ToxicDocs and the fight against biased public health science worldwide
ToxicDocs and the fight against biased public health science worldwide
复制标题
ToxicDocs 与全球公共卫生科学偏见的斗争
DOI：
10.1057/s41271-017-0104-x
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Wegman, David H.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hogstedt, Christer;Wegman, David H.
毒物的存在对我们来说是新的，令人兴奋[1]。我们预见，若干不同的关切领域将受益于这一资源的提供。它似乎使一系列关于国际工业行为的历史研究成为可能，特别是在存在关于创造可疑知识或歪曲和否认科学证据的问题的情况下。这些研究可能有助于说明公共当局管制化学品接触的时间往往过长。延迟被归咎于有关石棉、苯、苯氧基酸和许多其他致癌物质，以及金属和溶剂的“相互矛盾的证据”。这种“相互矛盾的证据”的形式包括质疑研究方法或研究人员的诚信，通过应用不充分的暴露历史或不明确的结果来产生所谓的负面研究，游说影响国家和国际研究中心以及监管机构的研究人员和官员。我们预计，许多'侦探故事'将出现从使用这个新的和可搜索的文件库。毒理学可鼓励准确报告利益冲突。许多国家对有关化学品毒性的科学知识进行标准化的系统审查，作为制定规章和接触限值的依据。这些综述中每篇相关文章的评价方案中的一个共同项目涉及由于行业融资或就业而导致的偏倚研究的潜在风险。今后，在进行此类审查时，将有可能检查Toxicillin，以了解是否有证据表明审查中包含的出版物存在数据操纵或其他违规行为。
The existence of ToxicDocs is new to us and exciting [1]. We foresee several different areas of concern that will benefit from the availability of this resource. It seems to make possible a range of historical studies on the behavior of international industry, particularly where there are questions about the creation of questionable knowledge or the distortion and denial of scientific evidence. Such studies may shed light on the fact that it has often taken too long for public authorities to regulate chemical exposures. Delay has been blamed on ‘conflicting evidence’about asbestos, benzene, phenoxy acids, and many other carcinogens, plus metals and solvents. This ‘conflicting evidence’has taken the form of everything from questioning methods or the integrity of the researchers, producing the so-called negative studies by applying inadequate exposure histories or ill-defined outcomes, lobbying to influence researchers and officials in national and international research centers and in regulatory agencies [2]. We expect that many ‘detective stories’ will emerge from the use of this new and searchable document bank. ToxicDocs may encourage accurate reporting of conflicts of interest. Many countries produce standardized systematic reviews of the documented scientific knowledge on toxicity of chemicals as the basis for regulations and exposure limits. One common item in the evaluation protocol for each relevant article in these reviews concerns potential risk of biased research due to industry financing or employment. In the future, when undertaking such reviews, it will be possible to check ToxicDocs to learn if there is evidence of data manipulations or other irregularities surrounding the publications included in the review.
加州大学旧金山分校 (UCSF) 全身麻醉下牙科治疗的现状
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
理 福田;L. Raymond;一夫 黒須
通讯作者：
一夫 黒須
ToxicDocs (www.ToxicDocs.org)：从埋藏在纸堆中的历史到开放、可搜索的在线档案
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Rosner, David;Markowitz, Gerald;Chowkwanyun, Merlin
通讯作者：
Chowkwanyun, Merlin
怀疑是他们的产品。
影响因子：
3
作者：
D. Michaels
通讯作者：
D. Michaels