The Research Integrity Roundtable

The product of 18 months of stakeholder dialogues, the Roundtable’s 2012 report, Improving the Use of Science in Regulatory Decision-Making: Dealing with Conflict of Interest and Bias in Scientific Advisory Panels, and Improving Systematic Scientific Reviews, takes as its starting point the work of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) 2009 report, Science for Policy Project: Improving the Use of Science in Regulatory Policy, and seeks to advance some of the BPC report’s findings by focusing on, among others, the following questions:

  • How should scientific advisory panels be composed and how should the qualifications of prospective panelists be vetted?
  • How should concerns about biases and conflicts of interest of advisory panelists be handled?
  • Which studies should agencies review when examining the scientific literature related to a regulatory policy issue, and how should those studies be evaluated and weighted?
  • How should contending views regarding the relevance of particular scientific results to a regulatory issue and the credibility of those results be addressed?

The Roundtable’s responses to these questions seek to further the shared principle of achieving maximum transparency while being alert to concerns about individual privacy and confidential business information.

Throughout the dialogue, Roundtable participants, drawn from industry, advocacy, and academia, and with representatives of key Federal agencies participating as liaisons, were understood to represent their personal views and not necessarily those of the organizations with which they are affiliated. Affiliations are noted below for purposes of identification only and do not imply official endorsement of the contents of this report. Employees of government agencies listed below served as liaisons rather than consenting parties; their participation in Roundtable discussion served to raise invaluable questions and perspectives, and focus deliberation on outcomes that are both needed and implementable.

Roundtable Statement regarding the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2012 (H.R. 6564)

The Research Integrity Roundtable, as an entity, does not take positions on bills, and the Roundtable did not review H.R. 6564 before it was introduced.  What the members have agreed to as the Roundtable is what is in the Roundtable’s report and, therefore, it should be read in its entirety to inform public policy.  Different members of the Roundtable may have different views on the ways H.R. 6564 does or does not draw on the Roundtable report.  However, all members of the Roundtable agree that the new paragraphs (b)(2)(C) and (D) that the bill would add to the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (in the bill, p. 2, l. 20 through p. 3, l. 4) are not based on the Roundtable’s report.


Richard Becker, American Chemistry Council
Raymond Garant, American Chemical Society
David Goldston, Natural Resources Defense Council
Francesca Grifo, Union of Concerned Scientists
Michael Holsapple, Battelle Health & Life Sciences Global Business
Janet Mostowy, Bayer Material Science, LLC
J. Craig Rowlands, The Dow Chemical Company
Robert Rickard, DuPont SHE & Sustainable Growth Center

Government Liaisons

Bruce Androphy, National Institutes of Health
Howard Gadlin, National Institutes of Health
Oscar Hernandez, Environmental Protection Agency
Annie Jarabek, Environmental Protection Agency
Dennis Keefe, Food and Drug Administration
Alan Thornhill, Department of the Interior

The Keystone Center

Peter Adler, Consultant
Colleen Briley Daywalt, Associate Facilitator
Niki Kozalka, Program Coordinator
Brad Sperber, Senior Mediator and Facilitator


Contact Information

For further information about this initiative, please contact Brad Sperber.