Contents Search publications                                         Previous  Next

Some researchers in Canada and the USA have done interesting work comparing the attitudes of toxicologists and the public towards chemical risks. The public is more likely than toxicologists to think chemicals pose greater risks, and also finds it difficult to understand the concept of dose-response relationships. The public is much more likely than toxicologists to think the results of animal carcinogenicity studies can be applied to humans. The study also found much disagreement between toxicologists about how to interpret various results. No wonder the public is confused, when the US study says, "Among the most important findings in this study was ... the high percentage of toxicologists who doubted the validity of the animal and bacterial studies that form the backbone of their science." Fewer toxicologists in industry than in university or government jobs agreed that animal carcinogens could reasonably be expected to cause cancer in humans [P. Slovic et al., Intuitive toxicology II. Expert and lay judgements of chemical risks in Canada, Risk Analysis, 1995, 15(6), 661-675; N. Kraus et al., Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgements of chemical risks in Canada, Risk Analysis, 1992, 12(2), 215-232].

"Good toxicology recognises its limits, its gaps in knowledge and the debates about the validity of its understanding of the mechanisms of toxicity in the context of moving towards practical public health precautionary policies on toxics use in our workplaces," (A. Watterson).

Contents Search publications                                         Previous  Next