title: Comment on ET&C perspectives, November 2015-A holistic view.
abstract: In response to a recent collection of perspectives published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, the authors argue that there is little value in revisiting and rehashing the well-documented issues around toxicity metrics, competing statistical paradigms, legitimacy of theoretical constructs for species sensitivity distributions, and a number of other unresolved (and perhaps unresolvable) attendant statistical issues that have occupied journal space for more than 30 yr. This is not to say that these matters are unimportant-they are; however, the discussion on these topics is mature, with very few new insights being offered. To move forward on some of these seemingly intractable issues, the authors suggest the ecotoxicological community would be better served by the formation of a subdiscipline of "statistical ecotoxicology," where professional statisticians and ecotoxicologists work in unison. As it currently stands, statistical developments in ecotoxicology are not necessarily undertaken or peer-reviewed by professional statisticians, a situation that has no doubt contributed to the lack of real progress on important recommendations such as the phasing out of no-observed-effect concentrations. Environ Toxicol Chem 2016;35:1337-1339. © 2016 SETAC.
authors.affiliation: Environmetrics Australia, Victoria, Australia.|University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
authors.forename: David R
authors.initials: DR
authors.lastname: Fox
authors.affiliation: Institute of Environmental Toxicology, Huxley College of the Environment, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington, USA.
authors.forename: Wayne G
authors.initials: WG
authors.lastname: Landis
mesh_terms: D054750:Ecotoxicology / Q000379:methods / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D019055:No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level
keywords: Future direction; Statistical ecotoxicology