Inventing Prediction for Regulation
The Development of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships for the Assessment of Chemicals at the US Environmental Protection Agency
In policies targeting environmental and health hazards, an effort is frequently made to anticipate and avert more or less probable adverse events. In this context, computerized models are frequently portrayed as superior knowledge tools, for their capacity to extrapolate from existing data and predict hazards. This paper looks at the historical development and use of such models in regulation, with the specific example of structure-activity relationships (SARs) in the regulation of new industrial chemicals at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It asks how evidential culture(s) in a regulatory organization change, in particular how new methods and forms of knowledge find their place alongside others to forge regulatory decisions. The development and application of, first, a qualitative approach to structure-activity relationships, and then of quantitative models, show that the EPA had the necessary autonomy to imagine and adjust a method emerging in the research environment to respond to regulatory needs. This can be understood from a coproductionist perspective, if adjusted to take into account the bureaucratic knowledge that mediates the imagining and application of prediction in regulatory practice.
Adams V, Murphy M and Clarke AE (2009) Anticipation: Technoscience, life, affect, temporality. Subjectivity 28(1): 246–265.
Anonymous (1976) An Act To regulate commerce and protect human health and the environment by requiring testing and necessary use restrictions on certain chemical substances, and for other purposes. Oct. 11, 1976. Public Law 94-469, 94th Congress. Result score too low
Anonymous (1984) Structure activity relationships: Are they predictive of toxicity and potential regulatory tools? Environmental Science and Technology 18(9): 285–286. Result score too low
Auer CM, Nabholz JV and Baetcke KP (1990) Mode of action and the assessment of chemical hazards in the presence of limited data: use of structure-activity relationships (SAR) under TSCA, Section 5. Environmental Health Perspectives 87: 183–197.
Auer CM, Zeeman M, Nabholz JV and Clements RG (1994) SAR—the US regulatory perspective. SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research 2(1–2): 29–38.
Bijker W, Bal R and Hendriks R (2009) The paradox of scientific authority: The role of scientific advice in democracies. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.
Bowker G and Star SL (1999) Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. Cambridge and London: MIT press. Result score too low
Box GEP (1979) Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building. Wisconsin University Madison Mathematics Research Center. Result score too low
Bradbury SP, Russom CL, Schmieder PK, Schultz TW, Diderich R and Auer CM (2015) Advancing Computational Toxicology in a Regulatory Setting: A Selected Review of the Accomplishments of Gilman D. Veith (1944–2013). Applied In Vitro Toxicology 1(1): 16–25.
Boullier H (2019) Toxiques légaux. Comment les firmes chimiques ont mis la main sur le contrôle de leurs produits. Paris : La Découverte. Result score too low
Böschen S (2009) Hybrid regimes of knowledge? Challenges for constructing scientific evidence in the context of the GMO-debate. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 16(5): 508–520.
Böschen S (2013) Modes of Constructing Evidence: Sustainable Development as Social Experimentation— The Cases of Chemical Regulations and Climate Change Politics. Nature and Culture 8(1): 74–96.
CHF (2010) The Toxic Substances Control Act from the perspective of Charles M. Auer. Oral history program, Chemical Heritage Foundation. Result score too low
Clements RG, Nabholz JV, Johnson DW and Zeeman M (1993) The Use and Application of QSARs in the Office of Toxic Substances for Ecological Hazard Assessment of New Chemicals. In: Landis W, Hughes J and Lewis M (eds) Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment. ASTM STP 1179, Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 56–64.
Collins HM (1998) The Meaning of Data: Open and Closed Evidential Cultures in the Search for Gravitational Waves. American Journal of Sociology 104(2): 293–338.
Craeger A (2018) Testing Toxics: Tools, Standards, and Corporate Data in the History of Chemicals Regulation. Conference Pervasive Powers: Corporate Authority in the Shaping of Public Policy. University Paris-Dauphine, Paris, 14-16 June 2018. Result score too low
Crum-Brown AC and Fraser TR (1868) On the Connection between Chemical Constitution and Physiological Action; with special reference to the Physiological Action of the Salts of the Ammonium Bases derived from Strychnia, Brucia, Thebaia, Codeia, Morphia, and Nicotia. Journal of Anatomy and Physiology 2(2): 224–242.
Demortain D (2013) Regulatory Toxicology in Controversy. Science, Technology & Human Values 38(6): 727–748.
Demortain D (2017) Expertise, Regulatory Science and the Evaluation of Technology and Risk: Introduction to the Special Issue. Minerva 55(3):139–159.
Demortain D (2019) The Science of Bureaucracy. Risk Decision Making and the US EPA. Cambridge and London: MIT Press. Result score too low
Dowling D (1999) Experimenting on Theories. Science in Context 12(2): 261–273. Result score too low
EPA (1975) Papers of a Seminar on Early Warning Systems for Toxic Substances. Cosponsored by Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Science Foundation. Result score too low
EPA (1981) State-of-the-art report on structure activity methods development. Prepared by Environmental Research Laboratory, for the Office of Toxic Substances, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Result score too low
EPA (1984) Proposed Design for a Retrospective Study of PMN Health Hazard Predictions. Memorandum from John A. Moore, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, to Terry Yosie, Director of the Science Advisory Board, US Environmental Protection Agency. Result score too low
EPA (1988) Estimating Toxicity of Industrial Chemicals to Aquatic Organisms Using Structure-Activity Relationships, Volume 1. EPA’s Office of Toxic Substances, Washington, DC. EPA-560/6-88-001. July 1988. Result score too low
EPA (1993) Categories Provide Guidelines for Premanufacture Notice Submitters. OPPT’s Chemicals in Progress Bulletin 14(2): 35-36. EPA-745-N-93-001. June 1993. Result score too low
EPA (1994a) ECOSAR: Computer Program for Estimating the Ecotoxicity of Industrial Chemical Based on Structure Activity Relationships, Users Guide. Washington D.C.: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, US Environmental Protection Agency. Result score too low
EPA (1994b) Estimating Toxicity of Industrial Chemicals to Aquatic Organisms Using Structure Activity Relationships 2nd Edition. Washington D.C.: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, US Environmental Protection Agency. Result score too low
EPA (1997) Chemistry Assistance Manual for Premanufacture Notification Submitters. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, EPA, Washington DC. EPA 744-R-97-003. March 1997. Result score too low
EPA (2015) Summary of Accomplishments in the New Chemicals Program. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/accomplishments.htm (accessed 15.3.2019). Result score too low
FRI (1975) Structure activity correlation bibliography, Prepared by the Franklin Institute Research Laboratories for the Office of Toxic Substances, PB-240-658, Philadephia, Pennsylvania. Result score too low
FRI (1976) Analysis and trial application of correlation methodologies for predicting toxicity of organic chemicals. Technical report requested by the Office of Toxic Substances from the Franklin Institute Research Laboratories, EPA/560-1-76-006. Result score too low
GAO (1984) Assessment of New Chemical Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC (USA). Office of the Comptroller General. Result score too low
Harris R and Milkis S (1989) The politics of regulatory change: a tale of two agencies. London and New York: Result score too low
Oxford University Press. Result score too low
Hilgartner S (2000) Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hepler-Smith E (2019) Molecular Bureaucracy: Toxicological Information and Environmental Protection. Environmental History 0(2019): 1-27.
Hunt J and Shackley S (1999) Reconceiving Science and Policy: Academic, Fiducial and Bureaucratic Knowledge. Minerva 37: 141–164. Result score too low
Jasanoff S (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London and New York: Routledge. Result score too low
Knorr-Cetina KD (2011) Financial analysis: Epistemic profile of an evaluative science. In: Lamont M (ed) Social knowledge in the making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 405-442. Result score too low
Lipnick RL (1985) A perspective on quantitative structure-activity relationships in ecotoxicology. Environmental Toxicology Result score too low
and Chemistry 4(3): 255–257. Result score too low
Lipnick RL (1991) Outliers: their origin and use in the classification of molecular mechanisms of toxicity. The Science of the Total Environment 109–110: 131–153.
Lipnick RL (1998) Correlative vs Mechanistic QSAR Models for Review of Industrial Chemicals Under TSCA. Conference, Dayton, Ohio. Result score too low
Lipnick, RL, Bickings CK, Johnson DE and Eastmond DA (1985) Comparison of QSAR predictions with fish toxicity screening data for 110 phenols. In Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Eighth Symposium. ASTM International.
Lipnick RL, Johnson DE, Gilford JH, Bickings CK and Newsome LD (1985) Comparison of fish toxicity screening data for 55 alcohols with the quantitative structure-activity relationship predictions of minimum toxicity for nonreactive nonelectrolyte organic compounds. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 4(3): 281–296.
Mayo-Bean K, Moran K, Meylan B et al. (2012) Methodology Document for the ECOlogical Structure-Activity Relationship Model (ECOSAR) Class Program: Estimating Toxicity of Industrial Chemicals to Aquatic Organisms using ECO- SAR Class Program (Ver. 1.1). Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Meyer H (1899) Zur Theorie der Alkoholnarkose - Erste Mittheilung. Welche Eigenschaft der Anästhetica bedingt ihre narkotische Wirkung? Archiv für Experimentelle Pathologie und Pharmakologie 42(2): 109–118.
Montgomery CM (2017) From standardization to adaptation: Clinical trials and the moral economy of anticipation. Science as Culture 26(2): 232-254.
Morgan MS and Morrison M (1999) Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Result score too low
Nelson N, Geltzer A and Hilgartner S (2008) Introduction: the anticipatory state: making policy-relevant knowledge about the future. Science and Public Policy 35: 546–550.
NRC (2007) Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Committee on Toxicity, National Research Council, Washington D.C.: National Academies Press. Result score too low
NTP (2002) Current Directions and Evolving Strategies. Washington D.C.: National Toxicology Program, US Department of Health and Human Services. Result score too low
OECD (1994) US EPA/EC Joint Project on the Evaluation of (Quantitative) Structure Activity Relations (QSARS). Result score too low
OECD Environmental Monographs N°88. Result score too low
OECD (2007a) Report on the regulatory uses and applications in OECD member countries of (quantitative) structure-activity relationship [(Q)SAR] models in the assessment of new and existing chemicals, ENV/JM/
MONO(2006)25, Feb. 15, 2007. Result score too low
OECD (2007b) Guidance on Grouping of Chemicals. OECD’s EHS Series on Testing and Assessment No. 80. ENV/JM/MONO(2007)28; Sept. 26, 2007. Result score too low
OECD (2009) Guidance Document for Using the OECD (Q)SAR Application Toolbox to Develop Chemical Categories According to the OECD Guidance on Grouping of Chemicals. OECD’s EHS Series on Testing and Assessment No. 102. ENV/JM/MONO(2009)5; Feb. 24, 2009.
Oreskes N (1998) Evaluation (not validation) of quantitative models. Environmental Health Perspectives 106: 1453–1460.
OTA (1983) The Information Content of Premanufacture Notices. Background paper, Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment. Result score too low
Overton E (1899) Über die allgemeinen osmotischen Eigenschaften der Zelle, ihre vermutlichen Ursachen und ihre Bedeutung für die Physiologie. Vierteljahrsschrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich 22:189–209.
Powell MR (1999) Science at EPA: Information in the Regulatory Process. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future. Result score too low
Rajan KS (2006) Biocapital: The constitution of postgenomic life. Durham: Duke University Press. Result score too low
Sarewitz D and Pielke RJr (1999) Prediction in science and policy. Technology in Society 21: 121–133. Result score too low
Schultz TW (2014) Gilman D. Veith (1944–2013) – A dedication. SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research 25(4): 249–251.
Sismondo S (1999) Models, Simulations, and Their Objects. Science in Context 12(02): 247–260. Result score too low
Thoreau F and Laurent B (2019) Situated expert judgment. Science & Technology Studies, this issue. Result score too low
Veith G (1981) State of the art of structure-activity methods development. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US EPA. Result score too low
Vogel SA and Roberts JA (2011) Why the toxic substances control act needs an overhaul, and how to strengthen oversight of chemicals in the interim. Health affairs 30(5): 898–905.
Wambaugh J (2014) “Building fit-for-purpose pharmacokinetic models”, In Vitro to In Vivo Extrapolation for High Throughput Prioritization and Decision Making Webinar Series. Result score too low
Waterton C and Wynne B (2004). Knowledge and political order in the European Environment Agency. In: Result score too low
Jasanoff S (ed) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 87-108. Result score too low
Zeeman M (1995) Ecotoxicity Testing and Estimation Methods Developed Under Section 5 of the Toxic Result score too low
Substances Control Act (TSCA). In: Rand GM (ed) Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology: Effects, Environmental Fate And Risk Assessment. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 703–715. Result score too low
Zeeman M, Auer CM, Clements RG, Nabholz JV and Boethling RS (1995) US EPA regulatory perspectives on the use of QSAR for new and existing chemical evaluations. SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research 3(3): 179–201.
Zeeman M and Gilford J (1993) Ecological Hazard Evaluation and Risk Assessment under EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): An Introduction. In: Landis W, Hughes J, Lewis M (eds) Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment – 1st Volume. ASTM STP 1179. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 7–21.
Zeeman M and Mayo-Bean K (2009) Development and Use of (Q)SAR Tools by U.S. EPA/OPPT to Assess Industrial Chemicals, Invited talk, Annual SETAC congress, New Orleans. Result score too low
Zeeman M, Nabholz JV and Clements RG (1993) The Development of SAR/QSAR for Use Under EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): An Introduction. In: Gorsuch J, Dwyer J, Ingersoll C and La Point TW (eds) Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment - 2nd Volume. ASTM STP 1216. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 523–539.
Terms & Conditions
This Science & Technology Studies website ("Site") is owned and operated by The Finnish Society for Science and Technology Studies (“Society”). The Finnish Society for Science and Technology Studies and its publication Science & Technology Studies are non-profit organizations.
The Society reserves the right to change, modify, add or remove portions of these Terms and Conditions at its discretion at any time and without prior notice. Please check this page periodically for any modifications. Your continued use of this Site following the posting of any changes will mean that you have accepted the changes.
Copyrights and Limitations on Use
Content in this Site, including site layout, design, images, text and other information (collectively, the "Content") is the property of The Finnish Society for Science and Technology Studies/Science & Technology Studies and is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws, unless otherwise noted. This does not include the articles that remain the copyright of the authors.
Content on this website is protected by Creative Commons license CC BY 4.0. This permits users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the published articles. Using and sharing the content is permitted as long as original materials are appropriately credited.
The Site may contain robot exclusion headers, and by using the Site you agree that you will not use any robots, spiders, crawlers or other automated downloading programs or devices to access, search, index, monitor or copy any Content. The harvesting of postal or email addresses from the Site for purposes of sending unsolicited or unauthorized commercial material, is prohibited. Any questions about whether a particular use is authorized and any requests for permission to publish, reproduce, distribute, display or make derivative works from any Content should be directed to the Science & Technology Studies Assistant Editor.
You may not use the services on the Site to publish or distribute any information (including software or other content) that is illegal; violates or infringes upon the rights of any other person; is abusive, hateful, profane, pornographic, threatening or vulgar; contains errors, viruses or other harmful components; or is otherwise actionable by law. Science & Technology Studies may at any time exercise editorial control over the content of any information or material that is submitted or distributed through its facilities and/or services.
You may not, without the approval of Science & Technology Studies, use the Site to publish or distribute any advertising, promotional material, or solicitation to other users of the Site to use any goods or services. For example (but without limitation), you may not use the Site to conduct any business, to solicit the performance of any activity that is prohibited by law, or to solicit other users to become subscribers of other information services. Similarly, you may not use the Site to download and redistribute public information or shareware for personal gain or use the facilities and/or services to distribute multiple copies of public domain information or shareware.
All trademarks appearing on this Site are the property of their respective owners.
Links to Other Sites
The Site may contain hyperlinks to other sites or resources that are provided solely for your convenience. Science & Technology Studies is not responsible for the availability of external sites or resources linked to the Site, and does not endorse and is not responsible or liable for any content, advertising, products or other materials on or available from such sites or resources. Transactions that occur between you and any third party are strictly between you and the third party and are not the responsibility of Science & Technology Studies. Due to the fact that Science & Technology Studies is not responsible for the availability or accuracy of these outside resources or their contents, you should review the terms and conditions and privacy policies of these linked sites, as their policies may differ from ours.
Last revised: 3 Aug 2020