Abstracts (PDF file, 1.8MB) - Society for Risk Analysis

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts W4-E.3 Maier, A; Nance, P*; Ross, CS; Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment; nance@tera.org Lessons for Information Exchange in Occupational Risk Science: The OARS Initiative The demand is growing for occupational exposure guidance to support risk assessment for workplace exposures. The demand is fed by the expectation that risk analysis will more fully address the global portfolio of chemicals in commerce. A range of traditional and new dose-response techniques are being applied to fill the void. However, risk science and risk policy differences result in OEL guides that differ among organizations and that can result in a confusing landscape of OELs and related health benchmarks. One concept to address this transitional phase in occupational risk assessment is to develop programs that foster harmonization of methods. Harmonization is viewed as an approach to foster shared understanding and ultimately increased utility of the range of OELs and OEL methods available. Currently, numerous sources of information are available, but no unified source of occupational risk methods documentation has been compiled. In addition, decision guides to sort through the confusing landscape of guidance have been demonstrated as adding value for risk assessment practioneers. Such tools have been compiled in the context of a collaborative – the Occupational Alliance for Risk Assessment. The impacts regarding information exchange techniques and education and outreach strategies employed are described based on lesson learned through a 2-year implementation program. P.43 Makino, R*; Takeshita, J; AIST; ryoji-makino@aist.go.jp Can game theory predict the human behavior on safety? Form the viewpoint of an economic experiment Estimating risk through Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) has primarily been a non-behavioral, physical engineering approach. To assess the reliability of a system, however, the behavioral dimension must be taken into account. The theoretical model of Hausken (2002) that merges PRA and game theory considers safety as a “public good” which is a notion of economics [1]. It is well known in economic theory that the supply of public goods is lower than its optimal level without any corrective interventions. Using a game theoretic analysis, Hausken (2002) described the situation where a safety level remains low, that means the supply of safety as a public good is lower than its optimal level. Although his model is valuable, it has not been empirically validated yet. We validate the Hausken’s model using the technique of experimental economics. We basically follow the method for public good experiments employed by Fehr and Gachter (2002) [2]. In our study 48 participants take part in the experiments and they are divided into 12 groups of n = 4 participants. They work virtually on PCs that are inter-connected in series or parallel in a computerized laboratory. We establish safety rules for the virtual works and all participants are asked to follow these rules when they work. The experimental design is that if some, not necessarily all, of the participants follow the safety rules, the risk of occupational/industrial accidents remains low while the observation of the rules costs the rule followers. The costs are designed to give participants an incentive to break the safety rules. We examine the condition that participants break the safety rule, or to put differently, they take unsafe actions. [1] Hausken, K. (2002), “Probabilistic Risk Analysis and Game Theory,” Risk Analysis 22, 17-27. [2] Fehr, E. and Gachter, S. (2002), “Altruistic Punishment in Humans,” Nature 415, 137-140. W4-J.2 Mandel, M*; Carew, D; Progressive Policy Institute; mmandel@ppionline.org Regulatory Improvement Commission: A Politically Viable Approach to U.S. Regulatory Reform The natural accumulation of federal regulations over time imposes an unintended but significant cost to businesses and to economic growth, yet no effective process currently exists for retrospectively improving or removing regulations. This paper first puts forward three explanations for how regulatory accumulation itself imposes an economic burden, and how this burden has historically been addressed with little result. We then propose the creation of an independent Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC) to reduce regulatory accumulation. We conclude by explaining why the RIC is the most effective and politically viable approach. T3-J.4 Mannix, BF; George Washington University; BMannix@gwu.edu Employment and Human Welfare: Do Jobs Count in Benefit-Cost Analysis? Economists think of a benefit-cost analysis of a public project or policy as summarizing the real effects of the decision on public welfare: the well-being of real people, measured according to people’s own preferences. Their methods are designed to look past the familiar aggregate statistics of economic activity – the National Income, GDP, and so forth – to isolate net changes in economic surplus. To a lay person, however, this can all look too obscure and reductionist: the net benefits take the form of disembodied dollars that appear in no budget, cannot be spent, and are “owned” by no one in particular. In contrast, people who know nothing else about the economy know, and care about, the level of unemployment. It gets enormous political attention – particularly during an election season when unemployment may be high and economic growth seemingly stalled. The first question senior policymakers ask economists about a public decision is very often: What will be the effect on jobs? And the answer from economists is often: “zero,” or “negligible,” or “ambiguous,” or “that is the wrong question.” This paper explores some of the reasons why the standard human welfare metric appears to be insensitive to the employment effects that loom so large in the perceptions of the public. It argues that, to a first approximation, employment effects are already counted in a BCA as a component of compliance costs. Any attempt to include additional categories of welfare effects must confront the problem of potentially counting these effects more than once. The paper concludes that, in most cases, employment effects should be treated as they conventionally have been treated – implicitly part of the calculation of compliance costs. There may indeed be employment-related distributional considerations that are important and deserve analytical attention, but these are outside the scope, or at least beyond the reach, of the traditional BCA methodological framework. December 8-11, 2013 - Baltimore, MD
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts T4-F.2 Marchant, GE*; Lindor, RA; Arizona State University; gary.marchant@asu.edu Managing Pharmacogenomic Risks Through Litigation Liability is an important, although often under-appreciated, mechanism for managing the risks of new technologies. Key actors in the development and application of technologies are often motivated by potential liability concerns. This is certainly the case in the medical field, where past experiences such as bendectin, DES, silicone breast implants, Vioxx, and medical malpractice have made both product developers and health care providers very sensitive to, and aware of, liability risks. The development of personalized medicine, in which diagnostics and therapeutics are targeted at the pharmacogenomic profile of the individual patient, will present new or enhanced liability risks to both the product developers and providers for a number of reasons including: (i) failure to accurately convey risks of false positives and false negatives; (ii) inexperience and lack of training/expertise in applying new technologies; (iii) unrealistic or inflated patient expectations; (iv) disparities in the conduct of different manufacturers and providers in designing and applying new, rapidly evolving technologies; and (v) novel liability claims such as violation of emerging duties such as a duty to disclose individual information to at risk relatives. This presentation will review three recent lawsuits that present different theories of liability relating to pharmacogenomic testing (one relating to cancer predisposition, one relating to drug metabolism, and one relating to prenatal testing), and will evaluate both the potential positive and negative implications of such liability lawsuits for managing the risks of personalized medicine. T3-F.2 Marks, PD; Law Firm; pmarks@bdlaw.com Existing Tools for Accessing Federal Data A number of different tools can be used to seek data that resides with a Federal agency or is created with the use of Federal funding. Sometimes data can be obtained directly and informally as the result of a cooperative dialogue. When data is not voluntarily made available, other mechanisms may be pursued. The Freedom of Information Act is frequently used to obtain data, and recent developments in the case law clarify when a requester may turn to the courts to enforce the Act. Where the data was generated by institutions for higher education, hospitals and other non-profit organizations through grants or agreements with the Federal government, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-110 may shed light on the availability of data. In addition, data disclosure is fundamental to the Information Quality Act. This talk will discuss the process for obtaining data and some of the strengths and limitations of A-110, FOIA, and IQ. T3-B.1 Martin, LR*; Teuschler, LK; O'Brien, W; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; martin.lawrence@epa.gov Overview of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cumulative Risk Assessment (CRA) Guidelines Effort and Its Scientific Challenges The EPA Administrator directed EPA to account for CRA issues in planning, scoping and risk analysis and to integrate multiple sources, effects, pathways, stressors and populations into its major risk assessments. EPA established a Risk Assessment Forum CRA Technical Panel to develop Guidelines. The Guidelines will articulate broad underlying principles and provide a set of descriptive, science-based procedures and methods specific to CRA for use by EPA’s program offices and regions. Significant scientific challenges remain to be addressed in the development of the CRA Guidelines. The introduction of non-chemical stressors and unconventional initiating factors (such public health outcomes) in a CRA results in additional complexities for all facets of CRA planning, communication, analysis and uncertainty. This presentation will address proposed methods for addressing these challenges. Science questions addressed in this presentation will include: identification and evaluation of nonchemical stressors and psychosocial factors that influence risks posed by environmental exposures under EPA’s purview; use of epidemiology study data and traditional or high throughput toxicology data to inform health impacts of stressor combinations; and communication with stakeholders regarding the CRA scope, analysis plan and results. T1-B.4 Marty, MA*; Zeise, L; Salmon, AG; Cal/EPA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment; melanie.marty@oehha.ca.gov IRIS Improvements: Meeting the Needs of California The National Research Council’s recommendations to U.S.EPA to improve the IRIS process included measures to take to increase clarity of the steps in the risk assessment process used by EPA for chemical specific quantitative risk assessments. The states, including California, rely on the IRIS assessments for making decisions as to the need for controls of pollution sources for various media (air, water, soil, food, wildlife). While California is somewhat unique in having resources and mandates to conduct quantitative risk assessments for many chemicals, we do not have the extent of resources and expertise as U.S. EPA. Thus, we utilize EPA assessments and look to IRIS as an important resource. This presentation will focus on the utility of and potential improvements in changes EPA is making in establishing guidelines and templates for literature search and screening, evaluation and display of study data, including evidence tables, integration of the database, and presentation of dose-response modeling. We will also provide input on areas where additional discussion of potentially sensitive subpopulations, human heterogeneity and cumulative impacts could be improved. December 8-11, 2013 - Baltimore, MD
Page 1 and 2:
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts W
Page 3 and 4:
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts P
Page 5 and 6:
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts T
Page 7 and 8:
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts M
Page 9 and 10:
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts T
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30: SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts W
Page 31 and 32: SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts P
Page 33 and 34: SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts T
Page 41 and 42: SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts M
Page 79: SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts W
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
show all

Abstracts (PDF file, 1.8MB) - Society for Risk Analysis

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?