Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Environ Health Perspect ; 115(11): 1654-9, 2007 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18007999

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Substâncias Perigosas/análise , Substâncias Perigosas/toxicidade , Nanopartículas/análise , Nanopartículas/toxicidade , Nanotecnologia/métodos , Medição de Risco/métodos , Toxicologia/métodos , Engenharia Genética/métodos , Humanos , Saúde Pública
2.
Am J Public Health ; 97(11): 1939-44, 2007 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17901422

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Regulamentação Governamental , Política , Saúde Pública , Política Pública , Acesso à Informação , Animais , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , Clima , Intoxicação por Mercúrio , Formulação de Políticas , Ciência/normas , Ciência/tendências , Confiança , Estados Unidos , United States Dept. of Health and Human Services , United States Government Agencies
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA