Search
Close
Search
Advanced Search
Search Menu
AI Discovery Assistant

Extract

Since 2009, a series of contributions to the Journal1–5 focused inter alia on how scientists—within the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monograph process—evaluate agents for which ‘there is some evidence or suspicion of carcinogenicity’.6 In 2011, Drs Wild and Cogliano5 wrote that IARC's current ‘expert evaluation’ practice ‘is the best approach available’ to allow ‘objectivity’ and to disallow ‘undue emphasis’ of working group participants' own research when weighing the overall evidence for or against causality. However, although the 2011 contribution makes a ‘plea on behalf of expert evaluation and the experts involved’, it does not convincingly answer the key question ‘what group or what mix of scientists do we need to most appropriately identify, challenge and ultimately weigh relevant research in the causal inference process?’

Indeed, the current practice of convening IARC Working Groups does have shortcomings. Whereas Drs Wild and Cogliano suggest that ‘most senior scientists have earned their reputations based on studying many topics',5 IARC will actually select the vast majority of Working Group Members because of their work, knowledge and experience with regard to the suspected cancer cause under investigation. Page 4 of the Preamble to the IARC Monographs shows no less: ‘Working Group Members generally have published significant research related to the carcinogenicity of the agents being reviewed.’6

Issue Section:
Letters to the Editor
You do not currently have access to this article.
Download all slides