ASA uses scientific evidence to inform policy, responsible communication, quality practice, education, and defined program decisions. The method depends on the consequence of the conclusion, and every substantive record should make that method visible.
Evidence review principles
ASA scientific work:
- starts with a defined question, audience, and intended decision;
- searches for relevant supportive, neutral, and contrary evidence;
- assesses study methods and applicability rather than relying on abstracts or conclusions alone;
- distinguishes evidence, inference, expert judgment, and policy choice;
- records relevant funding and interests;
- states uncertainty and limitations near the conclusion;
- provides a route for correction and updating.
Review levels
Rapid evidence scan
A time-limited review used for orientation or issue triage. It states search and method limits and is not described as systematic or comprehensive.
Structured evidence review
A documented question, search approach, inclusion logic, extraction, quality assessment, synthesis, and peer review. This level is appropriate for material scientific statements and many technical guidelines.
Systematic review or commissioned research
A prospective protocol and recognized methods appropriate to the question. Registration, specialist methods, statistical analysis, and external publication standards may be required.
ASA names the level actually used.
What reviewers assess
For ingredient, formulation, safety, or claims questions, reviewers consider:
- exact material identity and characterization;
- amount, form, matrix, route, duration, and conditions of use;
- population and outcome relevance;
- study design, control, sample size, attrition, and analysis;
- outcome validity and practical significance;
- consistency, precision, directness, replication, and reporting bias;
- fit between the evidence and the proposed formula, statement, or policy.
Evidence about an ingredient name does not automatically apply to every source, form, dose, combination, or finished product.
Authors, peer reviewers, and advisors
Authors are accountable for the work they draft. Peer reviewers assess defined aspects of the work. Advisors may inform scope or interpretation. ASA records qualifications, contributions, relevant interests, and decision authority. Participation in one review does not imply agreement with all ASA positions.
Funding and conflicts
Scientific records disclose material funding and relevant interests. A funder cannot select outcomes to suppress, veto a correction, or determine the conclusion. When an interest cannot be managed, the contributor is replaced or restricted from the affected decision.
Scientific record types
- evidence brief;
- research summary;
- scientific statement;
- methods or technical guidance;
- proceedings or roundtable summary;
- peer-reviewed or commissioned report;
- supporting review for a policy or program decision.
Each record identifies whether it represents an official ASA conclusion, an attributed author analysis, or a summary of external work.
Disagreement and updates
Good-faith scientific disagreement is expected. Material alternative interpretations are considered and may be stated when they improve understanding. New evidence does not automatically invalidate a prior record; the owner evaluates whether confirmation, clarification, revision, supersession, or withdrawal is appropriate.
Research priorities
Research priorities should be based on a documented gap, expected public or sector value, feasibility, ethical requirements, and the ability to use the result. Sponsorship availability alone does not determine a research question.
Explore ASA scientific work
Members and qualified contributors can view the Scientific Affairs Committee.