Document dQQm4baG6OVE06aRN8przzR9B

COMMENTARY ` 5-y$ :.- .J ROBERT A. NEAL* AND JOHN DouLLt +Cenlerin hfoleeirlur To.wicology, Drpurtment qf Biochemistry. Vundrrbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville3 Tennessee 3 7232; and tDepurttnc`til of Ptiurmucology~7bxicology. und Tlrerupeutics, Universily 01 Kunsus Mrdicul Center, Kunsus City. Kansas 66103 Received October 12. I994 The Discipline of Toxicology. NEAL,R. A., AND DOULL, J. (1995). Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 24, 151-153. Q 1995 Society or Toxicology. policy-making than will analytical thinking, scientific or otherwise." He stated further that: "Successful politics, not good science, resolve conflicting values"; "politicians and scientists sometimes participate in a tacit, mutually aggran- dizing conspiracy about prediction"; and "scientists would Will toxicology ever become recognized as a rigorous scientific discipline similar to other biological sciencessuch as biochemistry or pharmacology? Clearly the quality of research published by some toxicologists is equal to that in other biological science disciplines. However, in general, toxicology is not recognized as an academically rigorous specialty. This is, in part, because a number of the activities currently associated with the discipline of toxicology do not employ standard principles for interpreting scientific data. Foremost among these activities is risk assessment as currently practiced by various organizations, including federal, state, and local government agencies. In addition, unlike any other organized scientificdiscipline, toxicology has attracted a number of special interest groups whose concern is not primarily scientific. Finally, the reporting of toxicol- much prefer to have generous support for their research than to point out that understanding a phenomenon is not the same as predicting it." There is also the impression among the general public and some members of the scientific community that the interpretation of toxicology data is difficult and controversial. This is not necessarily true. Toxicology research, when properly conducted using established scientific methods, provides information on which valid and noncontroversial conclusions can be reached. It is when attempts are made to reason beyond the data with the injection of policy considerations and default assumptions that controversies occur. Properly trained toxicologists are generally able to reach objective conclusions about the meaning of a body of scientific data. There may, on occasion, be some disagreement about the conclusions. However, it must be kept in mind ogy-related issues by the print and electronic media fre- that science is concerned with reaching conclusions sup- quently presents an inaccurate or incomplete picture of the scientific aspects of these issues. ported by the preponderance of the data. There will always be some uncertainty about conclusions reached by trained, To the lay public and even some members of the scien- objective observers in the biological and physical sciences. tific community, risk assessment appears to be an activity But, in general, objective scientists amve at conclusions which is objective and precise. On the contrary, as currently about the meaning of a body of data with less uncertainty practiced by some organizations, risk assessment is often than other professional groups. It is important to keep in based on a subjective evaluation of scientific data and the mind that the ability of toxicologiststo reach the best judg- quantitative estimations of chemical risks, particularly ment as to the meaning of a body of data with regard to those for cancer, frequently have little or no scientificbasis. human health risks is almost always compromised when The scientificdebates on the risks posed by variouschem- nonobjective reasoning is used and political and financial ical and physical factors in the environment often resemble factors influence the evaluation process. a struggle for political position among individuals and In the interpretation of toxicology data relative to the groups with different interests rather than an objective ex- risks to human health, the objective should be to make the amination of the scientific issues. In this debate toxicologi- reasoning compelling and logical. Within the toxicology cal data are often used in inappropriate ways to reinforce community there are individuals and groups of individuals the different points of view. In a recent speech, Rep. George whose primary purpose is not to objectively report and ad- E. Brown (D-Calif, C&EN, May 31, 1993, page 9) stated vance the knowledge of the potential adverse effects of that "Political expediency will always play a greater role in chemicals on living organisms but rather to manipulate the 1 5 1 027?-0590/95 $6.00 Copyright (cr 1 Y 9 5 by the Society ol'I`oxiuology. All rights 0 1 rcproduction in any form rcxrvtd. 152 COMMENTARY interpretation of toxicological data to fit their own agendas. There is no better example of this than the current debate over the toxicity to humans of low-level exposure to the chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and related compounds. These special interest groups project advocacy rather than scientific expertise thus politicizing the process of determination of physical and chemical risks to human health and the environment. The scientific interpretations of toxicology data by these special interest groups are often not based on reasoned judgments but are attempts to impose a different interpretation by virtually any means. The legitimate scientific community is partly at fault for this distorted state of affairs because they have let these interest groups set the terms of the debate. Representative Brown in the speech referred to previously, in addressing opposition to the irradiation of food as a means of preservation, noted that: "Perhaps worst of all, we have repeatedly witnessed seemingly qualified and objective medical and scientific professionals prostituting their credentials in calculated public attacks on food irradiation in attempts to serve their real political agendas," Although Rep. Brown's remarks were made relative to food irradiation, they apply equally to positions taken by some individuals and groups of individuals concerning other potential chemical and physical risks to human health. These special interest groups or individuals are found in academia, in some federal, state, and local governmental research and regulatory agencies, and in certain industrial organizations. These special interest groups often depict themselves as champions of the truth. However, their pronouncements on issues of toxicology are often not creditable. In the current climate, the special interest groups with the cooperation of the media often appear to the public at large as the primary authorities on the risk to human health and the environment of physical factors and chemicals. Some politicians, environmental groups, federal agencies, and academic scientists make careers and derive financial gain from expressing biased points of view concerning the toxicity of physical and chemical factors in the environment. If they adopted more scientifically accurate positions, they would run the risk of losing their financial support. Financial gain is probably the most important contributing factor to the public positions of these individuals or groups on toxicological issues. Furthermore, these special interest groups or individuals are generally not forthcoming on the role finances play in their activities. Government agencies and academic scientists are not immune to financial considerations in amving at conclusions concerning chemical and physical risks to human health and the environment. Financial support of these organizations and individuals often depends on an exaggerated perception ofthese risksby politicians, the courts, organizations awarding research funds, and the public at large. Consequently, their public positions concerning the risks from chemicals are often hyped. Another factor contributing to the distortion of the magnitude of the toxic hazards is a lack of scientificcompetence among some special interest groups and individuals. Thus, with some individuals and certain special interest groups objectivity is not the principal guide for their generation and interpretation oftoxicologicaldata. They view toxicology not as a means of arriving at the truth but, rather, as a means to support and defend their special view of the risk ofchemical and physical factorsto humans and the environment. Strong differences of scientific opinion concerning the health risks ofchemicals and physical factorsin theenvironment attracts the attention of the media. In general, the media tend to report only those opinions that suggest increased risks. This is because the reporting must be entertaining or shocking in order to attract readers and viewers. In the media coverage of instances of potential risk to humans from exposure to environmental chemicals and physical factors such as radiation, there are incentives against scientifically accurate reporting. If a completely balanced view of the issue were presented by the print media, the story would likely appear pedantic in character, would be assigned to the back pages, and would not likely interest the electronic media. Therefore, a completely accurate view of the scientific aspects of the matter is not presented and the personal aspects of the exposure are usually emphasized leaving the readers or listeners with an unbalanced view of the problem. In their reporting on chemical and physical risks to human health or the environment, reporters often represent themselves as advocates for the general public. There are a select group of "toxicologists" to whom the media often turn for opinions on the toxic effects of chemicals and physical factors. These scientists rarely present an objective or balanced view of the issue at hand. The motivation of these individuals in presenting the distorted point of view is sometimes political but more often financial. It is doubtful that an increased effort on the part of the toxicology community to encourage more scientifically accurate reporting of toxicology issues by the media would have an appreciable effect. The primary motivation of the media is to report on issues that increase readers or maintain ratings. Scientifically accurate reporting on these matters would not likely accomplish these goals. Unfortunately, the perception of the discipline of toxicology held by the public and some professional organizations are largely formed by what they hear on television or read in their newspapers. The other major source of information on toxicology issues are the professional journals. There is an impression in the scientific community at large that publications in the journals devoted to toxicology are, in general, of mediocre quality. In part, this is because some ofthejournals publishing toxicology information do not utilize peer review in the ... . COMMENTARY 153 same sense or to the same degree as scientific publications ogy-oriented scientific societies to disavow assessments of i in other scientific disciplines. These journals often serve as human risk which do not adhere to scientific principles ret a means for expressingopinions about the meaning ofscien- garding the interpretation of experimental data. There tific data which are speculative and which would not stand should also be a greater effort on the part of regulatory t up under strict peer review. agencies and other organizations reporting risk assessment It is hard to escape the conclusion that there are currently information to describe what aspects of a risk assessment far too many toxicologyjournals chasing too few good qual- are supported by properly interpreted scientific data and ; ity papers. It appears that a number of the current toxicol- which portions of the assessment are based on speculation ogy journals could be deleted without materially affecting and policy considerations. the efficient dissemination of significant research findings. Unlike any other scientific discipline, toxicology has at- In general, the journals sponsored by academically oriented tracted individuals and organizations whose reporting of toxicology societiesappear to be more objective and of bet- information is modified by agendas which do not necessar- ter quality than those organized and directed by publishing ily represent a search for truth. There should be a greater companies and governmental organizations. The quality of effort on the part of individual toxicologists and organized publications in toxicology journals would be greatly im- toxicology societiesto refute information presented by spe- proved by the elimination of a number of these journals cial interest individuals and groups which is not supported and the adoption of more rigorous editorial policies in the by data generated in properly designed studies and which ) remainder with regard to the suitability of the manuscripts has been objectively interpreted. 1 accepted for publication. Finally, is it desirable for toxicology to be viewed as a S Risk assessment,as cam'ed out by federal, state, and local scientifically rigorous discipline? The answer is clearly yes. regulatory agencies, is a necessary activity in controlling the One of the most important reasons is that if we expect to , exposure of humans to potentially toxic chemicals and haz- recruit the bright students to the discipline of toxicology we ardous physical factors. However, as currently practiced it must strive to be scientifically rigorous and objective. The t lacks scientific rigor and reflects negatively on the discipline good students are attracted to those academic disciplines v of toxicology. Stronger measures should be taken by toxicol- which have those qualities. i 1 f I 1 e 1 f e 1 e Y Y r n e e e , ... -