Alex T Ford, Marlene Ågerstrand, Natasja Börjeson, Tomas Brodin, Bryan W Brooks, Gerd Maack, James M Lazorchak, Minna Saaristo, Bob B M Wong
{"title":"关于使用行为(生态)毒理学来保护人类健康和环境的看法。","authors":"Alex T Ford, Marlene Ågerstrand, Natasja Börjeson, Tomas Brodin, Bryan W Brooks, Gerd Maack, James M Lazorchak, Minna Saaristo, Bob B M Wong","doi":"10.1093/inteam/vjaf123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The One Health concept strongly brings into focus the important connections for human and ecosystem health. However, the incorporation of behaviour method guidelines in risk assessment and regulation/policy is not equal between human and ecological disciplines. A survey was conducted on the perceptions and role of behavioural (eco)toxicology in the protection of the human and ecosystem health. Those surveyed include scientists working in the field of environmental toxicology and behavioural ecology, representing industry, government, non-government organizations and academia/research centres. The respondents (n = 166) agreed that contaminants can (97%) and are (77%) impacting wildlife, and can (84%) and are (62%) impacting humans. Overall respondents believed behavioural experiments to be repeatable (60%), reliable (61%) and relevant (84%), although those not studying behaviour (43%) were more cautious in their answers. Respondents were more likely to be neutral when asked whether behavioural endpoints are more sensitive (43%) but agreed (80%) that they provide important alternative information to standard endpoints. The largest group disagreed (42%) with the statement that behavioural endpoints are currently used in risk assessment but agreed they were essential (55%). The majority of respondents disagreed (63%) that we understood the risks of contaminants to human and ecosystem health, but agreed (68%) that regulatory authorities should consider behavioural endpoints. When comparing answers between sectors (Academia, Government or Industry), industry scientists were more likely to be negative or neutral in their responses to the application of behavioural toxicology. We discuss how these data could be used to further support our understanding and confidence in the effects of contaminants on human and ecosystem health.</p>","PeriodicalId":13557,"journal":{"name":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceptions about the use of Behavioral (Eco)Toxicology to protect human health and the environment.\",\"authors\":\"Alex T Ford, Marlene Ågerstrand, Natasja Börjeson, Tomas Brodin, Bryan W Brooks, Gerd Maack, James M Lazorchak, Minna Saaristo, Bob B M Wong\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/inteam/vjaf123\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The One Health concept strongly brings into focus the important connections for human and ecosystem health. However, the incorporation of behaviour method guidelines in risk assessment and regulation/policy is not equal between human and ecological disciplines. A survey was conducted on the perceptions and role of behavioural (eco)toxicology in the protection of the human and ecosystem health. Those surveyed include scientists working in the field of environmental toxicology and behavioural ecology, representing industry, government, non-government organizations and academia/research centres. The respondents (n = 166) agreed that contaminants can (97%) and are (77%) impacting wildlife, and can (84%) and are (62%) impacting humans. Overall respondents believed behavioural experiments to be repeatable (60%), reliable (61%) and relevant (84%), although those not studying behaviour (43%) were more cautious in their answers. Respondents were more likely to be neutral when asked whether behavioural endpoints are more sensitive (43%) but agreed (80%) that they provide important alternative information to standard endpoints. The largest group disagreed (42%) with the statement that behavioural endpoints are currently used in risk assessment but agreed they were essential (55%). The majority of respondents disagreed (63%) that we understood the risks of contaminants to human and ecosystem health, but agreed (68%) that regulatory authorities should consider behavioural endpoints. When comparing answers between sectors (Academia, Government or Industry), industry scientists were more likely to be negative or neutral in their responses to the application of behavioural toxicology. We discuss how these data could be used to further support our understanding and confidence in the effects of contaminants on human and ecosystem health.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13557,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjaf123\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjaf123","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Perceptions about the use of Behavioral (Eco)Toxicology to protect human health and the environment.
The One Health concept strongly brings into focus the important connections for human and ecosystem health. However, the incorporation of behaviour method guidelines in risk assessment and regulation/policy is not equal between human and ecological disciplines. A survey was conducted on the perceptions and role of behavioural (eco)toxicology in the protection of the human and ecosystem health. Those surveyed include scientists working in the field of environmental toxicology and behavioural ecology, representing industry, government, non-government organizations and academia/research centres. The respondents (n = 166) agreed that contaminants can (97%) and are (77%) impacting wildlife, and can (84%) and are (62%) impacting humans. Overall respondents believed behavioural experiments to be repeatable (60%), reliable (61%) and relevant (84%), although those not studying behaviour (43%) were more cautious in their answers. Respondents were more likely to be neutral when asked whether behavioural endpoints are more sensitive (43%) but agreed (80%) that they provide important alternative information to standard endpoints. The largest group disagreed (42%) with the statement that behavioural endpoints are currently used in risk assessment but agreed they were essential (55%). The majority of respondents disagreed (63%) that we understood the risks of contaminants to human and ecosystem health, but agreed (68%) that regulatory authorities should consider behavioural endpoints. When comparing answers between sectors (Academia, Government or Industry), industry scientists were more likely to be negative or neutral in their responses to the application of behavioural toxicology. We discuss how these data could be used to further support our understanding and confidence in the effects of contaminants on human and ecosystem health.
期刊介绍:
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM) publishes the science underpinning environmental decision making and problem solving. Papers submitted to IEAM must link science and technical innovations to vexing regional or global environmental issues in one or more of the following core areas:
Science-informed regulation, policy, and decision making
Health and ecological risk and impact assessment
Restoration and management of damaged ecosystems
Sustaining ecosystems
Managing large-scale environmental change
Papers published in these broad fields of study are connected by an array of interdisciplinary engineering, management, and scientific themes, which collectively reflect the interconnectedness of the scientific, social, and environmental challenges facing our modern global society:
Methods for environmental quality assessment; forecasting across a number of ecosystem uses and challenges (systems-based, cost-benefit, ecosystem services, etc.); measuring or predicting ecosystem change and adaptation
Approaches that connect policy and management tools; harmonize national and international environmental regulation; merge human well-being with ecological management; develop and sustain the function of ecosystems; conceptualize, model and apply concepts of spatial and regional sustainability
Assessment and management frameworks that incorporate conservation, life cycle, restoration, and sustainability; considerations for climate-induced adaptation, change and consequences, and vulnerability
Environmental management applications using risk-based approaches; considerations for protecting and fostering biodiversity, as well as enhancement or protection of ecosystem services and resiliency.