Why Public Health Agencies Cannot Depend on Good Laboratory Practices as a Criterion for Selecting Data: The Case of Bisphenol A

In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION: Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS: Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.

Impact of laboratory cross-contamination on molecular epidemiology studies of tuberculosis.

Laboratory cross-contamination by Mycobacterium tuberculosis is known to be responsible for the misdiagnosis of tuberculosis, but its impact on other contexts has not been analyzed. We present the findings of a molecular epidemiology analysis in which the recent transmission events identified by a genotyping reference center were overestimated as a result of unnoticed laboratory cross-contamination in the original diagnostic laboratories.

Laboratory detection of respiratory viruses by automated techniques.

Advances in clinical virology for detecting respiratory viruses have been focused on nucleic acids amplification techniques, which have converted in the reference method for the diagnosis of acute respiratory infections of viral aetiology. Improvements of current commercial molecular assays to reduce hands-on-time rely on two strategies, a stepwise automation (semi-automation) and the complete automation of the whole procedure. Contributions to the former strategy have been the use of automated nucleic acids extractors, multiplex PCR, real-time PCR and/or DNA arrays for detection of amplicons. Commercial fully-automated molecular systems are now available for the detection of respiratory viruses. Some of them could convert in point-of-care methods substituting antigen tests for detection of respiratory syncytial virus and influenza A and B viruses. This article describes laboratory methods for detection of respiratory viruses. A cost-effective and rational diagnostic algorithm is proposed, considering technical aspects of the available assays, infrastructure possibilities of each laboratory and clinic-epidemiologic factors of the infection.

Strategies for the successful implementation of viral laboratory automation.

It has been estimated that more than 70% of all medical activity is directly related to information providing analytical data. Substantial technological advances have taken place recently, which have allowed a previously unimagined number of analytical samples to be processed while offering high quality results. Concurrently, yet more new diagnostic determinations have been introduced - all of which has led to a significant increase in the prescription of analytical parameters. This increased workload has placed great pressure on the laboratory with respect to health costs. The present manager of the Clinical Laboratory (CL) has had to examine cost control as well as rationing - meaning that the CL's focus has not been strictly metrological, as if it were purely a system producing results, but instead has had to concentrate on its efficiency and efficacy. By applying re-engineering criteria, an emphasis has had to be placed on improved organisation and operating practice within the CL, focussing on the current criteria of the Integrated Management Areas where the technical and human resources are brought together. This re-engineering has been based on the concepts of consolidating and integrating the analytical platforms, while differentiating the production areas (CORE Laboratory) from the information areas. With these present concepts in mind, automation and virological treatment, along with serology in general, follow the same criteria as the rest of the operating methodology in the Clinical Laboratory.