Two committees tackle toxicogenomics. (NIEHS News).

The advent of toxicogenomics--an emerging scientific discipline that applies recent advances in genomics to the field of toxicology--promises to transform the way scientists use genetic information to study the effects of the environment on human health. Although toxicogenomics may enable researchers to assess the toxicity of environmental pollutants and therapeutic drugs far faster and more economically than traditional methods allow, the field's rapid emergence and fast-paced developments have created a number of challenges as well.

To meet those challenges and navigate a maze of potential technical, regulatory, ethical, and communication roadblocks, the National Research Council (NRC) has formed the Committee on Emerging Issues and Data on Environmental Contaminants. The committee is sponsored by the NIEHS, but because representatives from federal agencies can't participate in NRC committees, a 10-member Federal Liaison Group--composed of representatives from key regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health--will work alongside the NRC committee.

The NRC committee is composed of 22 experts gathered from academia, private industry, public interest groups, the legal community, and the field of bioethics. Their mission is threefold: to foster open communication among the scientific community and other stakeholders about emerging issues in the field of toxicogenomics, to identify topics for future scientific study, and to consider how data generated by this rapidly evolving technology can best be used to inform public policy and improve public health.

According to David Brown, staff assistant to NIEHS director Kenneth Olden, good communication among stakeholders is absolutely essential. A lack of it can lead to confusion and distrust over the actual implications of environmentally induced health effects, as well as divert attention from the science underlying a particular issue or question. Some data, Brown says, might cause unnecessary public alarm or escape warranted public attention in the hands of uninformed or overzealous members of the media. Furthermore, media coverage, combined with ensuing public reaction, might unduly affect science policy. An ongoing dialogue among stakeholders will help researchers anticipate problems before they arise and ensure that sound scientific findings guide all decision making. "We thought it would be very important right up front to bring people together to interpret what this data means and communicate it in a responsible way to the public, news media, and other scientists," Brown explains.

Roberta Wedge, program director for risk analysis with the National Academies' Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, agrees that proper communication is key. "The [committees] will provide a public forum for communication among different groups on environmental toxicology, risk assessment, exposure assessment, toxicogenomics, proteomics, and bioinformatics," she says. Several times a year--beginning with an inaugural symposium on 4 November 2002--the committees will host open sessions featuring workshops, guest speakers, and interactive panel discussions. Regular newsletters and webcasts are available on the committee's website at http://dels.nas.edu/emergingissues/.

The committees' most important discussions will most certainly lead to policy development, Brown believes. "This is a tremendous opportunity for anyone involved in developing regulations using risk assessment," he claims. Marilee Shelton, a program officer with the National Academies' Board on Life Sciences, agrees: "The [committees] will explore how scientific approaches might influence policy and regulatory decisions," she says. Take, for example, changes in gene expression detected with DNA microarrays. Scientists and other parties must not only assess toxicological implications of such changes, but also decide whether those changes will truly result in possibly adverse health effects in humans, she cautions. "Regulatory agencies need to think about what the biological measurements mean."

Other challenges include analyzing enormous quantities of microarray data, standardizing research methods and nomenclature, benchmarking newer toxicogenomic methods against traditional toxicological techniques, developing disease and exposure biomarkers, and extrapolating results from animal experiments to humans--a tricky process at best. As the field of toxicogenomics advances, its ensuing challenges are certain to multiply. These committees stand ready to meet them head-on.