Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standards: The integration of science and policy

Under the Clean Air Act, Congress granted discretionary decision making authority to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This discretionary authority involves setting standards to protect the public's health with an "adequate margin of safety" based on current scientific knowledge. The Administrator of the EPA is usually not a scientist, and for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM), the Administrator faced the task of revising a standard when several scientific factors were ambiguous. These factors included: (1) no identifiable threshold below which health effects are not manifested, (2) no biological basis to explain the reported associations between particulate matter and adverse health effects, and (3) no consensus among the members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) as to what an appropriate PM indicator, averaging period, or value would be for the revised standard. ^ This project recommends and demonstrates a tool, integrated assessment (IA), to aid the Administrator in making a public health policy decision in the face of ambiguous scientific factors. IA is an interdisciplinary approach to decision making that has been used to deal with complex issues involving many uncertainties, particularly climate change analyses. Two IA approaches are presented; a rough set analysis by which the expertise of CASAC members can be better utilized, and a flag model for incorporating the views of stakeholders into the standard setting process. ^ The rough set analysis can describe minimal and maximal conditions about the current science pertaining to PM and health effects. Similarly, a flag model can evaluate agreement or lack of agreement by various stakeholder groups to the proposed standard in the PM review process. ^ The use of these IA tools will enable the Administrator to (1) complete the NAAQS review in a manner that is in closer compliance with the Clean Air Act, (2) expand the input from CASAC, (3) take into consideration the views of the stakeholders, and (4) retain discretionary decision making authority. ^

Folklore, fad, and fashion: The concept of misconduct in science redefined

This study is an analytical investigation of the nature and implications of the current conceptions of scientific misconduct, arguing that the question of what constitutes misconduct in science is significantly more complex than what conventionally has been believed. Complicating the definitions of misconduct are the differences between professional science and non-scientific professions, in their respective norms of what constitutes valid knowledge, and what counts as appropriate and inappropriate practice. While institutionalized science claims that there is clear differentiation between its standards of validity and those of the non-scientific professions, this paper argues that, when it comes to misconduct, the perceived boundaries between the scientific and non-scientific professions are breached; the practice standards that science currently employs in self-policing misconduct have come to resemble the minimal juridical standards of practice that other professions employ. This study attempts, despite erosion of these traditional boundaries, to move from legalistic standards of scientific practice to intramural standards of practice, and in so doing, to hold scientific practice to a higher standard than ordinary public conduct. The result is a clearer understanding of scientific misconduct to aid those individual scientists who are required to make onerous determinations about the appropriateness of specific practices by their peers. ^

A feasibility study for assessing building occupants' indoor air quality expectations compared to nationally recognized standards

Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) can have significant implications for health, productivity, job performance, and operating cost. Professional experience in the field of indoor air quality suggests that high expectations (better than nationally established standards) (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)) of workplace indoor air quality lead to increase air quality complaints. To determine whether there is a positive association between expectations and indoor air quality complaints, a one-time descriptive and analytical cross-sectional pilot study was conducted. Area Safety Liaisons (n = 330) at University of Texas Health Science Center – Houston were asked to answer a questionnaire regarding their expectations of four workplace indoor air quality indicators i.e., (temperature, relative humidity, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide) and if they experienced and reported indoor air quality problems. A chi-square test for independence was used to evaluate associations among the variables of interest. The response rate was 54% (n = 177). Results did not show significant associations between expectation and indoor air quality. However, a greater proportion of Area Safety Liaisons who expected indoor air quality indicators to be better than the established standard experienced greater indoor air quality problems. Similarly, a slightly higher proportion of Area Liaisons who expected indoor air quality indicators to be better than the standard reported greater indoor air quality complaints. ^ The findings indicated that a greater proportion of Area Safety Liaisons with high expectations (conditions that are beyond what is considered normal and acceptable by ASHRAE) experienced greater indoor air quality discomfort. This result suggests a positive association between high expectations and experienced and reported indoor air quality complaints. Future studies may be able to address whether the frequency of complaints and resulting investigations can be reduced through information and education about what are acceptable conditions.^