title: The case for establishing a board of review for resolving environmental issues: The science court in Canada.
abstract: Technology and scientific advancements are accelerating changes in society at a pace that is challenging the abilities of government regulatory agencies and legal courts to understand the benefits and costs of these changes to humans, wildlife, and their environments. The social, economic, and political facets of concern, such as the potential effects of chemicals, complicate the preparation of regulatory standards and practices intended to safeguard the public. Court judges and attorneys and, in some cases, lay juries are tasked with interpreting the data and implications underlying these new advancements, often without the technical background necessary to understand complex subjects and subsequently make informed decisions. Here, we describe the scientific-quasi-judicial process adopted in Canada under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, which could serve as a model for resolving conflicts between regulatory agencies and the regulated community. An example and process and lessons learned from the first Board of Review, which was for decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5; CAS# 541-02-06), are provided. Notable among these lessons are: 1) the need to apply state-of-the-science insights into the regulatory process, 2) to encourage agencies to continuously review and update their assessment processes, criteria, and models, and 3) provide these processes in guidance documents that are transparent and available to all stakeholders and generally foster closer cooperation between regulators, the academic community, industry, and nongovernment organizations (NGOs). Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:572-579. © 2015 SETAC.
authors.affiliation: Department of Veterinary Biomedical Sciences and Toxicology Centre, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.|Department of Zoology, and Center for Integrative Toxicology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.|Department of Biology and Chemistry and State Key Laboratory in Marine Pollution, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong, SAR, China.|School of Biological Sciences, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, China.|State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.
authors.forename: John P
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Giesy
authors.affiliation: Centre for Toxicology, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: Keith R
authors.initials: KR
authors.lastname: Solomon
authors.affiliation: McLauglin Centre for Health Risk Assessment, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: Sam
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kacew
authors.affiliation: Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: Donald
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Mackay
authors.affiliation: Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, World Exchange Plaza, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: Gerald
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Stobo
authors.affiliation: Cassels Brock and Blackwell LLP, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: Steven
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kennedy
mesh_terms: D032921:Consensus; D003247:Conservation of Natural Resources / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000379:methods; D004463:Ecology / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D058735:Environmental Policy; D033222:Judicial Role; D007603:Jurisprudence; D008962:Models, Theoretical
keywords: Arbitration; Policy; Regulation; Resolution