Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Future of Adverse Outcome Pathways: Analyzing their Social Context

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Systems Biology Approach to Advancing Adverse Outcome Pathways for Risk Assessment

  • 780 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter places the development of adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) in their social context. It begins by highlighting the intense social and political polarization that currently exists around environmental regulations. Given this context, any gaps, assumptions, or uncertainties associated with AOPs are likely to receive intense scrutiny whenever they have regulatory implications that could generate adverse consequences for particular stakeholder groups. Therefore, the chapter argues that in the near future, AOPs are likely to be much more fruitful when they are employed in “win-win” contexts, such as in the design of safer chemicals or the assessment of alternative products and methods. Moreover, AOPs are likely to be more useful and more widely accepted if their development process is characterized by two principles: engagement and transparency. Following these principles has the potential to alleviate some of the conflict that has characterized recent chemical regulatory policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alberts B, Cicerone R, Fienberg S, Kamb A, McNutt M, Nerem R, Schekman R et al (2015) Self-correction in science at work. Science 348:1420–1422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Animal Rights and Wrongs (2011) Animal Rights and Wrongs. Nature 470(7335):435

    Google Scholar 

  • Ankley GT, Bennett RS, Erickson RJ, Hoff DJ, Hornung MW, Johnson RD, Mount DR, Nichols JW, Russom CL, Schmieder PK et al (2010) Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:730–741

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Becker RA, Ankley GT, Edwards SW, Kennedy SW, Linkov I, Meek B, Sachana M, Segner H, Van Der Burg B, Villeneuve DL, Watanabe H, Barton-McLaren TS (2015) Increasing scientific confidence in adverse outcome pathways: application of tailored Bradford-Hill considerations for evaluating weight of evidence. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 72:514–537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beder S (2000) Global spin, revised edn. Chelsea Green, White River Junction

    Google Scholar 

  • Busenberg G (1999) Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy. Pol Stud 32:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Colvin V (2003) The potential environmental impact of engineered nanoparticles. Nat Biotechnol 21:1166–1170

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cranor C (2011) Legally poisoned: how the law puts us at risk from toxicants. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas H (2004) The irreducible complexity of objectivity. Synthese 138:453–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas H (2005) Inserting the public into science. In: Maasen S, Weingart P (eds) Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision making. Springer, Berlin, pp 153–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer M, Stave K (2008) Group model building wins: the results of a comparative analysis. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference of the system dynamics society, Athens, Greece

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott K (2009) Respect for lay perceptions of risk in the hormesis case. Hum Exp Toxicol 28:21–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott K (2011) Is a little pollution good for you? Incorporating societal values in environmental research. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott K (2016) Environment. In: Angulo AJ (ed) Miseducation: a history of ignorance making in America and abroad. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 96–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott K (2017) A tapestry of values: an introduction to values in science. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott K, Resnik D (2014) Science, policy, and the transparency of values. Environ Health Perspect 122:647–650

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott K, Resnik D (2015) Scientific reproducibility, human error, and public policy. Bioscience 65:5–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino D (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 15:226–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes V, Calow P (2012) Promises and problems for the new paradigm for risk assessment and an alternative approach involving predictive systems models. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:2663–2671

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz S, Ravetz J (1992) Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, Westport, pp 251–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Reyero N (2015) Are adverse outcome pathways here to stay? Environ Sci Technol 49:3–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greek R, Menache A (2013) Systematic reviews of animal models: methodology versus epistemology. Int J Med Sci 10(3):206–221

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Groh K, Carvalho R, Chipman J, Denslow N, Halder M, Murphy C, Roelofs D, Rolaki A, Schirmer K, Watanabe K (2014) Development and application of the adverse outcome pathway framework for understanding and predicting chronic toxicity: II. A focus on growth impairment in fish. Chemosphere 120:778–792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guston D (2008) Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454:940–941

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guston D (2014) Building the capacity for public engagement with science in the United States. Public Underst Sci 23:53–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hackett E, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J (eds) (2007) The handbook of science and technology studies. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartung T (2013) Look back in anger – what clinical studies tell us about preclinical work. ALTEX 30(3):275–291

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hill AB (1965) The environmental and diseases: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 58:295–300

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Huang R, Xia M, Sakamuru S, Zhao J, Shahane SA, Attene-Ramos M, Zhao T, Austin CP, Simeonov A (2016) Modelling the Tox21 10K chemical profiles for in vivo toxicity prediction and mechanism characterization. Nat Commun 7:10425

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman D, Suryanarayanan S (2015) Ignorance and industry: agrichemicals and honey bee deaths. In: Gross M, McGoey L (eds) Routledge international handbook of ignorance studies. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky S (2003) Science in the private interest. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino H (2002) The fate of knowledge. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz G, Rosner D (2002) Deceit and denial: the deadly politics of industrial pollution. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonough W, Braungart M (2002) Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things. North Point Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels D (2008) Doubt is their product: how Industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers JP, vom Saal F, Akingbemi B, Arizono K, Belcher S, Colborn T et al (2009) Why public health agencies cannot depend upon good laboratory practices as a criterion for selecting data: the case of bisphenol A. Environ Health Perspect 117:309–315

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nosek B, Alter G, Banks C, Borsboom D, Bowman S, Breckler S, Buck S et al (2015) Promoting an open research culture. Science 348:1422–1425

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • NRC (National Research Council) (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (National Research Council) (2007) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD Guidance document on developing and assessing adverse outcome pathways (2013) In: Series on testing and assessment, Paris ENV/JM/MONO(2013)6, Paris no. 184, p 145

    Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes N, Conway E (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, E., P. Antczak, L. Burgoon, F. Falciani, N. Garcia-Reyero, S. Gutsell, G. Hodges, et al. 2015. Adverse Outcome Pathways for Regulatory Applications: Examination of Four Case Studies with Different Degrees of Completeness and Scientific Confidence. Toxicological Sciences 148:14–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2002) Three years later: genetically engineered corn and the Monarch butterfly controversy. Available at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Food_and_Biotechnology/vf_biotech_monarch.pdf. Accessed 26 July 2013

  • Royal Society (1985) The public understanding of science. Royal Society, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Policy 7:385–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette K (1995) Evaluating the expertise of experts. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment 6:115–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Song L, Bagley K (2015) EDF sparks mistrust, and admiration, with its methane research. InsideClimate News (April 8): https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07042015/edf-sparks-mistrust-and-admiration-its-methane-leaks-researchnatural-gas-fracking-climate-change

  • Soranno P, Cheruvelil K, Elliott K, Montgomery G (2015) It’s good to share: why environmental scientists’ ethics are out of date. Bioscience 65:69–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stave KA (2002) Using system dynamics to improve public participation in environmental decisions. Syst Dyn Rev 18(2):139–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (1994) Learning in and about complex systems. Syst Dyn Rev 10(2,3):291–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tickner J (1999) A map toward precautionary decision making. In: Raffensperger C, Tickner J (eds) Protecting public health and the environment: implementing the precautionary principle. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 162–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Tickner J (ed) (2003) Precaution, environmental science, and preventive public policy. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyl R (2009) Basic exploratory research versus guideline-compliant studies used for hazard evaluation and risk assessment: bisphenol a as a case study. Environ Health Perspect 117:1644–1651

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenburg LN, Prins GS (2016) Clarity in the face of confusion: new studies tip the scales on Bisphenol A (BPA). Andrology. doi:10.1111/andr.12219

  • Volz D, Elliott K (2012) Mitigating conflicts of interest in chemical safety testing. Environ Sci Technol 46:7937–7938

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1989) Sheep farming after Chernobyl. Environment 31:10–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (2005) Risk as globalizing ‘democratic’ discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. In: Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (eds) Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books, London, pp 66–82

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lyman Briggs College, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Kevin C. Elliott

  2. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Cheryl A. Murphy

  3. Environmental Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research & Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA

    Natàlia Garcia-Reyero

Authors
  1. Kevin C. Elliott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cheryl A. Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Natàlia Garcia-Reyero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin C. Elliott .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research & Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA

    Natàlia Garcia-Reyero

  2. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

    Cheryl A. Murphy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Elliott, K.C., Murphy, C.A., Garcia-Reyero, N. (2018). The Future of Adverse Outcome Pathways: Analyzing their Social Context. In: Garcia-Reyero, N., Murphy, C. (eds) A Systems Biology Approach to Advancing Adverse Outcome Pathways for Risk Assessment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66084-4_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation