The Strengths and Limitations of Regulatory Peer Review Dr. Heather E. Douglas Phibbs Assistant Professor of Science and Ethics University of Puget Sound.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Triangulations as a Qualitative Research Strategy

Advertisements

Unit 3 AoS 3 Revision DP 5: Strengths and weaknesses of law making through the courts DP 6: The relationship between parliament and the courts in law making.

By Lanah Benthien WARNING: THIS JOB IS NOT A PRETTY ONE. GRAPHIC CONTENT.

Professor Peter Earley & Dr Sara Bubb 1.

What Is Peer Review? Dr. Heather E. Douglas Philip M. Phibbs Assistant Professor of Science and Ethics University of Puget Sound.

ETHICS ETHICS. ETHICS SEEKS TO DETERMINE WHAT A PERSON SHOULD DO, OR THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION, AND PROVIDES REASONS WHY. IT ALSO HELPS PEOPLE DECIDE.

Measuring Ethical Goals of Research Oversight Holly Taylor, PhD, MPH Department of Health Policy and Management Bloomberg School of Public Health Berman.

The Chaplain as Spiritual Guide in Ethics Consults 2006.

Psychological Aspects of Risk Management and Technology – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall09 Psychological Aspects of Risk Management and Technology – Overview.

The Interface of Science and Law in Resource Management.

Chapter 5: The Behavior Analyst’s Responsibility to Clients Guideline 2 Leigh O’Brien Caldwell College.

Critical Thinking in Nursing. Definition  Critical thinking is an active, organized, cognitive process used to carefully examine one’s thinking and the.

Purpose of the Standards

Regulating the engineering profession 1 EC UK Experience in Accreditation of Engineering Programmes Professor Ian Freeston University of Sheffield, UK.

15” 1o” ProceduresUnderstandings Evaluate provenance 1.Author background, expertise, experience affect competence to “speak” about issue (depends.

Hollis Day, MD, MS Susan Meyer, PhD.  Four domains for effective practice outlined in the Interprofessional Education Collaborative’s “Core Competencies.

Debbie Poslosky Taken from the Common Core Standard Document.

Section 2: Science as a Process

Audit objectives, Planning The Audit

Information Assurance The Coordinated Approach To Improving Enterprise Data Quality.

Improving services for people with low vision: an evaluation of the work of the Low Vision Services Committees Andrew Gibson, Research Fellow, Institute.

Lesson Overview Lesson Overview Science in Context Lesson Overview 1.2 Science in Context.

Expert Committees R. F. Shangraw, Jr., Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer Project Performance Corporation Methods and Approaches in Screening Proprietary Drug.

Lesson Overview Lesson Overview Science in Context Lesson Overview 1.2 Science in Context.

Why do we need good forensic science ? A Jamieson.

Conflict Resolution II. Agriculture Education Instructor:

Research Integrity & Misconduct Research Ethics, Education, and Policy Office of Research Administration.

Overview of Chapter The issues of evidence-based medicine reflect the question of how to apply clinical research literature: Why do disease and injury.

Division Of Early Warning And Assessment MODULE 5: PEER REVIEW.

LEVEL 3 I can identify differences and similarities or changes in different scientific ideas. I can suggest solutions to problems and build models to.

Lesson Overview 1.2 Science in Context.

Scientific Merit Review René St-Arnaud, Ph.D. Shriners Hospital and McGill University CCAC National Workshop May 13, 2010, Ottawa (Ontario)

Graduate studies - Master of Pharmacy (MPharm) 1 st and 2 nd cycle integrated, 5 yrs, 10 semesters, 300 ECTS-credits 1 Integrated master's degrees qualifications.

Acknowledgements and Conflicts of interest Dr Gurpreet Kaur Associate Professor Dept of Pharmacology Government Medical College Amritsar.

S519: Evaluation of Information Systems Meta-evaluation D-Ch11.

What is Science? Chapter 1, Lesson 1. Using one or more of your senses and tools to gather information. observing.

PGY-5 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES  Access and critically evaluate current medical information and scientific evidence relevant to patients with medical illness.

CRITICAL THINKING A Code of Intellectual Conduct An excerpt from: Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments by T. Edward.

Argumentative Writing Grades College and Career Readiness Standards for Writing Text Types and Purposes arguments 1.Write arguments to support a.

What A Forensic Scientists Does Ch 1 Notes Pages

Required Skills for Assessment Balance and Quality: 10 Competencies for Educational Leaders Assessment for Learning: An Action Guide for School Leaders.

THE INTERFACE BETWEEN SOCIAL WORK AND LAW Hospital social work and decision making capacity.

Challenges in Promoting RCR: Reflections from a Public Funder´s Perspective Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research [Canadian Institutes of Health.

EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE ATHANASIA KOSTOPOULOU ERASMUS IPs

What is the court’s expectation of doctors? British Medical Association 17 November 2006.

Lesson Overview Lesson Overview Science in Context Lesson Overview 1.2 Science in Context Scientific methodology is the heart of science. But that vital.

CRITICALLY APPRAISING EVIDENCE Lisa Broughton, PhD, RN, CCRN.

Specific Behaviors to Manage Relationships By Uswatun Khasanah

Understanding Standards: Advanced Higher Event

Critical Thinking in the Nursing Process

Science & Democracy: Squaring Accountability with Expertise

AF1: Thinking Scientifically

The NICE Citizens Council and the role of social value judgements

Triangulations as a Qualitative Research Strategy

Chapter 1 Created by Educational Technology Network

Reading Research Papers-A Basic Guide to Critical Analysis

S519: Evaluation of Information Systems

Meta-evaluation.

1-1 What is Science? What Science Is and Is Not

1.2 Science in Context----Outline

Communication Issues.

Unit: Science & Technology

Lesson Overview 1.2 Science in Context.

Unit: Science & Technology

Elements of evaluation quality: questions, answers, and resources

Exploring Bioethics.

1. Write your current claim on a notecard.

Component 1: Introduction to Health Care and Public Health in the U.S.

The Expert Valuation Witness and the Different Procedural Models in European Court Proceedings . Associate Prof. (Dr. hab. Magdalena Habdas.

Presentation transcript:

The Strengths and Limitations of Regulatory Peer Review Dr. Heather E. Douglas Phibbs Assistant Professor of Science and Ethics University of Puget Sound

Difficulties Of Regulatory Peer Review High stakes of regulatory decisions Complex nature of regulatory documents

Range of Reasonable Expectations Upper Bound: Guarantee Truth Level 5: Best Interpretation of Available Evidence Level 4: Document Distinguishes Contested from Accepted Science Level 3: Recommendations for Further Study Level 2: Acceptable Review of Relevant Science Level 1: Minimal Scientific Literacy/Adequacy Lower Bound: Cosmetic Approval/Disapproval

The Spectrum of Reasonable Expectations Level 1: Basic Scientific Accuracy Needs: Basic relevant expertise among reviewers needed. Reviewers need not meet. Level 2: Good Review of Science Level 3: Recommendations for Study Level 4: Disputed Areas Acknowledged Level 5: Best Interpretation of Science

The Spectrum of Reasonable Expectations Level 1: Basic Scientific Accuracy Level 2: Good Review of Science Needs: Each relevant sub-field needs to be represented. Having experts meet is helpful, but not necessary. Level 3: Recommendations for Study Level 4: Disputed Areas Acknowledged Level 5: Best Interpretation of Science

The Spectrum of Reasonable Expectations Level 1: Basic Scientific Accuracy Level 2: Good Review of Science Level 3: Recommendations for Study Needs: Same composition as Level 2, but more time and effort is needed to develop recommendations. Panel meetings would be helpful here. Level 4: Disputed Areas Acknowledged Level 5: Best Interpretation of Science The Spectrum of Reasonable Expectations

Level 1: Basic Scientific Accuracy Level 2: Good Review of Science Level 3: Recommendations for Study Level 4: Disputed Areas Acknowledged Needs: At least a few experts from each sub-field are needed to delineate contested areas. Experts must meet together and discuss their views. Level 5: Best Interpretation of Science The Spectrum of Reasonable Expectations

Level 1: Basic Scientific Accuracy Level 2: Good Review of Science Level 3: Recommendations for Study Level 4: Disputed Areas Acknowledged Level 5: Best Interpretation of Science Needs: Experts must represent not only an appropriate range of expertise but an appropriate range of values. Panels must be balanced for both. Experts must meet to weigh values in the context of these judgments. The Spectrum of Reasonable Expectations

General Conclusions Increased expectations mean: - increased complexity of process - more care in selection of reviewers - reviewers will need more time - consensus less likely

Examples of Tensions in Regulatory Peer Review 1)Defining conflict of interest 2)Chasing consensus 3)Limited resources and peer review

Lessons: Regulatory peer review can at least help ensure there are no errors in the document. As one expects more than this, difficulties rise. As expectations rise, so should the resources and care committed to the review process.