National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×

INTENTIONAL HUMAN DOSING STUDIES FOR EPA REGULATORY PURPOSES

SCIENTIFIC AND ETHICAL ISSUES

Committee on the Use of Third Party Toxicity Research with Human Research Participants

Science, Technology, and Law Program

Policy and Global Affairs Division

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington D.C. ww.nap.edu

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

This study was supported by Contract No. 68-W-02-071, between the National Academies and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The views presented in this report are those of the National Research Council Committee on the Use of Third Party Toxicity Research with Human Research Participants and are not necessarily those of the funding agencies.

International Standard Book Number 0-309-09172-1 (Book)

International Standard Book Number 0-309-53098-9 (PDF)

Additional copies of this report are available from the
National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×

COMMITTEE ON THE USE OF THIRD PARTY TOXICITY RESEARCH WITH HUMAN RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS

JAMES F. CHILDRESS, Cochair (IOM), John Allen Hollingsworth Professor of Ethics, Professor of Medical Education, and Director,

Institute of Practical Ethics and Public Life, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia

MICHAEL R. TAYLOR, Cochair, Senior Fellow and Director,

Risk, Resource, and Environmental Management Division, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.

JAMES V. BRUCKNER, Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology,

Department of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia

ALICIA L. CARRIQUIRY, Associate Provost and Professor of Statistics,

Office of the Provost, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

ELLEN WRIGHT CLAYTON, Rosalind E. Franklin Professor of Genetics and Health Policy; Director of Genetics and Health Policy Center; Senior Fellow,

Institute for Public Policy Studies;

Professor of Pediatrics; Professor of Law,

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee

JOHN DOULL, Professor Emeritus,

Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutics, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas

HENRY T. GREELY, C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law; Professor, by courtesy, of Genetics; Co-director,

Program in Genomics, Ethics, and Society and Program in Law, Science, and Technology, Stanford University Law School, Stanford, California

SIOBAN D. HARLOW, Associate Professor; Associate Director,

International Institute; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

LESTER B. LAVE (IOM), University Professor, the Harry B. and James H. Higgins Professor of Economics; Professor,

Engineering and Public Policy;

Director,

Green Design Initiative;

Co-Director,

University Electricity Industry Center, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

BERNARD LO (IOM), Professor of Medicine and Director,

Program in Medical Ethics, University of California, San Francisco, California

THOMAS A. LOUIS, Professor,

Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland

JOSEPH V. RODRICKS, Founding Principal,

ENVIRON International Corporation, Arlington, Virginia

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×

CHRISTOPHER H. SCHROEDER, Charles S. Murphy Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies and Director,

Program in Public Law, Duke University Law School, Durham, North Carolina

ROBERT TEMPLE, Director,

Office of Medical Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research;

Acting Director,

Office of Drug Evaluation, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland

Liaison to Science, Technology, and Law Program

DAVID KORN (IOM), Senior Vice President for Biomedical and Health Sciences Research,

Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, D.C.

Staff

ANNE-MARIE MAZZA, Study Director

MICHELLE C. CATLIN, Senior Program Officer

KATHI E. HANNA, Consultant

STACEY E. SPEER, Senior Project Assistant

SARA DAVIDSON MADDOX, Editor

CAMILLE M. COLLETT, Research Associate (through March 2003)

SUSIE BACHTEL, Administrative Assistant (through August 2003)

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×

Acknowledgments

The committee gratefully acknowledges the contributions of many individuals who provided invaluable information and data for the study:

Stanley H. Abramson, Arent Fox Kinter Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC; John Adgate, University of Minnesota; Stephen W. Brimijoin, Mayo Clinic; Angus Cameron, Roslin BioCentre; Arthur L. Caplan, University of Pennsylvania; Neil Carmichael, Bayer CropScience; Gail Charnley, HealthRisk Strategies; Ian Chart, AMVAC Chemical Corporation; Shelley Davis, Farm Worker Justice Fund; Michael L. Dourson, Technology Excellence for Risk Assessment; Monty Eberhart, Bayer CropScience; William H. Farland, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Daniel D. Federman, Harvard Medical School; Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp, International Life Sciences Institute; Lynn R. Goldman, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Suzanne T. Ildstad, University of Louisville; Stephen L. Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; William Jordan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Jeffrey P. Kahn, University of Minnesota; Nancy E. Kass, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health; William Kelly, Center for Regulatory Effectiveness; Steven Lamm, Consultants in Epidemiology and Occupational Health, Inc.; Philip J. Landrigan, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine; Alan H. Lockwood, State University of New York; Judith A. MacGregor, Toxicology Consulting Services; Susan Makris, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Karen M. Martin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ray S. McAllister, CropLife America; Ernest E. McConnell, ToxPath, Inc.; Deidre L. Murphy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Herbert L. Needleman, University of Pittsburgh Medical School; Erik D. Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council;

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×

Jacqueline Patterson, Technology Excellence for Risk Assessment; Christopher J. Portier, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Peter W. Preuss, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Jennifer Sass, Natural Resources Defense Council; Rita S. Schoeny, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Vera Hassner Sharav, Alliance for Human Research Protection; Bob Sielken, Sielken & Associates Consulting, Inc.; Christina B. Swartz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Abraham J. Tobia, Bayer CropScience; Richard Wiles, Environmental Working Group; and Chris F. Wilkinson, C. Wilkinson, LLC.

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.

We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: William Cain, University of California, San Diego; Daniel Farber, University of Minnesota; Penelope Fenner-Crisp, International Life Sciences Institute; Lynn Goldman, Johns Hopkins University; Bernard Goldstein, University of Pittsburgh; Fernando Guerra, San Antonio Metropolitan Health District; Carol Henry, American Chemistry Council; David Hoel, Medical University of South Carolina; Jeffrey Kahn, University of Minnesota; Mary Faith Marshall, Kansas University Medical Center; Thomas McGarity, University of Texas; Gary Rischitelli, Oregon Health and Science University; and Jonathan Samet, Johns Hopkins University.

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by R. Alta Charo, University of Wisconsin, and Donald Mattison, National Institutes of Health. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×

Preface

One of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) most important and difficult tasks is regulation of the use of chemicals in order to protect human health and the environment. For several years it has struggled to determine whether in discharging this responsibility it should consider, accept, and rely on data from third-party studies that deliberately expose humans to toxicants. In accepting EPA’s request for assistance in resolving this question, the National Academy of Sciences established an interdisciplinary committee under the auspices of the Science, Technology, and Law Program to prepare a report and make recommendations.

EPA’s difficulty—and the committee’s difficulty—in resolving this question arises from several conflicting interests and social values. For many the idea of research that intentionally exposes humans to toxicants is repugnant. Yet for others the potential of such studies to define more accurately human risk makes them worthwhile and acceptable. Recognizing the range of views, the committee proceeded to analyze and assess the arguments for and against intentional human dosing studies. Supporters of these studies see them as similar to Phase 1 drug trials, which expose participants to chemicals without the prospect of direct benefit to them and which can be ethically justified if they assiduously follow certain standards and procedures, such as those embedded in the Common Rule. However, critics contend that third-party studies conducted for EPA regulatory purposes, but not conducted or sponsored by EPA, usually fail to follow those standards and procedures. Defenders of human dosing studies hold that they can provide scientific data that are more relevant for

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×

regulatory purposes than data from animal studies, while critics charge that most of these studies lack scientific validity and, in any event, see little benefit in raising acceptable limits for toxicants, the usual purpose of such studies. These conflicting views represent a sample of the concerns, found among members of the committee as well as in society at large, that have animated the debate.

Like other groups that have addressed this subject, we note that such testing should be approached with the utmost caution and care. This committee consisted of members with expertise in ethics, law, pharmacology, toxicology, genetics, pediatrics, statistics/biostatistics, economics, epidemiology, risk assessment, and clinical trials. We met 6 times over 12 months in open and closed sessions and invited testimony from a number of individuals. In addition, we convened one public forum on January 8, 2003, to receive public input on the topics under consideration. During the course of the study, we received and reviewed voluminous studies voluntarily provided by a number of pesticide companies that had previously conducted intentional dosing studies and submitted their results to EPA for consideration. Some of these submissions were complete files on a particular chemical, while others were partial files. All of these materials were placed in the National Academies’ public access file for this project.

In addition, committee staff filed a Freedom of Information request with EPA for all information relevant to the intentional dosing studies that had been submitted to the Office of Pesticide Programs. Committee staff reviewed these studies and briefed the full committee on their findings. In addressing EPA’s questions, members of the committee read and listened carefully and thought rigorously and imaginatively about the recommendations that could be made and the rationale for those recommendations. As a result, every member of the committee changed his or her mind on some important topic in this report in the course of the extended and intense discussions and deliberations. As cochairs of this committee, we express our deep gratitude to committee members and staff, all of whom devoted enormous time and intellectual energy to the development of this report.

James F. Childress and Michael R. Taylor

Cochairs

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
   

 Monitoring by Federal Agencies,

 

58

   

 Office for Human Research Protections,

 

58

   

 Food and Drug Administration,

 

58

   

 Nongovernmental Accreditation Programs,

 

60

   

 Enforcement,

 

60

   

 Recent Concerns about Human Research Participants,

 

61

   

 Other Ethical Frameworks,

 

63

   

 Summary,

 

63

   

 References,

 

64

3

 

SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION FOR AND CONDUCT OF INTENTIONAL HUMAN DOSING STUDIES

 

66

   

 Introduction,

 

66

   

 Scientific Elements,

 

67

   

 Types of Intentional Human Dosing Studies,

 

67

   

 Studies That Seek to Elicit Pharmacokinetic Information,

 

68

   

 Pharmacodynamic Studies That Examine Low-Dose Effects on Biomarkers,

 

69

   

 Pharmacodynamic Studies That Examine Low-Dose Effects That May Be Adverse to Participants,

 

70

   

 Justification for Intentional Human Dosing Studies,

 

72

   

 Criteria for Study Justification,

 

72

   

 Documentation of Study Justification,

 

75

   

 Protocols for Intentional Human Dosing Studies,

 

76

   

 Overall Study Plan,

 

76

   

 Aspects of Study Design,

 

76

   

 Conducting and Recording Statistical Analysis of Results,

 

79

   

 Protection of Research Participants,

 

79

   

 The Protocol Document,

 

80

   

 Study Reporting to EPA,

 

80

   

 Summary,

 

81

   

 References,

 

82

4

 

A RISK-BENEFIT FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING INTENTIONAL HUMAN DOSING STUDIES

 

84

   

 Introduction,

 

84

   

 Potential Benefits from Intentional Human Dosing Studies,

 

85

   

 Personal Benefits,

 

85

   

 Societal Benefits,

 

88

   

 Reliability in Implementing the Current Regulatory Framework,

 

90

   

 Balancing Risks and Benefits,

 

98

   

 Assessing the Risks,

 

99

   

 Assessing the Benefits,

 

103

Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
   

 Finding the Balance,

 

107

   

 Summary,

 

108

   

 References,

 

109

5

 

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE REVIEW OF INTENTIONAL HUMAN DOSING STUDIES

 

110

   

 Introduction,

 

110

   

 Selection of Research Participants,

 

114

   

 Payment for Participation in Research,

 

117

   

 Informed Consent,

 

120

   

 Compensation for Research-Related Injuries,

 

124

   

 The Use of Results from Ethically Problematic Studies,

 

125

   

 Studies Submitted for Regulatory Decisions After EPA Establishes New Standards,

 

125

   

 Studies Completed before Publication of EPA’s New Rules,

 

128

   

 Summary,

 

130

   

 References,

 

131

6

 

PROCEDURES FOR EPA REVIEW OF INTENTIONAL HUMAN DOSING STUDIES

 

132

   

 Introduction,

 

132

   

 Independent Review of Intentional Human Dosing Studies,

 

132

   

 Creation of an EPA Human Studies Review Board,

 

134

   

 Pre-Experiment EPA Review,

 

137

   

 Post-Experiment EPA Review,

 

140

   

 Ongoing Assessment and Monitoring,

 

141

   

 Summary,

 

142

   

 Reference,

 

143

7

 

EPA’S USE OF DATA FROM INTENTIONAL HUMAN DOSING STUDIES IN RISK ASSESSMENT

 

144

   

 Introduction,

 

144

   

 EPA’s Risk Assessment Framework,

 

144

   

 Implications of the Use of Intentional Human Dosing Studies in the Risk Assessment Process,

 

148

   

 Eliminating the UFA,

 

150

   

 The Case of Cholinesterase Inhibition,

 

152

   

 Other Uses of Data,

 

153

   

 Conclusions and Recommendations,

 

153

   

 Summary,

 

156

   

 References,

 

157

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×

List of Tables and Boxes

TABLES

1.1

 

Relevant Pesticide Studies Received by EPA Since April 1991,

 

33

2.1

 

Federal Agencies Subject to the Common Rule,

 

52

BOXES

1.1

 

Legal Statutes for EPA Regulation of Chemicals,

 

25

1.2

 

Four-Step Process for Human Health Risk Assessment,

 

28

1.3

 

Common Rule Requirements for IRB Review,

 

38

1.4

 

Specific Statement of Task,

 

42

3.1

 

Committee’s Use of Risk Terminology for Data Derived from Intentional Human Dosing Studies,

 

71

3.2

 

Criteria for Judging the Adequacy of the Scientific Justification for Intentional Human Dosing Studies,

 

75

3.3

 

Examples of Study Designs That Identify a NOELHU,

 

78

7.1

 

Committee’s Use of Risk Terminology for Data Derived from Intentional Human Dosing Studies,

 

149

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×

Acronyms


AChE

Acetylcholinesterase


DHEW

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

DHHS

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

DMC

Data Monitoring Committee

DSMB

Data and Safety Monitoring Board


EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


FDA

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FFDCA

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FIFRA

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FQPA

Food Quality and Protection Act


GCP

Good Clinical Practice

GI

Gastrointestinal


HED

Human Equivalent Dose


IND

Investigational New Drug

IOM

Institute of Medicine

IRB

Institutional Review Board

IRIS

Integrated Risk Information System

Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×

LOAEL

Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level

LOEL

Lowest Observed Effect Level


MTD

Maximally Tolerated Doses


NAS

National Academy of Sciences

NBAC

National Bioethics Advisory Commission

NCQA

National Committee on Quality Assurance

NIH

National Institutes of Health

NOAEL

No Observed Adverse Effect Level

NOEL

No Observed Effect Level

NRC

National Research Council


OHRP

Office for Human Research Protections

OIG

Office of Inspector General

OP

Organophosphates

OPRR

Office for Protection from Research Risks


PBPK

Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic

PD

Pharmacodynamic

PHS

U.S. Public Health Service

PK

Pharmacokinetic


RAC

Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee

RfC

Reference Concentrations

RfD

Reference Dose


SAB

Science Advisory Board

SAP

Science Advisory Panel


TSCA

Toxic Substance Control Act


UF

Uncertainty Factor


VOC

Volatile Organic Chemicals

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R16
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R17
Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2004. Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10927.
×
Page R18
Next: Executive Summary and Recommendations »
Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $67.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The EPA commissioned The National Academies to provide advice on the vexing question of whether and, if so, under what circumstances EPA should accept and consider intentional human dosing studies conducted by companies or other sources outside the agency (so-called third parties) to gather evidence relating to the risks of a chemical or the conditions under which exposure to it could be judged safe. This report recommends that such studies be conducted and used for regulatory purposes only if all of several strict conditions are met, including the following:

  • The study is necessary and scientifically valid, meaning that it addresses an important regulatory question that can’t be answered with animal studies or nondosing human studies;
  • The societal benefits of the study outweigh any anticipated risks to participants. At no time, even when benefits beyond improved regulation exist, can a human dosing study be justified that is anticipated to cause lasting harm to study participants; and
  • All recognized ethical standards and procedures for protecting the interests of study participants are observed.

In addition, EPA should establish a Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) to evaluate all human dosing studies – both at the beginning and upon completion of the experiments – if they are carried out with the intent of affecting the agency's policy-making.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!