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. ^

Familial component of epilepsy in cleft lip and palate

It is well recognized that offspring of women with epilepsy who are taking anticonvulsant medications have an increased incidence of clefting abnormalities. This increase has been attributed to the teratogenic effects of anticonvulsant medications but an alternative explanation involving a genetic association of epilepsy and clefting has also been proposed. Five family studies attempting to resolve this controversy have been inconclusive either because of study design or analytic limitations. This family study was designed to determine whether epilepsy aggregates in families ascertained by an individual with a clefting disorder. The Mayo Clinic medical linkage registry was used to identify individuals with cleft lip with or without cleft palate and cleft palate in southeast Minnesota from 1935-1986. Only those cases who were 15 years or younger during this period were included in the study. The proband's parents and descendants of their parents, including the proband's sibs, children, grandchildren, niece/nephews, grandnieces/nephews, halfsibs and spouses were also identified and all of their medical records were reviewed for seizure disorders. The standardized morbidity ratios for epilepsy of 0.9 (95% CI 0.2-2.6) observed for first degree relatives (excluding parents) and 0.0 for second degree relatives were not increased. The SMRs ranged from 0.7-2.2 for the individual relative types (parents 1.5, sibs 0.7, children 2.2, probands 1.1, spouses 2.0) and were also not increased. These results do not support the suggestions of some that clefting and epilepsy aggregate together in families. ^

The Elegant Simplicity of Family Preservation Practice Legecies and Lessons

An earlier version of this manuscript was prepared for the Chapin Hall invitational seminar on family preservation, The Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, September 16 & 17, 1999. The author wishes to acknowledge the comments and helpful suggestions of seminar participants-Jacqueline McCroskey, Martha Shirk, Fran Jacobs, John Schuerman, Lee Schorr, Charlotte Booth, Kristi Nelson, Susan Kelly, Frank Farrow, and Susan Notkin. These comments, as indeed many of their prior contributions, have had a seminal effect on my thinking about family preservation services over the years. Clark Peters and other Chapin Hall staff deserve special thanks for creating the conditions necessary to produce a lively and productive discussion. As always, Harold Richman, Executive Director of Chapin Hall, and Hermon Dunlap, Smith Professor at the School of Social Service Administration of the University of Chicago, as seminar convenor combined perfectly the skills of gracious host and incisive critic. We in the child welfare field are in his debt for continually raising the level of discourse in our field. In the end, as it should be, the thoughts and opinions in the following paper are wholly my own.