Raising the Bar for Reproducible Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development

Considerable concern has been raised regarding research reproducibility both within and outside the scientific community. Several factors possibly contribute to a lack of reproducibility, including a failure to adequately employ statistical considerations during study design, bias in sample selection or subject recruitment, errors in developing data inclusion/exclusion criteria, and flawed statistical analysis. To address some of these issues, several publishers have developed checklists that authors must complete. Others have either enhanced statistical expertise on existing editorial boards, or formed distinct statistics editorial boards. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, already has a strong Quality Assurance Program, an initiative was undertaken to further strengthen statistics consideration and other factors in study design and also to ensure these same factors are evaluated during the review and approval of study protocols. To raise awareness of the importance of statistical issues and provide a forum for robust discussion, a Community of Practice for Statistics was formed in January 2014. In addition, three working groups were established to develop a series of questions or criteria that should be considered when designing or reviewing experimental, observational, or modeling focused research. This article describes the process used to develop these study design guidance documents, their contents, how they are being employed by the Agency’s research enterprise, and expected benefits to Agency science. The process and guidance documents presented here may be of utility for any research enterprise interested in enhancing the reproducibility of its science.

[1]  Regina Nuzzo,et al.  Scientific method: Statistical errors , 2014, Nature.

[2]  C. Schmidt Research Wranglers: Initiatives to Improve Reproducibility of Study Findings , 2014, Environmental health perspectives.

[3]  V. Johnson Revised standards for statistical evidence , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  C. Begley,et al.  Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research , 2012, Nature.

[5]  Mary C. Hill,et al.  Integrated environmental modeling: A vision and roadmap for the future , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

[6]  Marc Fisher,et al.  Update of the Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable Preclinical Recommendations , 2009, Stroke.

[7]  H. Tilson,et al.  Reporting of Results from Animal Studies , 2013, Environmental health perspectives.

[8]  U. Epa,et al.  Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis , 1997 .

[9]  I. Olkin,et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting , 2000 .

[10]  Harvey J Clewell,et al.  Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model use in risk assessment--Why being published is not enough. , 2012, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[11]  Linda S. Birnbaum,et al.  Intersection of Systematic Review Methodology with the NIH Reproducibility Initiative , 2014, Environmental health perspectives.

[12]  M. Liess,et al.  Ecotoxicology and macroecology--time for integration. , 2012, Environmental pollution.

[13]  M. Ritskes-Hoitinga,et al.  Progress in Using Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies to Improve Translational Research , 2013, PLoS medicine.

[14]  Shaun M. Purcell,et al.  Statistical power and significance testing in large-scale genetic studies , 2014, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[15]  Rustam Al-Shahi Salman,et al.  Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management , 2014, The Lancet.

[16]  Hugh A Barton,et al.  Framework for Evaluation of Physiologically‐Based Pharmacokinetic Models for Use in Safety or Risk Assessment , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[17]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis , 2014, The Lancet.

[18]  Akshay Anand,et al.  raising the bar , 2010, Annals of neurosciences.

[19]  M. Ritskes-Hoitinga,et al.  A Gold Standard Publication Checklist to Improve the Quality of Animal Studies, to Fully Integrate the Three Rs, and to Make Systematic Reviews More Feasible , 2010, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[20]  S. Pocock,et al.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[21]  M. B. Beck,et al.  On the problem of model validation for predictive exposure assessments , 1997 .

[22]  S. Lazic,et al.  A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research , 2012, Nature.

[23]  Jennifer Couzin-Frankel,et al.  When mice mislead. , 2013, Science.

[24]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Improving Validation Practices in “Omics” Research , 2011, Science.

[25]  Ulrich Dirnagl,et al.  Reprint: Good Laboratory Practice: Preventing Introduction of Bias at the Bench , 2009, Stroke.

[26]  M. Ryan Replication in Field Biology: The Case of the Frog-Eating Bat , 2011, Science.

[27]  Gary W Miller,et al.  Improving reproducibility in toxicology. , 2014, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[28]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[29]  R. Peng Reproducible Research in Computational Science , 2011, Science.

[30]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research , 2014, The Lancet.

[31]  H J Clewell,et al.  Applying simulation modeling to problems in toxicology and risk assessment--a short perspective. , 1995, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[32]  Michael Goodman,et al.  A proposal for assessing study quality: Biomonitoring, Environmental Epidemiology, and Short-lived Chemicals (BEES-C) instrument , 2014, Environment international.

[33]  Jonathan Swan Error prone , 2012, Nature.

[34]  F. Collins,et al.  Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility , 2014, Nature.

[35]  Tony Tse,et al.  Registration of observational studies: Is it time? , 2010, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[36]  John Irwin,et al.  A framework for evaluating regional-scale numerical photochemical modeling systems , 2010, Environmental fluid mechanics.

[37]  F. Prinz,et al.  Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[38]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  Research: increasing value, reducing waste 2 , 2014 .

[39]  G. Box Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building. , 1979 .

[40]  A. Gelman,et al.  Of Beauty, Sex and Power , 2009 .

[41]  M. J. Bayarri,et al.  Calibration of ρ Values for Testing Precise Null Hypotheses , 2001 .

[42]  Eduardo L. Franco,et al.  Making Prospective Registration of Observational Research a Reality , 2014, Science Translational Medicine.