Learned Discourses: Timely Scientific Opinions
Article first published online: 25 MAR 2013
Copyright © 2013 SETAC
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
Volume 9, Issue 2, page 343, April 2013
How to Cite
Chapman, P. M. (2013), Learned Discourses: Timely Scientific Opinions. Integr Environ Assess Manag, 9: 343. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1416
- Issue published online: 25 MAR 2013
- Article first published online: 25 MAR 2013
Timely Scientific Opinions
Intent. The intent of Learned Discourses is to provide a forum for open discussion. These articles re.ect the professional opinions of the authors regarding scienti.c issues. They do not represent SETAC positions or policies. And, although they are subject to editorial review for clarity, consistency, and brevity, these articles are not peer reviewed. The Learned Discourses date from 1996 in the North America SETAC News and, when that publication was replaced by the SETAC Globe, continued there through 2005. The continued success of Learned Discourses depends on our contributors. We encourage timely submissions that will inform and stimulate discussion. We expect that many of the articles will address controversial topics, and promise to give dissenting opinions a chance to be heard.
Rules. All submissions must be succinct: no longer than 1000 words, no more than 6 references, and at most one table or .gure. Reference format must follow the journal requirement found on the Internet at http://www.setacjournals.org. Topics must fall within IEAM's sphere of interest.
Submissions. All manuscripts should be sent via email as Word attachments to Peter M Chapman (firstname.lastname@example.org).
SETAC's Learned Discourses appearing in the first 7 volumes of the SETAC Globe Newsletter (1999–2005) are available to members online at http://communities.setac.net. Members can log in with last name and SETAC member number to access the Learned Discourse Archive.
In a Nutshell…
The trouble with sustainability, by Peter Calow
Reductionism and complexity need to be considered, and there is always a risk that the value-judgments of scientists are accepted as facts.
Toxicity Testing – The NOEC/LOEC Discussion Continues
Using population level consequences as a basis for determining the “x” in ECx for toxicity testing, by Yuichi Iwasaki and Niklas Hanson
Different x-values should be used for different endpoints, and population-level consequences should determine the x-value.
Proposing a vigorous hybrid of the LOEC and ECx, by Adrian deBruyn and James Elphick
The LECx is the lowest effects concentration (LEC) and the modeled effect size associated with that concentration (subscript ‘x’), with appropriate statistical confidence.
A call for fuller reporting of toxicity test data, by Joel Meyer and Alex Francisco
Benefits would be: increased data accessibility; resolution of the NOEC/LOEC debate; and, increased transparency.
Do laboratory toxicity tests replicate “real world” exposures?, by Anne Taylor and William Maher
There is a need to establish, for each organism and each effect end point, the efficacy of using laboratory microcosms in place of logistically more difficult transplantation experiments.
Graphical considerations for presenting data, by Wendy Swanson
Bar plots are popular, but rarely the most appropriate way to present data.