The Departmental Organization of the Work of Local Authorities
In: Public administration: an international journal, Band 7, Heft 3, S. 304-311
ISSN: 1467-9299
8 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Public administration: an international journal, Band 7, Heft 3, S. 304-311
ISSN: 1467-9299
In: The annals of occupational hygiene: an international journal published for the British Occupational Hygiene Society, Band 8, Heft 3, S. 277-277
ISSN: 1475-3162
We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012" (UNEP/WHO, 2013) by financial stakeholders, authored by Lamb et al. (2014). Lamb et al.'s claim that UNEP/WHO (2013) does not provide a balanced perspective on endocrine disruption is based on incomplete and misleading quoting of the report through omission of qualifying statements and inaccurate description of study objectives, results and conclusions. Lamb et al. define extremely narrow standards for synthesizing evidence which are then used to dismiss the UNEP/WHO 2013 report as flawed. We show that Lamb et al. misuse conceptual frameworks for assessing causality, especially the Bradford-Hill criteria, by ignoring the fundamental problems that exist with inferring causality from empirical observations. We conclude that Lamb et al.'s attempt of deconstructing the UNEP/WHO (2013) report is not particularly erudite and that their critique is not intended to be convincing to the scientific community, but to confuse the scientific data. Consequently, it promotes misinterpretation of the UNEP/WHO (2013) report by non-specialists, bureaucrats, politicians and other decision makers not intimately familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalizations of bias and subjectivity.
BASE
We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012" (UNEP/WHO, 2013) by financial stakeholders, authored by Lamb et al. (2014). Lamb et al.'s claim that UNEP/WHO (2013) does not provide a balanced perspective on endocrine disruption is based on incomplete and misleading quoting of the report through omission of qualifying statements and inaccurate description of study objectives, results and conclusions. Lamb et al. define extremely narrow standards for synthesizing evidence which are then used to dismiss the UNEP/WHO 2013 report as flawed. We show that Lamb et al. misuse conceptual frameworks for assessing causality, especially the Bradford-Hill criteria, by ignoring the fundamental problems that exist with inferring causality from empirical observations. We conclude that Lamb et al.'s attempt of deconstructing the UNEP/WHO (2013) report is not particularly erudite and that their critique is not intended to be convincing to the scientific community, but to confuse the scientific data. Consequently, it promotes misinterpretation of the UNEP/WHO (2013) report by non-specialists, bureaucrats, politicians and other decision makers not intimately familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalizations of bias and subjectivity.
BASE
© 2015 The Authors. We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012" (UNEP/WHO, 2013) by financial stakeholders, authored by Lamb et al. (2014). Lamb et al.'s claim that UNEP/WHO (2013) does not provide a balanced perspective on endocrine disruption is based on incomplete and misleading quoting of the report through omission of qualifying statements and inaccurate description of study objectives, results and conclusions. Lamb et al. define extremely narrow standards for synthesizing evidence which are then used to dismiss the UNEP/WHO 2013 report as flawed. We show that Lamb et al. misuse conceptual frameworks for assessing causality, especially the Bradford-Hill criteria, by ignoring the fundamental problems that exist with inferring causality from empirical observations. We conclude that Lamb et al.'s attempt of deconstructing the UNEP/WHO (2013) report is not particularly erudite and that their critique is not intended to be convincing to the scientific community, but to confuse the scientific data. Consequently, it promotes misinterpretation of the UNEP/WHO (2013) report by non-specialists, bureaucrats, politicians and other decision makers not intimately familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalizations of bias and subjectivity.
BASE
© 2015 The Authors. We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012" (UNEP/WHO, 2013) by financial stakeholders, authored by Lamb etal. (2014). Lamb etal.'s claim that UNEP/WHO (2013) does not provide a balanced perspective on endocrine disruption is based on incomplete and misleading quoting of the report through omission of qualifying statements and inaccurate description of study objectives, results and conclusions. Lamb etal. define extremely narrow standards for synthesizing evidence which are then used to dismiss the UNEP/WHO 2013 report as flawed. We show that Lamb etal. misuse conceptual frameworks for assessing causality, especially the Bradford-Hill criteria, by ignoring the fundamental problems that exist with inferring causality from empirical observations. We conclude that Lamb etal.'s attempt of deconstructing the UNEP/WHO (2013) report is not particularly erudite and that their critique is not intended to be convincing to the scientific community, but to confuse the scientific data. Consequently, it promotes misinterpretation of the UNEP/WHO (2013) report by non-specialists, bureaucrats, politicians and other decision makers not intimately familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalizations of bias and subjectivity.
BASE
In: Preston , G R , Dilley , B J , Cooper , J , Beaumont , J , Chauke , F , Chown , S L , Devanunthan , N , Dopolo , M T , Fikizolo , L , Heine , J , Henderson , S , Jacobs , C A , Johnson , F , Kelly , J , Makhado , A B , Marais , C , Maroga , J , Mayekiso , M , McClelland , G T W , Mphepya , J , Muir , D , Ngcaba , N , Ngcobo , N , Parkes , J P , Paulsen , F , Schoombie , S , Springer , K , Stringer , C , Valentine , H , Wanless , R M & Ryan , P G 2019 , South Africa works towards eradicating introduced house mice from sub-Antarctic Marion Island : the largest island yet attempted for mice . in C R Veitch , M N Clout , A R Martin , J C Russell & C J West (eds) , Island Invasives : Scaling up to Meet the Challenge . vol. 62 , Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission , vol. 62 , IUCN , Gland Switzerland , pp. 40-46 .
House mice ( Mus musculus ) were introduced to South Africa's sub-Antarctic Marion Island, the larger of the two Prince Edward Islands, by sealers in the early 19th century. Over the last two centuries they have greatly reduced the abundance of native invertebrates. Domestic cats ( Felis catus ) taken to the island in 1948 to control mice at the South African weather station soon turned feral, killing large numbers of breeding seabirds. An eradication programme finally removed cats from the island by 1991, in what is still the largest island area cleared of cats at 290 km2. Removal of the cats, coupled with the warmer and drier climate on the island over the last half century, has seen increasing densities of mice accumulating each summer. As resources run out in late summer, the mice seek alternative food sources. Marion is home to globally important seabird populations and since the early 2000s mice have resorted to attacking seabird chicks. Since 2015 c. 5% of summer-breeding albatross fledglings have been killed each year, as well as some winter-breeding petrel and albatross chicks. As a Special Nature Reserve, the Prince Edward Islands are afforded the highest degree of protection under South African environmental legislation. A recent feasibility plan suggests that mice can be eradicated using aerial baiting. The South African Department of Environmental Affairs is planning to mount an eradication attempt in the winter of 2021, following a partnership with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to eradicate mice on Gough Island in the winter of 2020. The eradication programme on Marion Island will be spearheaded by the South African Working for Water programme – Africa's biggest conservation programme focusing on the control of invasive species –which is already driving eradication projects against nine other invasive species on Marion Island.
BASE
The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU. © 2013 Bergman et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
BASE