IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v13y1993i4p403-412.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Value of Animal Test Information in Environmental Control Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Alison C. Taylor
  • John S. Evans
  • Thomas E. McKone

Abstract

Value of information (VOI)analytic techniques are used to evaluate the benefit of performing animal bioassays to provide information about the cancer potency of specific chemical compounds. These tools allow the identification of the conditions in which the cost of reducing uncertainty about potency, by performing a subchronic or chronic bioassay, is justified by the benefit of having improved information for making control decisions. The decision analytic results are readily scaled to apply to a range of human contact rates (exposures)and a variety of control strategies. The sensitivity of results to uncertainty about animal to human extrapolation and the design of the bioassay is explored. An evaluation of the possible gains in general understanding about the mechanisms of carcinogenicity resulting from chronic bioassays is beyond the scope of this approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Alison C. Taylor & John S. Evans & Thomas E. McKone, 1993. "The Value of Animal Test Information in Environmental Control Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 403-412, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:13:y:1993:i:4:p:403-412
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00740.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00740.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00740.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ann Fisher & Lauraine G. Chestnut & Daniel M. Violette, 1989. "The value of reducing risks of death: A note on new evidence," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 88-100.
    2. Alexander Shlyakhter & Gay Goodman & Richard Wilson, 1992. "Monte Carlo Simulation of Rodent Carcinogenicity Bioassays," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 73-82, March.
    3. Bruce C. Allen & Kenny S. Crump & Annette M. Shipp, 1988. "Response to Comments on Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency of Chemicals in Animals and Humans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 559-561, December.
    4. Bruce C. Allen & Kenny S. Crump & Annette M. Shipp, 1988. "Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency of Chemicals in Animals and Humans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 531-544, December.
    5. Landefeld, J.S. & Seskin, E.P., 1982. "The economic value of life: linking theory to practice," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 72(6), pages 555-566.
    6. John D. Graham & James W. Vaupel, 1981. "Value of a Life: What Difference Does It Make?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 89-95, March.
    7. Walter W. Piegorsch & Gregory J. Carr & Christopher J. Portier & David G. Hoel, 1992. "Concordance of Carcinogenic Response between Rodent Species: Potency Dependence and Potential Underestimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 115-121, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schaltegger, Stefan & Thomas, Tom, 1996. "Pollution added credit trading (PACT): New dimensions in emissions trading," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 35-53, October.
    2. Kan Shao & Mitchell J. Small, 2011. "Potential Uncertainty Reduction in Model‐Averaged Benchmark Dose Estimates Informed by an Additional Dose Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1561-1575, October.
    3. Mitchell J. Small, 2008. "Methods for Assessing Uncertainty in Fundamental Assumptions and Associated Models for Cancer Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1289-1308, October.
    4. Fumie Yokota & Kimberly M. Thompson, 2004. "Value of Information Literature Analysis: A Review of Applications in Health Risk Management," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(3), pages 287-298, June.
    5. Silke Gabbert & Hans‐Peter Weikard, 2010. "A theory of chemicals regulation and testing," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 34(2), pages 155-164, May.
    6. A. E. Ades & G. Lu & K. Claxton, 2004. "Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations in Medical Decision Modeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(2), pages 207-227, March.
    7. Fumie Yokota & George Gray & James K. Hammitt & Kimberly M. Thompson, 2004. "Tiered Chemical Testing: A Value of Information Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1625-1639, December.
    8. Fumie Yokota & Kimberly M. Thompson, 2004. "Value of Information Analysis in Environmental Health Risk Management Decisions: Past, Present, and Future," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 635-650, June.
    9. Donald L. Keefer & Craig W. Kirkwood & James L. Corner, 2004. "Perspective on Decision Analysis Applications, 1990–2001," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 4-22, March.
    10. Vicki Bier, 2020. "The Role of Decision Analysis in Risk Analysis: A Retrospective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2207-2217, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. D. Krewski & D .W. Gaylor & A. P. Soms & M. Szyszkowicz, 1993. "An Overview of the Report: Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency and the Maximum Tolerated Dose: Implications for Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 383-398, August.
    2. Michael J. Goddard & Daniel Krewski, 1992. "Interspecies Extrapolation of Toxicity Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 315-317, June.
    3. Curtis C. Travis & Sheri T. Hester, 1990. "Background Exposure to Chemicals: What Is the Risk?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 463-466, December.
    4. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2014. "Does EPA Underestimate Cancer Risks by Ignoring Susceptibility Differences?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1780-1784, October.
    5. Karen Watanabe & Frédéric Y. Bois & Lauren Zeise, 1992. "Interspecies Extrapolation: A Reexamination of Acute Toxicity Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 301-310, June.
    6. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2014. "Unveiling Variability and Uncertainty for Better Science and Decisions on Cancer Risks from Environmental Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1795-1806, October.
    7. Buzby, Jean C. & Roberts, Tanya & Lin, Chung-Tung Jordan & MacDonald, James M., 1996. "Bacterial Foodborne Disease: Medical Costs and Productivity Losses," Agricultural Economic Reports 33991, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Jatin Nathwani & Jan Narveson, 1995. "Three Principles for Managing Risk in the Public Interest," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(6), pages 615-626, December.
    9. Daniel Krewski, 1990. "Measuring Carcinogenic Potency," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 615-617, December.
    10. Adam M. Finkel, 2014. "EPA Underestimates, Oversimplifies, Miscommunicates, and Mismanages Cancer Risks by Ignoring Human Susceptibility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1785-1794, October.
    11. Kuchler, Fred & Golan, Elise H., 1999. "Assigning Values To Life: Comparing Methods For Valuing Health Risks," Agricultural Economic Reports 34037, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    12. Adam M. Finkel, 1994. "Risk Assessment Research: Only the Beginning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 907-911, December.
    13. Robert J. Scheuplein & John C. Bowers, 1995. "Dioxin–An Analysis of the Major Human Studies: Comparison with Animal‐Based Cancer Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 319-333, June.
    14. Christopher J. Portier, 1988. "Species Correlation of Chemical Carcinogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 551-553, December.
    15. Seymour J. Garte, 1990. "Communication of Relative Carcinogenic Risks: A Quantitative Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 467-468, December.
    16. Walter W. Piegorsch & Gregory J. Carr & Christopher J. Portier & David G. Hoel, 1992. "Concordance of Carcinogenic Response between Rodent Species: Potency Dependence and Potential Underestimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 115-121, March.
    17. David A. Freedman & Lois Swirsky Gold & Thomas H. Slone, 1993. "How Tautological Are Interspecies Correlations of Carcinogenic Potencies?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 265-272, June.
    18. Kenneth T. Bogen, 1995. "Methods to Approximate Joint Uncertainty and Variability in Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 411-419, June.
    19. Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van, 1992. "Public Perceptions of Food Saftey: Implications for Emerging Agricultural Technologies," Staff Paper Series 201159, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    20. Gray, Wayne B & Jones, Carol Adaire, 1991. "Are OSHA Health Inspections Effective? A Longitudinal Study in the Manufacturing Sector," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(3), pages 504-508, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:13:y:1993:i:4:p:403-412. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.