Faculté des sciences de l'administration, Université Laval, Sainte-Foy, Québec, Canada.
Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, McGill University, Sainte Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada.
Environ Health Perspect. 2020 Oct;128(10):105002. doi: 10.1289/EHP6500. Epub 2020 Oct 28.
Some 20 y ago, scientific and regulatory communities identified the potential of omics sciences (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics) to improve chemical risk assessment through development of toxicogenomics. Recognizing that regulators adopt new scientific methods cautiously given accountability to diverse stakeholders, the scope and pace of adoption of toxicogenomics tools and data have nonetheless not met the ambitious, early expectations of omics proponents.
Our objective was, therefore, to inventory, investigate, and derive insights into drivers of and obstacles to adoption of toxicogenomics in chemical risk assessment. By invoking established social science frameworks conceptualizing innovation adoption, we also aimed to develop recommendations for proponents of toxicogenomics and other new approach methodologies (NAMs).
We report findings from an analysis of 56 scientific and regulatory publications from 1998 through 2017 that address the adoption of toxicogenomics for chemical risk assessment. From this purposeful sample of toxicogenomics discourse, we identified major categories of drivers of and obstacles to adoption of toxicogenomics tools and data sets. We then mapped these categories onto social science frameworks for conceptualizing innovation adoption to generate actionable insights for proponents of toxicogenomics.
We identify the most salient drivers and obstacles. From 1998 through 2017, adoption of toxicogenomics was understood to be helped by drivers such as those we labeled , , and but hindered by obstacles such as those we labeled , , and . Leveraging social science frameworks, we find that arguments for adoption that draw on the most salient drivers, which emphasize superior and novel functionality of omics as rationales, overlook potential adopters' key concerns: simplicity of use and compatibility with existing practices. We also identify two perspectives-innovation-centric and adopter-centric-on omics adoption and explain how overreliance on the former may be undermining efforts to promote toxicogenomics. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6500.
大约 20 年前，科学界和监管界认识到组学科学（基因组学、转录组学、蛋白质组学、代谢组学）有可能通过发展毒理基因组学来改进化学风险评估。鉴于监管机构对新科学方法的采用持谨慎态度，需要对不同利益相关者负责，因此，毒理基因组学工具和数据的采用范围和速度并未达到组学支持者的雄心勃勃的早期预期。
因此，我们的目的是对毒理基因组学在化学风险评估中的采用情况进行调查，了解其驱动因素和障碍。通过援引已建立的社会科学框架来理解创新的采用，我们还旨在为毒理基因组学和其他新方法学（NAM）的支持者提出建议。
我们报告了对 1998 年至 2017 年期间发表的 56 篇涉及毒理基因组学在化学风险评估中的应用的科学和监管出版物的分析结果。从这一有针对性的毒理基因组学文献中，我们确定了采用毒理基因组学工具和数据集的主要驱动因素和障碍类别。然后，我们将这些类别映射到社会科学框架，以生成毒理基因组学支持者的可操作见解。
我们确定了最显著的驱动因素和障碍。1998 年至 2017 年，毒理基因组学的采用被认为受到了以下因素的帮助：我们称之为“有吸引力的应用案例”“更好的预测”和“监管机会”的驱动因素，但也受到了我们称之为“数据质量和可解释性”“分析方法和验证”和“监管限制”的障碍的阻碍。利用社会科学框架，我们发现，采用的论点如果能利用最显著的驱动因素，强调组学的优越和新颖功能作为理由，就会得到采纳，但却忽略了潜在采用者的关键关注点：使用的简便性和与现有实践的兼容性。我们还确定了两种看待组学采用的视角——创新中心和采用者中心，并解释了过度依赖前者如何可能会破坏促进毒理基因组学的努力。https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6500.
