1 / 6

Evolution of Peer Review at EPA

Evolution of Peer Review at EPA. Jeff Morris Associate Director for Science Office of Science Policy Symposium on Peer Review of Risk Assessments and Related Activities September 30, 2003. Scientific Peer Review. 1995 112 work products identified 2002 859 work products identified

colin
Download Presentation

Evolution of Peer Review at EPA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evolution of Peer Reviewat EPA Jeff Morris Associate Director for Science Office of Science Policy Symposium on Peer Review of Risk Assessments and Related Activities September 30, 2003

  2. Scientific Peer Review • 1995 112 work products identified • 2002859 work products identified • 750 identified as needing peer review • 91% identified for external peer review • Dr. Matanowski of JHU, “I think EPA has taken massive steps to improve their peer review, and the Science Advisory Board is not the only place…from what we have looked at in the EPA, they have done an extremely good job getting almost everything that they look at now peer reviewed.” (House Science Committee – April 2002)

  3. More Scientists and Engineers in EPA’s Decision Process

  4. Peer Review Is a Cornerstoneof EPA’s Information Quality Guidelines “Influential Information” • Disseminated in support of top Agency actions (including precedent-setting or controversial scientific or economic issues) • Disseminated in support of economically significant actions • Major work products undergoing peer review as called for under the Agency’s Peer Review Policy • Other information on a case-by-case basis

  5. OMB’s Proposal Significant Regulatory Information “Influential” under OMB IQG and is “relevant to regulatory policies.” Internal or external peer review Especially Significant Regulatory Information Support of a major regulatory action “Clear and substantial impact on important public policies or important private sector decisions with a possible impact of more than $100 million in any year,” OMB determines to be of “significant interagency interest” or “relevant to an Administration policy priority.” Formal, independent external peer review. EPA’s Guidance Scientific and technical workproductsused to support a regulatory program or policy position,and one or more of the following: Establishes a significant precedent, model, or methodology Addresses significant controversial issues Focuses on significant emerging issues Has significant cross-Agency/inter-agency implications Involves a significant investment of Agency resources Considers an innovative approach for a previously defined problem/process/methodology Satisfies a statutory or other legal mandate for peer review Products Subject to Peer Review: OMB Proposal and EPA’s Policy

  6. To Summarize –In the past three years: • The number of EPA peer reviews has increased significantly • Agency decisions receive greater scrutiny for peer review needs • Peer review linked to information quality • OMB proposal consistent with EPA’s current peer review policy

More Related