satterstrom & Todd Bridges, 2012. "Using Our Brains to Develop Better Policy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 374-380, March.
    20. Hanea, Anca & Wilkinson, David Peter & McBride, Marissa & Lyon, Aidan & van Ravenzwaaij, Don & Singleton Thorn, Felix & Gray, Charles T. & Mandel, David R. & Willcox, Aaron & Gould, Elliot, 2021. "Mathematically aggregating experts' predictions of possible futures," MetaArXiv rxmh7, Center for Open Science.

    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:35:y:2015:i:2:p:186-192. 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.