Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct;128(10):105002.
doi: 10.1289/EHP6500. Epub 2020 Oct 28.

Drivers of and Obstacles to the Adoption of Toxicogenomics for Chemical Risk Assessment: Insights from Social Science Perspectives

Guillaume Pain  1 , Gordon Hickey  2 , Matthieu Mondou  2 , Doug Crump  3 , Markus Hecker  4 , Niladri Basu  2 , Steven Maguire  5
Affiliations

Drivers of and Obstacles to the Adoption of Toxicogenomics for Chemical Risk Assessment: Insights from Social Science Perspectives

Guillaume Pain et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2020 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Some 20 y ago, scientific and regulatory communities identified the potential of omics sciences (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics) to improve chemical risk assessment through development of toxicogenomics. Recognizing that regulators adopt new scientific methods cautiously given accountability to diverse stakeholders, the scope and pace of adoption of toxicogenomics tools and data have nonetheless not met the ambitious, early expectations of omics proponents.

Objective: Our objective was, therefore, to inventory, investigate, and derive insights into drivers of and obstacles to adoption of toxicogenomics in chemical risk assessment. By invoking established social science frameworks conceptualizing innovation adoption, we also aimed to develop recommendations for proponents of toxicogenomics and other new approach methodologies (NAMs).

Methods: We report findings from an analysis of 56 scientific and regulatory publications from 1998 through 2017 that address the adoption of toxicogenomics for chemical risk assessment. From this purposeful sample of toxicogenomics discourse, we identified major categories of drivers of and obstacles to adoption of toxicogenomics tools and data sets. We then mapped these categories onto social science frameworks for conceptualizing innovation adoption to generate actionable insights for proponents of toxicogenomics.

Discussion: We identify the most salient drivers and obstacles. From 1998 through 2017, adoption of toxicogenomics was understood to be helped by drivers such as those we labeled Superior scientific understanding, New applications, and Reduced cost & increased efficiency but hindered by obstacles such as those we labeled Insufficient validation, Complexity of interpretation, and Lack of standardization. Leveraging social science frameworks, we find that arguments for adoption that draw on the most salient drivers, which emphasize superior and novel functionality of omics as rationales, overlook potential adopters' key concerns: simplicity of use and compatibility with existing practices. We also identify two perspectives-innovation-centric and adopter-centric-on omics adoption and explain how overreliance on the former may be undermining efforts to promote toxicogenomics. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6500.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1 is a flow chart, having three steps, namely, Methods, Discussion, and Recommendations for policy and practice. Methods includes the following steps: Identify and analyze relevant scientific and regulatory articles and documents; Analysis - Stage 1: Extract text segments and label them as drivers or obstacles; Analysis - Stage 2: Group drivers and obstacles into categories, then build a list; Analysis - Stage 3: Map drivers and obstacles onto theoretically grounded innovation attributes; Analysis - Stage 4: Identify Fundamental perspectives on adoption of innovations that underpin drivers and obstacles; and Analysis – Stage 5: Map drivers and obstacles onto organizational learning concepts. Discussion includes the following steps: Analysis - Stage 2: Group drivers and obstacles into categories, then build a list leads to most salient drivers, including Superior scientific understanding; new applications; and increased efficiency and most salient obstacles, including Insufficient validation; complexity of interpretation; and lack of standardization. Analysis - Stage 3: Map drivers and obstacles onto theoretically grounded innovation attributes leads to drivers emphasize superior functionality. Obstacles emphasize lack of simplicity and compatibility more than superior functionality. Analysis - Stage 4: Identify Fundamental perspectives on adoption of innovations that underpin drivers and obstacles leads to the most salient drivers and obstacles reflect an innovation-centric perspective on omics adoption. The adopter-centric perspective is underdeveloped. Analysis – Stage 5: Map drivers and obstacles onto organizational learning concepts leads to drivers and obstacles map strongly and evenly onto organizational learning concepts, indicating the need for mediating institutions to speed adoption. Recommendations for policy and practice includes the following: Most salient drivers, including Superior scientific understanding; new applications; and increased efficiency and most salient obstacles, including insufficient validation; complexity of interpretation; and lack of standardization; drivers emphasize superior functionality. Obstacles emphasize lack of simplicity and compatibility more than superior functionality; the most salient drivers and obstacles reflect an innovation-centric perspective on omics adoption. The adopter-centric perspective is underdeveloped; and drivers and obstacles map strongly and evenly onto organizational learning concepts, indicating the need for mediating institutions to speed adoption leads to Omics proponents need to understand better the practices of potential adopters to ensure that new omics tools address their needs and are a good fit with their work practices; Researchers developing newer and more elaborate omics methods need to consider their compatibility with users’ work flows and simplicity of use, lest their efforts deter adoption of their innovations and fail to impact practice; and mediating institutions, such as contract research organizations with specialized omics capabilities, publicly available omics databases, and online bioinformatics platforms could lower knowledge barriers and mitigate performance uncertainties associated with omics methods.
Figure 1.
Overview of approach to constructing social science insights into adoption of toxicogenomics for chemical risk assessment.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Andersen ME, Krewski D. 2010. The vision of toxicity testing in the 21st century: moving from discussion to action. Toxicol Sci 117(1):17–24, PMID: 20573784, 10.1093/toxsci/kfq188. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ankley G, Daston GP, Degitz SJ, Denslow ND, Hoke RA, Kennedy SW, et al. . 2006. Toxicogenomics in regulatory ecotoxicology. Environ Sci Technol 40(13):4055–4065, PMID: 16856717, 10.1021/es0630184. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Arnold C. 2015. ToxCast™ wants you: recommendations for engaging the broader scientific community. Environ Health Perspect 123(1):A20, PMID: 25561607, 10.1289/ehp.123-A20. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Attewell P. 1992. Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business computing. Organization Sci 3(1):1–19, 10.1287/orsc.3.1.1. - DOI
    1. Bahamonde PA, Feswick A, Isaacs MA, Munkittrick KR, Martyniuk CJ. 2016. Defining the role of omics in assessing ecosystem health: perspectives from the Canadian environmental monitoring program: omics for ecosystem health. Environ Toxicol Chem 35(1):20–35, PMID: 26771350, 10.1002/etc.3218. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources