Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2008, 21, 1497–1498
1497
Letters to the Editor Toxicology down undersA Different Perspective Received May 29, 2008
To the Editor: Your recent guest editorial “Toxicology down under: Past Achievements, Present Realities, and Future Prospects” (1) provided an interesting insight into the botanical basis of toxicological issues of historical importance, although it was somewhat more pessimistic about the current status of toxicology in Australia and its future prospects. As Directors of two university-based Australian toxicological research centers, we would like to put an alternative view. For some time, Australian toxicologists and risk assessment professionals have been making significant contributions toward protecting the community from risks associated with chemicals in therapeutic and consumer goods, in food and agriculture and in environmental pollution of air, water, and soils. These scientists work in areas of regulatory and environmental toxicology, as well as in academia and the commercial sector. A more comprehensive summary of these activities was published late in 2007, as an outcome of a July 2006 symposium “Environmental Toxicology in Australasia”, organized by the Australian Centre for Human Health Risk Assessment (ACHHRA) and Golders Associates (2, 3). The symposium collated 33 papers from Australian toxicologists covering risk assessment of contaminated sites, water, and air, and 15 of these were published as full papers in a special issue of the Journal of Toxicology and EnVironmental Health. The symposium also marked the establishment of the Australasian College of Toxicology and Risk Assessment (ACTRA), an organization supporting the professional development and continuing education of toxicologists and risk assessment professionals in Australia and New Zealand (http://www.actra.org.au). For a somewhat longer period of time, the Australasian Society of Clinical & Experimental Pharmacologists and Toxicologists (ASCEPT, http://www.ascept.org) has provided a forum for the presentation of toxicological research at its meetings and workshops as has the Australasian Society for Ecotoxicology (ASE) in it is own sphere of interest. In July 2008, the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) will be meeting in Sydney to further expand Australian interest in this area. ACHHRA (http://www.med.monash.edu.au/epidemiology/ achhra) was established in 2003 to provide support to the government and commercial sectors in human health risk assessment and to provide training and workforce development for risk assessment professionals. The National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology (EnTox) was established in 1991 by NHMRC as a health-based discipline and since then has
worked on a range of toxicological issues that span the divide between human and animal toxicology and ecotoxicology, in a risk-based process. Commonwealth and State agencies employ toxicologists to administer the regulation of chemicals in therapeutic goods (human and veterinary), food, agriculture, and the broader environment. These scientists have been active in international activities (IPCS, IARC, and OECD) and have often played a leading role. For example, Dr. Margaret Hartley, the Director of the Office of Chemical Safety in the Australian Government Department of Health & Ageing, has been leading the IPCS Harmonization of Risk Assessment Program for some 4 years (http://www.who.int/ipcs/methods/harmonization/en/index. html). One of us (B.G.P.) has previously served on the IPCS Programme Advisory Committee and has been one of four Australians who have served on the Executive Committee of the International Union of Toxicologists (IUTOX). Another marker of the developing status of Australian toxicology has been the successful hosting by ASCEPT of the IXth International Congress of Toxicology in Brisbane in 2001. We would like to reassure readers of Chemical Research in Toxicology that Australian toxicology is by no means “lethargic”, as depicted in your recent editorial. Some of us working in the field of Australian toxicology have much greater faith in its vitality and its ability to meet the challenges of the 21st century in maintaining chemical safety.
References (1) Burcham, P. C. (2008) Toxicology down under: Past achievements, present realities, and future prospects. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 21, 967– 970. (2) Priestly, B. G. (2007) Environmental toxicology in Australasia. J. Toxicol. EnViron. Health, Part A 70, 1577. (3) Priestly, B. G., Di Marco, P., Sim, M., Moore, M. R., and Langley, A. (2007) Toxicology in Australia: A key component of environmental health. J. Toxicol. EnViron. Health, Part A 70, 1578–1583.
Brian G. Priestly* Australian Centre for Human Health Risk Assessment Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine Monash University, Alfred Hospital Melbourne 3004, Australia Michael R. Moore National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology (EnTox) University of Queensland Brisbane 4108, Australia
10.1021/tx8001912 CCC: $40.75 2008 American Chemical Society Published on Web 06/26/2008
TX8001912
1498
Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2008, 21, 1498
Response to Letter to the Editor from Professors Priestly and Moore Received June 10, 2008
To the Editor: I thank my colleagues for giving a broader overview of the current totality of Australian toxicology than I supplied in my recent guest editorial. They highlight several welcome initiatives that suggest the applied, regulatory end of our discipline is currently expanding within Australia. Nevertheless, when asked to contribute a personal opinion on the state of Australian toxicology to the Global Perspectives series, the invitation from CRT stipulated that the series was “intended to give an opportunity for experts in the field to voice concerns facing their region to increase awareness and spark interest throughout the community”. Since the mission of CRT is to advance the study of the chemical and molecular basis for chemical toxicity, the editorial was an appropriate venue in which to express concerns regarding the ability of Australian researchers to contribute to modern mechanistic toxicology at the highest international level. By highlighting challenges facing the experimental, mechanistic end of our discipline, the editorial was in no way intended to minimize the importance of Australian contributions within the domains of regulatory or environmental toxicology. In recent decades, substantial changes have been made to the way in which Federal tax revenue is distributed within the Australian higher education and medical research systems. These changes have had a definite upside since they have fostered the emergence of numerous strong research institutes throughout the nation. These typically perform high caliber investigations focused on specific themes such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, neuroscience, or genetics. However, as highlighted in my original editorial, few if any of these institutes have made chemical toxicology a key component of their research activities.
This means experimental toxicology must instead be nurtured within university teaching departments that increasingly cope with a range of serious challenges, including operating budgets that inexorably decline in real terms, substantial undergraduate loads, a heavy-handed managerial culture on most campuses, and, most troubling of all, an aging research infrastructure. The knowledge that they will train in a compromised research environment is a disincentive to gifted graduate students entering any discipline. Hence, a predictable outcome of the above situation is that a diminishing number of young Australian scientists seem to be attracted to experimental toxicology. The letter from my colleagues highlights the central role that ASCEPT has played in cultivating toxicology within the Australasian region, but many ASCEPT members and officeholders are concerned by the declining number of presentations by trainee toxicologists at recent meetings of the Society. Prior to the last Annual Meeting in late 2007, I was responsible for forming a committee to rank abstracts from research students entering posters for the “ASCEPT Toxicology Prize”. Unfortunately, the committee was disbanded prior to the meeting due to the lack of a single eligible entrant. My editorial suggested three avenues of action to help our discipline recover its momentum. To ensure that the present growth of regulatory and environmental toxicology within Australia is underpinned by solid mechanistic research, I urge my colleagues to consider my remedies or, hopefully, devise better ones. Philip C. Burcham Pharmacology and Anaesthesiology Unit School of Medicine and Pharmacology The University of Western Australia Perth, WA, Australia
10.1021/tx800208b CCC: $40.75 2008 American Chemical Society Published on Web 06/26/2008
TX800208B
