Meeting report: hazard assessment for nanoparticles--report from an interdisciplinary workshop.

In this report we present the findings from a nanotoxicology workshop held 6-7 April 2006 at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. Over 2 days, 26 scientists from government, academia, industry, and nonprofit organizations addressed two specific questions: what information is needed to understand the human health impact of engineered nanoparticles and how is this information best obtained? To assess hazards of nanoparticles in the near-term, most participants noted the need to use existing in vivo toxicologic tests because of their greater familiarity and interpretability. For all types of toxicology tests, the best measures of nanoparticle dose need to be determined. Most participants agreed that a standard set of nanoparticles should be validated by laboratories worldwide and made available for benchmarking tests of other newly created nanoparticles. The group concluded that a battery of tests should be developed to uncover particularly hazardous properties. Given the large number of diverse materials, most participants favored a tiered approach. Over the long term, research aimed at developing a mechanistic understanding of the numerous characteristics that influence nanoparticle toxicity was deemed essential. Predicting the potential toxicity of emerging nanoparticles will require hypothesis-driven research that elucidates how physicochemical parameters influence toxic effects on biological systems. Research needs should be determined in the context of the current availability of testing methods for nanoscale particles. Finally, the group identified general policy and strategic opportunities to accelerate the development and implementation of testing protocols and ensure that the information generated is translated effectively for all stakeholders.

Politics and the erosion of federal scientific capacity: restoring scientific integrity to public health science.

Our nation's health and prosperity are based on a foundation of independent scientific discovery. Yet in recent years, political interference in federal government science has become widespread, threatening this legacy. We explore the ways science has been misused, the attempts to measure the pervasiveness of this problem, and the effects on our long-term capacity to meet today's most complex public health challenges. Good government and a functioning democracy require public policy decisions to be informed by independent science. The scientific and public health communities must speak out to defend taxpayer-funded science from political interference. Encouragingly, both the scientific community and Congress are exploring ways to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking.

Silenced science: air pollution decision-making at the EPA threatens public health.

The saga of the Environmental Protection Agency's new particulate matter (PM) rule is yet another example of this Administration's disregard for and disrespect of science and scientists--and may signal the beginning of a disturbing trend to reduce the role of science in protecting the quality of our air. Political interference in the PM case is clear. And more trouble may be in the wings when it comes to acceptable levels of ozone pollution and the process for setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). For several years, the Union of Concerned Scientists has been actively monitoring and documenting the misuse of science in public policy-making. Consider this a call to arms. Now is the time to engage your elected officials on these issues.

Applying new biotechnologies to the study of occupational cancer--a workshop summary.

As high-throughput technologies in genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics evolve, questions arise about their use in the assessment of occupational cancers. To address these questions, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the American Chemistry Council sponsored a workshop 8-9 May 2002 in Washington, DC. The workshop brought together 80 international specialists whose objective was to identify the means for best exploiting new technologies to enhance methods for laboratory investigation, epidemiologic evaluation, risk assessment, and prevention of occupational cancer. The workshop focused on identifying and interpreting markers for early biologic effect and inherited modifiers of risk.