Best available science

The emergence of the term best available science is attributable to two events both occurring during the 1970s. The first event consisted of the passage of a number of laws mandating promulgation of regulations that included science and the interpretation of scientific requirements of those laws.  The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 repeatedly used the term “best available scientific information”.   Similarly, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 included the term “best scientific and commercial data information available”, “best available biological information”, best available scientific and commercial data”, or “best scientific and data available”. The Department of interior typically has interpreted the mandated included in the ESA to mean best available science. The same terminology has been used in describing the design of scientific studies to comply with ESA requirements.
At the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the Clean Water Act of 1972 was used in several other forms such as Best Available Economically Achievable Technology. Much later the Safe Drinking Water Act 1986) required that the EPA shall use “the best available peer-reviewed science …” and “data collected by acceptable methods or best available methods…”
An internet search using the term best available science identified about 196,000 items largely addressing implementation of the Endangered Species Act.  In virtually every case, the regulators decided what constitutes best available science. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is a significant disagreement not only within the affected community but also within the scientific community on scientific or regulatory science decisions
Much like the first event identified above, the second event also occurred during the 1970s. While employed at the EPA, Moghissi recognized the need for a new scientific discipline called regulatory science and the development of its primary tool called Best Available Science (BAS). It took several decades to develop BAS principles leading to Metrics for Evaluation of Scientific Claims (MESC).  Moghissi et al. have published several articles that apply to the BAS/MESC system for the assessment of regulatory and other policy decisions.
Principles of BAS
There are five principles that govern the fundamental aspects of BAS:
Open-mindedness and Skepticism Principles
These are two complementary principles implying that the society in general and the scientific community in particular must be open-minded and consider new ideas, claims, and thoughts; but those who make a claim must provide evidence supporting it.
Scientific Rules Principle
This Principle is well-established and implies that there are methods, processes, and procedures that the scientific community has developed and is accepted by various scientific disciplines.  For obvious reasons methods and processes that are applicable to virtually all scientific disciplines such as sampling, statistical assessment of data, and how the conclusions are derived from the results of a study are often emphasized.
 Ethical Rules Principle 
In contrast to the scientific Rules Principle, the Ethical Rules Principle is probably the most violated area of scientific reporting and communication.  It consists of several elements including traditional scientific ethics referred to in this principle as Morality. Other elements of Ethical Rules Principe are Truthfulness, Transparency, and communicability. For obvious reasons the lack o truthfulness in a scientific claim is unethical. Transparency requires that scientific claims that are based on assumptions, judgments, inclusion of default data, or any part that do not comply with Reproducibility Principe must be identified and ideally the consequences of their alternatives described.  The Communicability part requires that the details of scientific claims be described in a language that is understandable not only to the specialist of that discipline by also to a knowledgeable non-specialist and ideally to the general public.   
Reproducibility Principle
This principle describes the ultimate objective of any scientific activity. This principle implies that a scientific claim is proven if any investigator with the necessary skills, proper equipment, and appropriate facilities will be able to reproduce it.
Metrics for Evaluation of Scientific Claims (MESC)
The BAS principles led to the development of MESC consisting of three pillars
Pillar 1: Level of Maturity
This pillar deals with standardization of science in terms of its maturity and consists of four groups:
1.    Scientific laws and their correct applications
2.    Evolving Science  consisting of:
Class I: Reproducible Evolving Science consisting of reproducible science whose foundation is not well understood. 
Class II: Partially Reproducible Evolving Science consisting of science that is only partially reproducible
Class III: Association-Based Science drawing conclusions based on comparing two groups and attempting to draw conclusions based on the observed differences between the two groups.  
Class IV: Hypothesized Science consisting of an attempt to convert an observation to a structure caked hypothesis
3.    Borderline Science including judgment and speculation
4.    Fallacious Information—sometimes called junk science.
Pillar 2: Reliability: 
This pillar addresses the reliability of scientific claims that are considered to be unreliable. In contrast, the third category called independent peer review is the foundation of acceptability of science. The fourth category is based on the recognition that there are and always will be contradictory information even in properly-performed peer-reviewed literature. For example, peer reviewed claims in classes II to IV or in Borderline Science can easily reach contradictory conclusions. The consensus-processed science is likely to resolve these contradictions.  
Pillar 3: Outside the Purview of Science: 
One of the primary reasons for disagreement on scientific claims--notably regulatory science--is the inclusion of areas that are outside the purview of science including faith, religion, and numerous other areas of the society. The exclusion of areas outside the purview of science in a scientific study performed by scientists in countries such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, United States, Russia, or any other country is likely to lead to identical results.   The exclusion of areas outside the purview of science in a scientific study performed by scientists in countries such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, United States, Russia, or any other country is likely to lead to identical results. The application of the results of such a study would depend upon cultural, ideological, religious, and other elements in different countries   
Consequences of the Application of the BAS/MESC System   
The current scientific controversies are largely based on the lack of recognition of the following key issues:
1.    The inclusion of non-scientific issues in science, particularly science that is used for policy notably regulatory decisions. How often an agency, an organization, or an individual claims that due to the lack of the necessary evidence various assumptions were made to be “protective”? Being protective is a part of the policy.
2.    The existing scientific evidence on a specific subject is extended based on the judgment of “distinguished” individuals.
3.    Due to the lack of the necessary scientific evidence not only a number of assumptions and judgments are made but also “default data” are used. Although these uncertainties have been recognized, they are insufficiently described and their potential alternatives are inadequately addressed. The decision makers must describe the consequences of using those alternatives, and justification for their choice.     
4.    Communication of science including regulatory science to the affected community must be in a language that is understandable to the members of that community that includes not only specialist in the relevant scientific discipline but also knowledgeable non-specialists and the general public.
5.    The BAS/MESC specifies of non-scientific issues in areas outside the purview of science. Once scientific issues are identified, addressed, and communicated to the public, members of any other profession are as qualified to express their views and participate in the decision process as are those of the scientific community.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu