ReviewToxicological research2021
Trans-disciplinary diagnosis for an in-depth reform of regulatory expertise in the field of environmental toxicology and security.
Review in Toxicological research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Repeated health and environmental scandals, the loss of biodiversity and the recent burst of chronic diseases constantly remind us the inability of public authorities and risk assessment agencies to protect health and the environment. After reviewing the main shortcomings of our evaluation system of chemicals and new technologies, supported by some concrete examples, we develop a number of proposals to reform both the risk assessment agencies and the evaluation processes. We especially propose the establishment of an independent structure, a High Authority of Expertise, supervising, either at European level or at national level, all the evaluation agencies, and ensuring the transparency, the methodology and the deontology of the expertise. In addition to modifying the evaluation protocols, both in their nature and in their content, especially in order to adapt them to current pollutants such as endocrine disruptors, we propose a reform of the expertise processes based on transparency, contradiction, and greater democracy, including close collaboration between the institutional and scientific parties on the one hand and the whole civil society on the other. All the proposals we make are inspired by the desire to prevent, through appropriate mechanisms, the human, health, ecological, but also economic consequences of contemporary technological choices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.