查看文章

Critical Reviews in Toxicology be developed. Indeed, this was one of our main recommendations. Developing such approaches will be a complicated task, because, uniquely, the issues of adversity and mode of action will have to be dealt with at the same time, which is currently without precedent. In preparing the science summary, we consequently found ourselves in a situation of having to synthesise the literature without being able to rely on established weight of evidence approaches for endocrine disrupters. In much the same way as the WHO/IPCS (2002) report, to which two of the authors of this critique contributed (Foster, van der Kraak), and which Rhomberg et al. hold up as a positive example, we chose a narrative review to address the task we were set. But this does not render our report biased.

The accusation of bias would have been justified, if we had wilfully and consistently ignored evidence pointing in …