Alliance for Risk Assessment

 

Steering Committee Meeting Agenda

Date: 4/13/2006

Time: 1:00 EST

 

The roles of the Steering Committee (SC) were defined during its first conference call as:

1.      Determining mission relatedness,

2.      Identifying conflict of interest, and

3.      Prioritizing project requests.   

The SC asked TERA staff to flush these out with some details.  In preparation for the upcoming meeting, here is a proposed plan of action/ agenda structure. 

1. Mission Relatedness

Alliance for Risk Assessment Mission Statement

The Alliance for Risk Assessment (ARA) is a collaborative effort of organizations dedicated to supporting public health protection by improving the process and efficiency of risk assessment. Given a limited supply of time, resources, and expertise, public health protection is an effort that benefits from cooperation, organization, and prioritization.  To this end, the ARA provides a framework for the advancement of risk assessment by:

o       Implementing a multi-stakeholder decision-making process to deliver the best use of science with openness and transparency,

o       Enabling groups with limited resources access to toxicological and risk assessment expertise,

o       Facilitating the harmonization of risk assessment procedures across organizational lines,

o       Increasing the capacity for developing risk information by pooling technical and financial resources to ensure their most effective applications, without duplication of effort, and

o       Promoting the use of risk assessment by assisting the exchange and dissemination of information.

  

2. Conflict of Interest

            Conflict of Interest Management Policy 

The Alliance for Risk Assessment (ARA) will work to consider conflict of interest in all activities and take appropriate measures to identify and manage potential conflicts, real and perceived.  The ARA will model its conflict of interest policies and procedures after the well-vetted examples established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA).  These organizations emphasize careful planning, independent selection of appropriate expertise, balanced panels, transparency in process and results, and public participation.  For example, ARA peer reviews will use the conflict of interest policies found below. 

• Office of Management and Budget.  Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.  December 2004.  Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-03.pdf. 
• National Academy of Sciences. Policy and Procedures on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest for Committees Used in the Development of Reports. May 2003.  Available at: http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/index.html.
• Environmental Protection Agency.  Peer Review Handbook, 3^rd Edition.  December 2006.  Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/htm/2peerrev.htm. 
• Environmental Protection Agency.  Overview of the Panel Formation Process at the Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board.  Office of the Administrator. September 2002. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/science1/panels/paneltopics.html.
• Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA).  Independent Peer Review and Consultation.  Available at: http://www.tera.org/peer/COI.html.

 

3. Project Prioritization  

The Steering Committee is charged with prioritizing project requests.  For a project proposed by a paying sponsor, this judgment will be based on whether the project draws on new scientific studies or analyses that were not considered in existing risk assessments, (by US EPA or Health Canada).  For example, if a recent federal risk assessment process has occurred in an open and transparent manner and new information is not available, then the SC might judge that the incoming project is shopping for a different answer and reject it for ARA work.  In the case of unpaid projects prioritization will be in relationship to other unpaid work.  Considerations for prioritization may also include: 

o       Public health impact- exposure potential, hazard potential, and need for an update are all considerations within public health impact;

o       Chronological order- the order in which projects are received

o       Financial/ Technical resources of the requester- e.g., How a project submitted by DOW would be prioritized compared to a project submitted by the Sierra Club…Should we distinguish between for-profit orgs and non-profit/ governmental/other orgs?   Will the requester benefit financially from the outcome?

o       Broad vs. narrow applicability- projects that are site specific vs. projects that affect many

o       Project type- Will certain project types (risk assessments/ trainings/ peer reviews) be favored over others?  Do we want to maintain a balance of work within each project type?

o       Projects that facilitate further health protection- i.e., Would a project requested by a developing nation have priority over a project requested by an organization of a developed country?