Re: the ongoing discussion of peer review, research protocols,
critique of existing methodology, funding channels, and the power to
determine what is True.
Re: ACSH's assertion about the lack of evidence on endocrine
disruption by environmental toxins. If you want a well-referenced,
peer-reviewed article by Certified Real Scientists (TM, R, Reg. U.S.
Pat. Off.) that goes into some of the existing published research on
the incidence of system dysfunction (nervous, immune, endocrine, and
developmental disorders) as related to exposures to environmental
chemicals, as well as the research gaps, see:
Endocrine, immune, and behavioral effects of aldicarb (carbamate),
atrazine (triazine), and ntirate (fertilizer) mixtures at groundwater
concentrations.
Warren P. Porter, James W. Jaeger, Ian Carlson
/Toxicology and Industrial Health/ (1999) 15, 133-150
$12 per copy; http://www.stockton-press.co.uk
The authors discuss six shortcomings in the toxicological testing
protocols currently used in determining the safety of registered
pesticides:
--Pulse doses (single exposure) at low concentrations are not
considered. Pulse doses at critical developmental times in, say, the
human fetus or in children, may lead to developmental changes. In the
real world, that timing of exposure is important--but it hasn't been
built into some experiments, which have nevertheless gone on to
conclude that such effects *don't* happen. In other words, if you
swing a mallet at somebody's head two seconds after they pass by,
it'd be inaccurate to assume that the mallet can't cause head injury.
--Toxicological testing evaluates only one route of exposure at a
time, rather than looking at all possible routes of exposure (oral,
skin, respiratory, etc.), and bases conclusions upon that route.
--Toxicological tests have typically focused on cancer and mutation
endpoints. Immune, nervous system, endocrine, and developmental ones
have not been widely considered.
--Most toxicological testing is done with highly pure forms of
pesticidal active ingredients, rather than with the commercial
formulations, which include all kinds of additives. These can alter
both the pesticides' properties, in the real world, and influence the
route of exposure. Manufacturing processes can allow substances to
find their way from one manufacturing stream to the other--either
intentionally or unintentionally. And "inert" ingredients are added
to strengthen delivery of the pesticide to the living system. In
other words, farmers aren't out there spraying laboratory-grade pure
chemicals, and that's not what all of us are eating, breathing, and
absorbing thru our skin.
--There is little or no testing of how the chemicals act upon
biological systems in mixtures. While it isn't possible to examine
all possible mixtures experimentally, it *is* possible to examine
common mixtures that occur or have occurred in specific areas, which
is what this article does.
--Nutritional, disease, climate, and other stresses on the organism
are not taken into account. Lab animals generally live in an
environment where such stresses are absent, and Porter's 1984 article
in /Science/, "Toxicant-disease-enviornment interactions associated
with suppression of immune system, growth, and reproduction," shows
that where these stresses are present, toxic responses to registered
chemicals show up that do no appear under current standard testing
procedures.
As for the larger discussion topic here on SANET. Ya know, I think
this cow wanders around the barn even when we're all not here. :^)
But I'm glad, because it's an important topic. Anyone who has ever
administered a research program can tell you, a systems analysis and
evaluation of an effective research program requires a consideration
of institutional biases in constructing hypotheses, choosing foci,
and targeting funds. I can't believe that, in 1999, anyone would be
surprised that someone raised this as a question or an issue.
In my not very humble opinion, it's time for the hard-line scientist
types at places like ACSH to stop aggrandizing themselves by pointing
out what we already know--that cutting-edge research hasn't yet been
done on crucial questions that are formulated but not funded. And to
start working on moving the physics of funding toward those questions.
If they truly care about "truth," they'll want to see the maximum
number of hypotheses tested, regardless of whether they personally
benefit from this or build fame for themselves. Rather than sitting
smugly enthroned upon the soft tower of already published papers, and
taking a poke at anyone who tries to climb up and get their
attention. These days, truth, like justice, costs money, and as an
old homeless man down near the cable car terminus on Powell St. once
told me, "Ya gotta pay to play, and ya gotta play to win, and I guess
I just can't pay."
peace
misha
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Michele Gale-Sinex
Communications manager
Center for Integrated Ag Systems, UW-Madison
http://www.wisc.edu
UW voice mail: 608-262-8018
Home office: 415-504-6474 (504-MISH)
Home office fax: Same as above, phone first for enabling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As crude a weapon as the cave man's club, the chemical
barrage has been hurled against the fabric of life. --Rachel Carson
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail