Factors Affecting the Perception of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in the Ecotoxicology Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given current legislative mandates to assess the safety of thousands of chemicals and the slow pace at which conventional testing proceeds, there is a need to accelerate chemical risk assessment. Governments and businesses are increasingly interested in new approach methodologies (NAMs) that promise to reduce costs and delays. We explore 5 sociological factors within the ecotoxicology community that can influence the perception of NAMs: 1) professional profile (educational cohort, employer), 2) internal science communication within professional forums, 3) concern for "error cost," 4) collaboration across stakeholders, and 5) fundamental beliefs regarding toxicology. We conducted an online survey (n = 171; 2018) asking participants about their experiences and perspectives at events of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) to assess 1) how NAMs are discussed compared to conventional testing and 2) how respondents perceive their viability. We developed ordered logistic regression (OLR) models to understand the influence of exploratory variables (cohort, core views on toxicology, frequency of collaboration) on respondents' evaluation of the viability of different NAMs. Our results showed that 1) NAMs were more likely than conventional methods to be challenged in forum discussions, which may be fueled by concerns for error costs in regulatory decision making; 2) perceptions of the viability of NAMs tended to follow a "pattern of familiarity," whereby respondents that were more knowledgeable about a test method tended to find it more viable; 3) respondents who agreed with the Paracelsus maxim had a greater likelihood of finding conventional testing viable; and 4) the more a respondent reported collaborating with industry on alternative testing strategies, the more likely she or he was to report that NAMs were less viable. These results suggest that there are professional and organizational barriers to greater acceptance of NAMs that can be addressed through a social learning process within the professional community. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2020;16:269-281. © 2020 SETAC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".