Work from a recent SciPinion panel was recently published in a manuscript entitled “Derivation of no significant risk levels for three lower acrylates: Conclusions and recommendations from an expert panel”. Novel to this approach were: (1) derivation of a panel-driven NSRL value; (2) use of nonneoplastic tumor precursor data; and (3) nonlinear extrapolation to low doses (uncertainty factor approach) based upon mode of action considerations.
An international panel of experts reviewed the cancer weight of evidence (WOE) and mode of action (MOA) information for three lower acrylates (methyl, ethyl, and 2-ethylhexyl), coming to a contrary finding to IARC’s recent conclusion.
Immunotoxicity is the critical endpoint used by some regulatory agencies to establish toxicity values for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). However, the hypothesis that exposure to certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) causes immune dysregulation is subject to much debate. An independent, international expert panel was engaged utilizing methods to reduce bias and “groupthink”.
A pesticide (1,3-Dichloropropene – 1,3-D) had been historically classified as a likely human carcinogen. The registrant, through a series of studies, had determined that the carcinogenic potential of the formulation was due to the carrier and not the active agent. SciPinion assembled a panel of experts in toxicokinetics, genotoxicity, cancer bioassays and cancer weight of evidence to review the literature and weigh in on how 1,3-D should be classified. The panel of experts were in agreement that 1,3-D should be classified as ‘Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans’. US EPA agreed with this assessment and changed their classification of 1,3-D.
A new peer-reviewed report by a panel of scientists sheds new light on regulation and management of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). SciPinion, which objectively engages the global scientific community to analyze the toughest scientific topics, today announced the publication of an important academic report on PFAS, a class of chemicals that have a myriad of commercial uses.
A leading consumer products company needed to know if they were doing everything they could to prevent product contamination and assure product safety. SciPinion assembled a panel of experts and former directors of product safety from companies in the same sector to provide input on best practices. The results provide an exhaustive summary of Best Practices of product safety and monitoring for the consumer product industry.
A Fortune 100 consumer products company used SciPinion to engage over 60 experts from all over the world to peer review their vast pre-clinical and clinical portfolio. The reports from the peer reviews were submitted to FDA. The FDA decided in favor of the client and granted registration for the product, the first ever such registration for a product of that type.
A fortune 100 company needed independent insights on sunscreen formulation, specifically on how to best achieve SPF targets without use of an ingredient that was in the process of being banned. SciPinion was able to engage more than a dozen experts in sunscreen chemistry/formulation to give the company valuable insights on ingredient replacements that would still achieve their target SPF requirements.
For several clients, SciPinion has assembled panels of experts that stand ready to conduct rapid response (within 24 hours) peer reviews. This has served to help clients with brand reputation and staying abreast of new publications that warrant attention and/or response.
For numerous clients who have questions about how their chemistry and some nuanced data might be perceived by regulators, we have assembled panels of former government scientists as well as material experts to review the clients’ data packages and give insights on how they think regulators will perceive the data, if a certain type of classification (e.g., reproductive and developmental toxicant) is likely, and where warranted, what type of study could be conducted to better help ‘explain’ the findings from previous studies. These Insight panels have proved invaluable for helping companies make Go – No Go decisions and make plans for regulatory submissions.
Numerous clients have utilized SciPinion’s network of experts to hire an individual for consulting type projects. The value of this practice is that clients get access to numerous options for experts (the number of experts in any given area of expertise within SciPinion is usually at least 10 times greater than the number of experts in that field at even the largest consulting firms) and we can assess which experts can meet the clients’ timing and budget requirements. This is the gig economy for science experts.