School of Public Health and Health Services, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20037, USA.
Environ Health Perspect. 2013 Feb;121(2):149-52. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1206101. Epub 2012 Dec 11.
A database for studies used for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pesticide and chemical reviews would be an excellent resource for increasing transparency and improving systematic assessments of pesticides and chemicals. There is increased demand for disclosure of raw data from studies used by the U.S. EPA in these reviews.
Because the Information Quality Act (IQA) of 2001 provides an avenue for request of raw data, we reviewed all IQA requests to the U.S. EPA in 2002-2012 and the U.S. EPA's responses. We identified other mechanisms to access such data: public access databases, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and reanalysis by a third party.
Only two IQA requests to the U.S. EPA were for raw data. Both of these were fulfilled under FOIA, not the IQA. Barriers to the U.S. EPA's proactive collection of all such data include costs to the U.S. EPA and researchers, significant time burdens for researchers, and major regulatory delays. The U.S. EPA regulatory authority in this area is weak, especially for research conducted in the past, not funded by the U.S. government, and/or conducted abroad. The U.S. EPA is also constrained by industry confidential business information (CBI) claims for regulatory testing data under U.S. chemical and pesticide laws. The National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database systematically collects statistical data about clinical trials but not raw data; this database may be a model for data from studies of chemicals and pesticides.
A database that registers studies and obtains systematic sets of parameters and results would be more feasible than a system that attempts to make all raw data available proactively. Such a proposal would not obviate rights under the IQA to obtain raw data at a later point.
为美国环境保护署 (EPA) 农药和化学品审查而建立的研究数据库将是提高透明度和改进农药和化学品系统评估的极好资源。人们越来越要求公开美国环保署在这些审查中使用的研究原始数据。
由于 2001 年的《信息质量法》(IQA) 为获取原始数据提供了一个途径,我们审查了 2002-2012 年期间向美国环保署提出的所有 IQA 请求及其回应。我们还确定了获取此类数据的其他机制:公共访问数据库、《信息自由法》(FOIA) 和第三方重新分析。
仅有两项向美国环保署提出的 IQA 请求是为了获取原始数据。这两项请求均根据 FOIA 而非 IQA 得到了满足。美国环保署主动收集所有此类数据的障碍包括对美国环保署和研究人员的成本、对研究人员的巨大时间负担,以及主要的监管延迟。美国环保署在这一领域的监管权力很薄弱,特别是对于过去进行的、不由美国政府资助的和/或在国外进行的研究。美国环保署还受到美国化学和农药法下行业保密商业信息 (CBI) 主张的限制,这些主张涉及监管测试数据。美国国立卫生研究院临床试验数据库系统地收集有关临床试验的统计数据,但不收集原始数据;该数据库可能是化学品和农药研究数据的一个模式。
一个注册研究并获取系统参数和结果集的数据库比试图主动提供所有原始数据的系统更可行。这样的提议不会排除根据 IQA 稍后获取原始数据的权利。