Neil N, Malmfors T, Slovic P
Malmfors Consulting AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Toxicol Pathol. 1994 Mar-Apr;22(2):198-201. doi: 10.1177/019262339402200214.
Human beings have always been intuitive toxicologists, relying on their senses of sight, taste, and smell to detect harmful or unsafe food, water, and air. As we have come to recognize that our senses are not adequate to assess the dangers inherent in exposure to a chemical substance, we have created the sciences of toxicology and risk assessment to perform this function. Yet despite this great effort to overcome the limitations of intuitive toxicology, it has become evident that even our best scientific methods still depend heavily on extrapolations and judgments in order to infer human health risks from animal data. Many observers have acknowledged the inherent subjectivity in the assessment of chemical risks and have indicated a need to examine the subjective or intuitive elements of expert and lay risk judgments. Such an examination was begun by surveying members of the Society of Toxicology and the lay public about basic toxicological concepts, assumptions, and interpretations. The results demonstrated large differences between toxicologists and laypeople, as well as differences among toxicologists working in industry, academia, and government. In addition, toxicologists were found to be sharply divided in their opinions about the ability to predict a chemical's effect on human health on the basis of animal studies. These results place the problems of risk communication in a new light. Although the survey identifies misconceptions that experts should clarify for the public, it also suggests that controversies over chemical risks may be fueled as much by limitations of the science of risk assessment and disagreements among experts as by public misconceptions.
人类一直都是直观的毒理学家，依靠视觉、味觉和嗅觉来检测有害或不安全的食物、水和空气。随着我们逐渐认识到自身的感官不足以评估接触化学物质所固有的危险，我们创建了毒理学和风险评估科学来履行这一职能。然而，尽管我们付出了巨大努力来克服直观毒理学的局限性，但显而易见的是，即使是我们最好的科学方法在从动物数据推断人类健康风险时，仍然严重依赖外推法和判断。许多观察家承认在化学风险评估中存在固有的主观性，并表示有必要审视专家和普通民众风险判断中的主观或直观因素。通过就基本毒理学概念、假设和解释对毒理学学会成员和普通公众进行调查，开启了这样一项研究。结果表明，毒理学家和普通民众之间存在巨大差异，在工业界、学术界和政府工作的毒理学家之间也存在差异。此外，发现毒理学家在基于动物研究预测化学物质对人类健康影响的能力问题上存在严重分歧。这些结果使风险沟通问题有了新的认识。虽然该调查确定了专家应为公众澄清的误解，但它也表明，关于化学风险的争议可能更多是由风险评估科学的局限性以及专家之间的分歧引发的，而非公众的误解。
