Each country has something to contribute. . . . We could create a network to share expertise and compare results obtainedin different countries.
At the meeting on Science, Research and Development, organized by the European Commission and held April 19-24 in Noordwijkerhout, the Netherlands, 48 projects with participation from 75 laboratories in 17 European countries were presented. The multicenter approach once more stressed the idea that environmental problems are global, and we should try to solve them in cooperation with various countries. Speakers at the meeting put forth the idea that similar projects should be done on a more international basis; for example, with the United States, Japan, and Australia.
It is well known that U.S. technology aids research in other countries. One example is the Teplice program, started in Czechoslovakia in 1991. The goal of this program is to analyze the impact of air pollution on the health of the population in northern Bohemia, one of the most polluted regions in Europe. Thanks to the help of scientists from the U.S. EPA, it was possible to start an extremely fruitful collaboration. The first fruits of this project were accomplished using equipment supplied by the European Commission through the PHARE program.
In northern Bohemia, it was possible for the first time to analyze the concentrations of various pollutants in the air, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), arsenic, lead, and mercury, and evaluate the impact of these pollutants on the health of children by analyzing functional respiratory and neurobehavioral changes. Using American technology for personal monitoring, DNA adducts were analyzed in relationship to each person's exposure to PAHs. Another technology helped analyze the effect of air pollution on sperm morphology; an increase in sperm abnormalities were related to pollution. Preliminary analyses suggest increases in low birth weight and prematurity in the pregnancy outcome project. Key to evaluating the effects of environmental pollution are new techniques to determine genetic polymorphism and sensitivity of different groups to mutagens and carcinogens.
These achievements indicate that human monitoring may enable us to determine and prevent risks to individuals. This may in turn allow us to address questions about possible adaptation to pollutants. Comparing results of the effects of air pollution on acute morbidity and mortality in Western versus Eastern European countries, it seems that people exposed to high levels of pollution for a long period of time do not exhibit increasing morbidity and mortality during air inversions as do people who have not been exposed to high levels of pollution.
Studies of genetic polymorphism may explain why different results are obtained in different populations. During recent years, paracetamol was found to be clastogenic in Czech and Norwegian studies, but not in a British study. Last year the idea was put forth that cigarette smoking induces enzymes related to biotransformation and may protect against some genotoxic insults.
In Eastern Europe, there is a different perception of the risk of environmental pollution than in Western countries. We must try to understand these societal differences. Is it possible to quantify the impact of pollution on the lifestyle of the exposed population? This impact may be indirect: it may be socially or psychologically mediated. Is it possible to measure mental changes affecting lifestyle?
Another problem is the impact of pollution on developing organisms, which is of genetic or epigenetic origin. A toxicant may act directly prenatally or postnatally, or it may be maternally mediated. We need information about the risk of each category of toxicant.
Certainly, risk assessment is important in evaluating the effect of complex mixtures, as certain factors may decrease the activity of other factors, such as genotoxicants. It is believed that in the future, the risk of pollution from traffic in metropolitan areas will increase. New efforts should be directed toward evaluating the effect of traffic on human health and determining the most sensitive biomarkers for these effects.
It would be useful to stimulate a global approach to the most important problems and to build bridges of cooperation between countries. Perhaps Environmental Health Perspectives could become the crystallizing point for this cooperative activity, a source for creating a picture from the various stones of the mosaic. We must try to build bridges over the oceans and tunnels through the walls of our individual scientific environments.
Each country has something to contribute: for example, Japan is well-known for mutagenicity research and Australia for studies of the effects of UV-radiation. We could create a network to share expertise and compare results obtained in different countries. It would be necessary to create a network of institutes or laboratories prepared for broad-based international research. It would be useful to start with a roundtable discussion among representatives of U.S. government agencies such as the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Environmental Protection Agency, the European Commission, and representatives from Japan and Australia. Such a network could be essential in addressing environmental problems in the next century.
Radim J. Srám
Prague Institute of Advanced Studies
Last Update: April 2, 1997 |