Ei B Y R O B E R T T. D R E W ~~
n the past decade hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by both government and industry on investinatinn a vast arrav of environmental nroblems. Suchstudgs have evaliated the effects of a’variety of agents on both human health and the environment, and the movement and degradation of pollutants in air, soils, and groundwater. Most of these studies were performed by individual companies, various trade organizations, and many different government agenbcies-most often with little or no input from other organizations. Research results do not get communicated until the research is complete, the publication written and reviewed, and the results published in peer-reviewed journals. This process can take as long as two years. While demands for environmental research continue to increase, most organizations find that resources available for research are constrained or diminishing. The above factors argue strongly for collaboration and cooperation in health and environmental research at an earlier stage. If organizations were aware of each others’ ongoing and proposed research, each could optimize its own programs accordingly. For example, an agency may need information on a specific aspect of a study being conducted by another agency or by a company. The sharing of research plans could lead to a simple protocol change early in the study that may meet the needs of both groups at little or no additional cost.
’
e S
BLUEPRINT FOR An example of cooperation The Southern California Air Quality Study is an exI N D U S T R Y ample of interagency and industry cooperation. This study consists of planning, an extensive 1987 field study, and subsequent data analyses which are nearing AND completion. The coordinator and largest contributor to the effort is the California Air Resources Board. [The other sponsoring agencies are: the Coordinating Research Council (supported by the AmerG O V E R N M E N T ican Petroleum Institute and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association), Southern California Edison, General Motors, EPA, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Western States Petroleum Association, the Electric Power Research Institute, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and Ford Motor Company.] In this case several organizations were involved in the research right from the start, each participating in the development of the research plan. The study consisted of research projects funded andlor conducted by the various organizations. The projects complemented each other and the data were shared among the organizations. This sharing of the research plan and findings resulted in all parties having more confidence in the outcome. The result is a large, successful study that no one entity alone could have funded.
Needed Team effort The two examples cited-no collaboration and total collaboration-represent the extremes. What I am proposing is something in between. In December 1989 EPA convened three panels to look at various environmental
I
654 Environ. Sci. T
0013-936XI92/0926-654$03.00/0 0 1992 American Chemical Saciety
rn
1
I
1
Environ. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 26, No. 4. 1992 655
and health issues associated with the introduction of alternative fuels into the marketplace. One of the goals of the meeting was to define the research needs in this area. To date there has not been a summary of the results of that meeting. That notwithstanding, research in this area has continued at a frantic pace. API and the Auto/Oil consortium have conducted research on emissions as a function of the constituents of fuel. CMA and API have developed broad research programs on the health effects of benzene and 1J-butadiene. I am sure EPA has also done research based on infor-
Robert T Drew is d i r e c t o r of t h e Health and Environmental Sciences Deportment of the American Petro-
'and a Ph.D. in environmental health science from New York University. He is president of the Znholotion Specialty Section of the Society of Toxicology.
-
Benefits and steps for a cooperative p
Ever
would benefit from a mechanism whereby:
res needs are defined, research gaps are identified, organizations agree to work in specific areas, protocols are shared, and * progress reports and research updates are routinely presented to all parties. * *
-
Such a program might evolve in the following steps:
interested parties meet to discuss research plans; they must be committed to spend some money and resources in order to participate; priorities will differbetween groups, and each group can identify its individual programs; * each group develops and shares protocols with the other; the groups then meet to discuss and prioritize collectively what is not being done; * if deemed of sufficient importance, individual programs will be revised to include high-priority items; and * finally, the groups meet periodicallv t, re results and research updates and to discuss new projects.
-
tnation derived from their meeting. However, no one has attempted to get these groups together to describe their research to the others before the fact. There has been an adversarial relationship between industry and government, which has led to distrust and to viewing research results of other groups with some skepticism. Participation in [or at least
knowledge of] the protocol development and research progress can increase confidence in the results. It may allow the sponsoring organizations collectively to address the research needs more comprehensively. Finally, collaborative research such as proposed here might avoid the high costs associated with developing a large infrastructure to coordinate these activities.
The Mercury System Advantage The MAS-SOB Mercury Analvris System 8s a
The WCHARACH Mercury Analysis
Reagent3 are piernixed
compact. self~contained system far performing mercury a n a l y ~ i sbased on U S . E.P.A. methods. Its time proven design and solid reliability are , the mrnerstoneol the BACHARACH Mercury system.
concentrations that conform to U.S. E.P.A. Methods 245.1 and 7 8 4 0 f o r mercury analysis In waters and wastewaters. These reagents require no preparstian time and are tested and certilied 10 have a very low imercurv background.
The Model 20 Mercury Analvsis Accessory uses the same components as the MAS~50BMercury Analyzer toconvert most Atomic Absorbtion IAAI instruments for mercury analysis using the U.S. E P A . approved cold^ Vapor Method.TheModel 2 0 comes complete. ready IO installand featwe$ a reclrculatlng system for better SenSifiwty.
The MV-2 Mercury Vaoor SNIFFER IS an initrument for mercury spill and leakdetection. The M V ~ combines 2 a c c u r a w reliability andea5e of use at an affordable price
TheBACHARACH Analytical Group inrwduCeZ you to the Mercury System advantage. BACHARACH has developed this System as the complete m u r c e for mercury testing equipment and a c c e ~ s o r i e ~ .
For more informarion on the Mercury System product line. please contact BACHARACH or your local authorized dealer.
656
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 26, No. 4, 1992
I The MercuReport Data Collection System when used with an IBM COmDatible PC.
BIK" Coleman. Instruments
sample. by automaiically calculating i i i e r ~ ~ i r v concentrations and displaying the results.
CIRCLE 5 ON REAMR SWVlCE CARD
BACHARACH Analytical Group 625 Alpha Drive Pitisburgh. PA 15238 Phone 14121 963~2107 F a x 14121 963 2091
