Biology Department, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.
Environ Monit Assess. 1984 Sep;4(3):259-73. doi: 10.1007/BF00394145.
Most biologists agree that at each succeeding level of biological organization new properties appear that would not have been evident by even the most intense and careful examination of lower levels of organization. These levels might be crudely characterized as subcellular, cellular, organ, organism, population, multispecies, community, and ecosystem. The field of ecology developed because even the most meticulous study of single species could not accurately predict how several such species might interact competitively or in predator-prey interactions and the like. Moreover, interactions of biotic and abiotic materials at the level of organization called ecosystem are so complex that they could not be predicted from a detailed examination of isolated component parts. This preamble may seem platitudinous to most biologists who have heard this many times before. This makes it all the more remarkable that in the field of toxicity testing an assumption is made that responses at levels of biological organization above single species can be reliably predicted with single species toxicity tests. Unfortunately, this assumption is rarely explicitly stated and, therefore, often passes unchallenged. When the assumption is challenged, a response is that single species tests have been used for years and no adverse ecosystem or multispecies effects were noted. This could be because single species tests are overly protective when coupled with an enormous application factor or that such effects were simply not detected because there were no systematic, scientifically sound studies carried out to detect them. Probably both of these possibilities occur. However, the important factor is that no scientifically justifiable evidence exists to indicate the degree of reliability with which one may use single species tests to predict responses at higher levels of biological organization. One might speculate that the absence of such information is due to the paucity of reliable tests at higher levels of organization. This situation certainly exists but does not explain the lack of pressure to develop such tests. The most pressing need in the field of toxicity testing is not further perfection of single species tests, but rather the development of parallel tests at higher levels of organization. These need not be inordinately expensive, time consuming, or require any more skilled professionals than single species tests. Higher level tests merely require a different type of biological background. Theoretical ecologists have been notoriously reluctant to contribute to this effort, and, as a consequence, such tests must be developed by this and other organizations with similar interests.
大多数生物学家都认为,在生物组织的每个连续层次上,都会出现新的特性,如果仅仅通过对较低层次组织的最细致和仔细的检查,这些特性是不会显现出来的。这些层次可以粗略地描述为亚细胞、细胞、器官、生物体、种群、多物种、群落和生态系统。生态学领域的发展是因为即使对单个物种进行最细致的研究,也不能准确预测几个这样的物种可能如何相互竞争或进行捕食者-猎物相互作用等。此外,在称为生态系统的组织层次上,生物和非生物物质的相互作用非常复杂,无法从对孤立组成部分的详细检查中预测。对于大多数以前多次听过这句话的生物学家来说,这篇序言似乎陈词滥调。但更值得注意的是,在毒性测试领域,人们假设可以通过单一物种毒性测试可靠地预测生物组织层次高于单一物种的反应。不幸的是,这种假设很少被明确说明,因此通常不会受到质疑。当这种假设受到质疑时,人们的反应是,单一物种测试已经使用了多年,没有注意到不良的生态系统或多物种影响。这可能是因为当与巨大的应用因素结合使用时,单一物种测试过于保护,或者由于没有进行系统、科学合理的研究来检测这些影响,因此根本没有检测到这些影响。这两种可能性都有可能发生。然而,重要的是,没有科学合理的证据表明,可以使用单一物种测试来预测生物组织层次较高的反应的可靠性程度。人们可能会推测,缺乏这种信息是由于在较高层次的组织中缺乏可靠的测试。这种情况肯定存在,但并不能解释为什么没有压力来开发这种测试。毒性测试领域最紧迫的需求不是进一步完善单一物种测试,而是在更高层次的组织中开发平行测试。这些测试不需要过于昂贵、耗时,也不需要比单一物种测试更多的熟练专业人员。更高层次的测试只需要不同类型的生物学背景。理论生态学家一直不愿意为此做出贡献,因此,必须由这个组织和其他有类似兴趣的组织来开发这些测试。