- Email: [email protected]
Gender in toxicology and risk assessment
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Environmental Research 104 (2007) 1 www.elsevier.com/locate/envres
Guest Editor’s Introduction
Gender in toxicology and risk assessment This special issue originating from the SGOMSEC workshop on gender in toxicology and risk assessment illustrates three major themes surrounding biological sex differences: genetic, human health, ecologic. From embryonic life onward males and females have very different internal milieus mediated by the powerful influence of ‘‘sex hormones’’ and their corresponding receptors. To a large extent they have different external environments as well, influenced by roles in procreation, recreation, and work, resulting in different exposure opportunities. Much of our understanding of human toxicology stems from occupational epidemiologic studies, from many of which women and minorities were excluded on the basis of a lack of adequate numbers in the exposed workforces. Although the distinction in traditional-male and traditional-female jobs has been blurred in recent decades, we hope that progress has also been made in controlling exposures, resulting in more subtle exposures and more elusive responses. The dearth of adequate data on gender differences in disease susceptibility and natural history, responses to pharmaceuticals, and indeed in the receipt of medical care was increasingly acknowledged in the 1990s, but we are still playing catch-up. Although sex hormone research began early in the 20th century, it is only relatively recently, for example, that the direct impact of these hormones on brain development has been appreciated. Gender differences in health and disease involve both culture and biology. Biological differences can be divided into those directly related to sex hormone—receptor interactions, and, for want of a better classification, ‘‘other.’’ Neither the workshop nor contributions to this
0013-9351/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2007.02.003
issue pretend to be comprehensive, and it is gratifying that attention to recognizing gender differences and understanding their risk factors and mechanisms is making progress. Each of the three sections begins with a group-written overview paper, followed by the individual contributions. It is hoped that this issue will contribute to future examinations of the differences as well as the commonalities in how males and females respond to xenobiotics in the home, community, and workplace environment. I wish to acknowledge the work of SGOMSEC leaders, Werner Klein and previous chair Bernard Goldstein, the organizing skills of Betty Davis and Deborah CorySlechta, the generosity and hospitality of Erminio Marafante and his staff, and the people of Orta. Marie Vahter and Joanna Burger organized the meeting and invited the speakers. I thank the reviewers, David Carpenter, Ann Cheek, Keith Cooper, Larry Duffy, Nancy Fiedler, Michael Gallo, Bernard Goldstein, Judith Klotz, Jacqueline Moline, Jason Richardson, Mark Robson, Carl Safina, Michael Shelby, Alan Stern, Conrad Volz, Daniel Wartenberg, and Edward Zillioux, for their efforts in strengthening the papers. And special thanks to Janine Burch of Elsevier for helping me negotiate the electronic editorial maze. Michael Gochfeld Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA E-mail address: [email protected].
Environmental Research 104 (2007) 1 www.elsevier.com/locate/envres
Guest Editor’s Introduction
Gender in toxicology and risk assessment This special issue originating from the SGOMSEC workshop on gender in toxicology and risk assessment illustrates three major themes surrounding biological sex differences: genetic, human health, ecologic. From embryonic life onward males and females have very different internal milieus mediated by the powerful influence of ‘‘sex hormones’’ and their corresponding receptors. To a large extent they have different external environments as well, influenced by roles in procreation, recreation, and work, resulting in different exposure opportunities. Much of our understanding of human toxicology stems from occupational epidemiologic studies, from many of which women and minorities were excluded on the basis of a lack of adequate numbers in the exposed workforces. Although the distinction in traditional-male and traditional-female jobs has been blurred in recent decades, we hope that progress has also been made in controlling exposures, resulting in more subtle exposures and more elusive responses. The dearth of adequate data on gender differences in disease susceptibility and natural history, responses to pharmaceuticals, and indeed in the receipt of medical care was increasingly acknowledged in the 1990s, but we are still playing catch-up. Although sex hormone research began early in the 20th century, it is only relatively recently, for example, that the direct impact of these hormones on brain development has been appreciated. Gender differences in health and disease involve both culture and biology. Biological differences can be divided into those directly related to sex hormone—receptor interactions, and, for want of a better classification, ‘‘other.’’ Neither the workshop nor contributions to this
0013-9351/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2007.02.003
issue pretend to be comprehensive, and it is gratifying that attention to recognizing gender differences and understanding their risk factors and mechanisms is making progress. Each of the three sections begins with a group-written overview paper, followed by the individual contributions. It is hoped that this issue will contribute to future examinations of the differences as well as the commonalities in how males and females respond to xenobiotics in the home, community, and workplace environment. I wish to acknowledge the work of SGOMSEC leaders, Werner Klein and previous chair Bernard Goldstein, the organizing skills of Betty Davis and Deborah CorySlechta, the generosity and hospitality of Erminio Marafante and his staff, and the people of Orta. Marie Vahter and Joanna Burger organized the meeting and invited the speakers. I thank the reviewers, David Carpenter, Ann Cheek, Keith Cooper, Larry Duffy, Nancy Fiedler, Michael Gallo, Bernard Goldstein, Judith Klotz, Jacqueline Moline, Jason Richardson, Mark Robson, Carl Safina, Michael Shelby, Alan Stern, Conrad Volz, Daniel Wartenberg, and Edward Zillioux, for their efforts in strengthening the papers. And special thanks to Janine Burch of Elsevier for helping me negotiate the electronic editorial maze. Michael Gochfeld Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA E-mail address: [email protected].