Question for Sept 25: Quality Filters

[Philip Wexler <wexlerp@mail.nlm.nih.gov>]

With the large amount of material out on the Web, it is more
critical than ever for the user to be able to differentiate the 
valid from the questionable.  The Hazardous Substances Data Bank
(HSDB) from the National Library of Medicine's (NLM) Toxicology and
Environmental Health Information Program (TEHIP), and part of its
TOXNET system (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov) is one example
of a peer reviewed data bank with information related to chemical
toxicity (human and animal), environmental fate, safety and handling,
exposure standards and regulations, and more.  The data in this
file of over 4500 chemical records is regularly scrutinized and
updated by a Scientific Review Panel of expert toxicologists,
physicians, industrial hygienists, environmental professionals,
etc. unaffiliated with NLM.  The data tag "Peer Reviewed" attached
to statements within the file is a confirmation that the Panel
has reviewed the data displaying for the public and attests to its
scientific validity.

It seems to me that it would be useful if agencies such as the EPA'
that provide data, make it easy for the user to determine where the
data comes from along with a clear explanation of the scientific 
review mechanism, if any.  ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry), for example, provides very nice Toxicological
Profiles on chemicals (though not on the Web so far as I can tell)
via NTIS, produced by their Division of Toxicology.  Although
drafts of these are announced in the Federal Register, along with
a 90 day public comment period, and ATSDR considers incorporation
of these comments before finalizing and distributing the documents,
it would be nice to know the process used to create them and 
the equally useful TOXFAQs, which are excerpted from the Profiles
and do appear on ATSDR's Web site.