Conducting evaluations of evidence that are transparent, timely and can lead to health‑protective actions

Availability of data and materials: No new data was generated for this paper; only existing, publicly available data were used. DOIs and hyperlinks are included throughout the literature cited.Contributions: Under the leadership of NC, JBS, and DG, all authors contributed to the February 2021 Workshop on Conducting Evaluations of Evidence that are Transparent, Timely and Lead to Health-Protective Actions (see Workshop Robust Proceedings here: https://prhe.ucsf.edu/sites/g/files/tkssra341/f/wysiwyg/Proceedings_Final_05_10.pdf). Thereafter, those authors included here have expanded their participation by contributing substantively to this manuscript. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.Copyright © The Author(s) 2022. Background: In February 2021, over one hundred scientists and policy experts participated in a web-based Workshop to discuss the ways that divergent evaluations of evidence and scientific uncertainties are used to delay timely protection of human health and the environment from exposures to hazardous agents. The Workshop arose from a previous workshop organized by the European Environment Agency (EEA) in 2008 and which also drew on case studies from the EEA reports on ‘Late Lessons from Early Warnings’ (2001, 2013). These reports documented dozens of hazardous agents including many chemicals, for which risk reduction measures were delayed for decades after scientists and others had issued early and later warnings about the harm likely to be caused by those agents. Results: Workshop participants used recent case studies including Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Extremely Low Frequency – Electrical Magnetic Fields (ELF-EMF fields), glyphosate, and Bisphenol A (BPA) to explore myriad reasons for divergent outcomes of evaluations, which has led to delayed and inadequate protection of the public’s health. Strategies to overcome these barriers must, therefore, at a minimum include approaches that 1) Make better use of existing data and information, 2) Ensure timeliness, 3) Increase transparency, consistency and minimize bias in evidence evaluations, and 4) Minimize the influence of financial conflicts of interest. Conclusion: The recommendations should enhance the production of “actionable evidence,” that is, reliable evaluations of the scientific evidence to support timely actions to protect health and environments from exposures to hazardous agents. The recommendations are applicable to policy and regulatory settings at the local, state, federal and international levels.NC & CC contribution to this manuscript was supported by JPB Foundation (grant 681). JBS gratefully acknowledges funding support from the Passport Foundation