Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 11
Project History and
Organization
ANN Y. WATSON
Health Effects Institute
Rationale
The Health Effects Institute (HEI) is an
independent nonprofit corporation that, ac-
cording to its charter, is "organized and
operated ... specifically to conduct or
support the conduct of, and to evaluate,
research and testing relating to the health
effects of emissions from motor vehicles."
Because resources are always limited, fund-
ing decisions need to be made in the con-
text of the most important scientific needs.
Formulation of a research strategy that
takes into account current problems as well
as long-range goals provides a mechanism
for resource allocation. Accordingly, the
HEI undertook a major endeavor to iden-
tify specific research problems within auto-
motive air pollution and toxicology. The
Institute recognized the need for a compre-
hensive, integrated research strategy and
committed the resources to develop the
necessary intellectual input and to make
available this information to the scientific
and regulatory communities. The focal
point of the project was to identify and
explain obstacles that prevent the quantifi-
cation of risk and to propose future re-
search to solve these problems.
Although the Institute, as the name im-
plies, focuses primarily on health effects,
the identification of pollutants and quanti-
fication of exposure are essential when de
Air Pollution, the Automobile, and Public Health. (it) 1988
by the Health Effects Institute. National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C.
11
termining the dose at which effects may
occur. Hence, the Institute chose to evalu-
ate topics relevant to exposure analysis and
biological effects. The project had two pri-
mary goals: (1) to assess the pattern and
extent of population exposure to automo-
tive air pollutants; and (2) to assess the
toxicity to humans including unusually
susceptible persons so that societal risk
can be estimated.
Organization
Implementation of this project called for
the formation of a parent Steering Com-
mittee and two Subcommittees (the mem-
bers of which are listed at the end of this
chapter), one for Exposure Analysis and
the other for Biological Effects. The Steer-
ing Committee, chaired by Donald Ken-
nedy and composed of members from the
HEI's Research and Review Committees
and staff, established policies and approved
of the plans and reports of the two subcom-
mittees. The Exposure Analysis and Bio-
logical Effects Subcommittees, chaired by
Robert Sawyer and Gerald Wogan, respec-
tively, included members of the Institute's
Research and Review Committees and
other scientists with expertise in some of
the topics studied in the project. The Sub-
committees developed plans for evaluating
research needs, selected topics for investi-
gation, recruited specialists to write back-
ground documents, and guided their efforts.
OCR for page 12
12
Project History and Organization
It was not feasible to commission papers
on every aspect of automotive emissions
and their potential health effects. One cri-
terion used for selection was the topic's
relevance to the goal of the project and the
information available. Because inhalation is
the primary route of exposure and the lung
represents the first line of defense, asthma,
cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary dis-
ease, and respiratory infection were chosen
for study. Consideration of other physio-
logical systems or health outcomes, how-
ever, was not as clear. For example, ath-
erosclerosis was evaluated because of its
prevalence in society and its association
with cigarette smoke, another air pollutant;
however, birth defects or kidney disorders,
also very important conditions, were not
studied because their connection to auto-
motive emissions has been less clearly es-
tablished. Available expertise was used as
another criterion for determining which
topics to include. For example, the investi-
gation of neurotoxicology uses behavioral
as well as biological approaches. The iden-
tification of a single author equally familiar
with both of these approaches was difficult.
The decision was made to explore the
relationship between behavioral effects and
automotive emissions as this relationship
may relate to issues of the quality of life.
Finally, an effort was also made not to
duplicate ongoing Institute studies. For ex-
ample, carbon monoxide was not chosen as
a topic for evaluation because the Institute
is currently conducting a multicenter study
of this pollutant.
The development of each paper was fol-
lowed by one member of the appropriate
subcommittee and by either Richard Bates
or Ann Watson. Early in the project, au-
tumn 1985, a meeting was held in Dear-
born, Michigan, at which the authors pre-
sented outlines of their chapters to the
Steering Committee and Subcommittees,
the scientific staffof the Institute, the spon-
sors of the Institute, and to each other.
After brief presentations, comments were
invited from the audience. The- authors
then prepared initial manuscript drafts,
which were submitted for external peer
review (colleagues serving as peer review-
ers are acknowledged at the end of this
chapter) and internal review by subcom-
mittee members. Suggestions from review-
ers and subcommittee members were trans-
mitted to the authors for their use in the
preparation of their final manuscripts.
Messages To and From the
Authors
In order to produce a series of focused
papers, a set of guidelines was distributed
to the authors. They were asked to concen-
trate on two questions: (1) What do we
need to know to be able to quantify levels
of risk? and (2) How do we get the neces-
sary information? Papers were to be writ-
ten as concise and critical reviews, to iden-
tify gaps in our knowledge, and to propose
research directions necessary to fill those
gaps or resolve controversies. These papers
were not to be comprehensive reviews,
and, much to the concern of some of the
authors, extensive bibliographies were dis-
couraged. The authors were encouraged,
however, to evaluate creatively the most
important and feasible research opportuni-
ties in their areas of expertise.
The authors were also asked to write in a
style that would be appropriate for a broad
readership. It was the Institute's desire to
make this information available to an audi-
ence that included scientists in fields other
than the authors', policymakers, and in-
formed citizens of public interest groups,
among others. It was not easy for special-
ists to step back and realize that what had
become his or her first language was often
beyond the grasp of many even fellow
scientists in different fields. It was some-
times a struggle to strike a balance between
insulting the experts and informing the
interested persons.
Within these guidelines, the authors had
the freedom to present their own interpre-
tation of the problems and, most impor-
tantly, their solutions. "Solutions" are pre-
sented in the form of recommendations of
specific research projects. Recommenda-
tions and their rationale are described in the
text and are ranked in priority by the
authors at the end of each chapter.
OCR for page 13
Ann Y. Watson
13
An integrated response to the authors'
recommendations is provided in the fol-
lowing chapter, entitled "Motor Vehicle
Emissions: A Strategy for Quantifying
Risk." This chapter attempts to put to-
gether a more overall approach to their
recommendations. Surprisingly, even
though a wide range of disciplines were
represented in this project, several consist-
ent themes emerged and are highlighted in
the overview.
The authors have responded to our re-
quest to share their knowledge. Now it is
up to the scientific and regulatory commu-
nities, among the ultimate consumers of
this project, to use this information.
Acknowledgments
The realization of such an endeavor from
inception to published form required the
. . . , ~
participation ot numerous, too often un-
derthanked, individuals: Richard Bates ini-
tiated this project, and then convinced the
Institute of the necessity of defining future
directions in research in order that the
proper scientific data base could be ob-
tained for quantification of risk; Linda Bu-
chin assisted in the massive task of admin-
istration; Ellen Williams helped to translate
technical expertise into discussions appro-
priate for the intended audience; Richard
Maurer transformed hand-drawn sketches
and computer printouts into illustrations
and advised on book design; and Virgi
Hepner coordinated and proofed the final
stages of production. The Executive Direc-
tor of HEI, Thomas Crumbly, supported
the project enthusiastically from beginning
to end, and provided the necessary re-
sources. From the National Academy
Press, Virginia Martin recognized the po-
tential contribution of this project, and she
was instrumental in encouraging the Press
to publish a work unrelated to Academy
reports. In addition. numerous individuals
at the Press worked with and guided us
through the intricacies of the publication
process. Finally, the Institute is indebted to
the authors for their enthusiasm and coop-
erat~on.
Steering Committee
Donald Kennedy
(ChairmanJ Stanford University
Richard R. Bates
Health Effects Institute
Thomas P. Grumbly
Health Elects Institute
Robert I. Levy
Columbia University
Walter A. Rosenblith
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Robert F. Sawyer
University of California, Berkeley
John W. Tukey
Princeton University
Arthur C. Upton
New York University Medical Center
Gerald N. Wogan
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Exposure Analysis Subcommittee
Robert F. Sawyer
/(Chairman) University of California, Berkeley
Richard R. Bates
Health Effects Institute
Glen R. Cass
California Institute of Technology
David E. Leith
Harvard Medical School
Roger 0. McClellan
Lovelace Inhalation Toxicology Research
Institute
Ken Sexton
Health Effects Institute
Werner Stoeber
Fraunhofer Institute of Toxicology and Aerosol
Research, Federal Republic of Germany
Ann Y. Watson
Health Effects Institute
Arthur M. Winer
University of California, Riverside
OCR for page 14
14
Biological Effects Subcommittee
Gerald N. Wogan
(ChairmanJ Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
David V. Bates
University of British Columbia
Richard R. Bates
Health Effects Institute
Earl P. Benditt
University of Washington
Joseph D. Brain
Harvard University School of Public Health
Curtis C. Harris
National Cancer Institute
Donald E. McMillan
University of Arkansas Medical School
Sheldon D. Murphy
University of Washington
Mark I. Utell
University of Rochester School of Medicine
Ann Y. Watson
Health Effects Institute
Peer Reviewers
Zoltan Annau
The Johns Hopkins University
Anne P. Autor
University of British Columbia
John C. Bailar III
Harvard University School of Public Health
Goran Bondjers
University of Goteborg
Goteborg, Sweden
Jack G. Calvert
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Julius S. Chang
National Center for Atmospheric Research
David P. Chock
General Motors Research Laboratories
Steven D. Colome
University of California, Irvine
Project History and Organization
Ramzi S. Cotran
Harvard Medical School
James D. Crapo
Duke University Medical Center
Jack H. Dean
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
Kenneth L. Demerjian
State University of New York, Albany
Donald L. Dungworth
University of California' Davis
Bruce A. Egan
Environmental Research and Technology, Inc.
Ludwig A. Engel
Westmead Hospital
Sydney, Australia
Hugh L. Evans
New York University Medical Center
James E. Fish
Jefferson Medical College
Inge F. Goldstein
Columbia University School of Public Health
Daniel Grosjean
Daniel Grosjean and Associates, Inc.
Joachim Heyder
Gesellschaft fur Strahlen-und Umweltfors-
chung mbH Frankfurt, Federal Republic of
Germany
Millicent Higgins
National Institutes of Health
John R. Hoidal
University of Tennessee Center for the Health
r~ ~
~clences
George J. Jakab
The Johns Hopkins University School of
Hygiene and Public Health
Fred F. Kadlubar
National Centerfor Toxicological Research
Samuel S. Lestz
Pennsylvania State University
Richard B. Mailman
University of North Carolina School of
Medicine
Kevin T. Morgan
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
OCR for page 15
Ann Y. Watson
15
Paul Nettesheim
National Institute for Environmental Health
rot .
Sciences
Gunter Oberdorster
University of Rochester
Wayne R. Ott
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert F. Phalen
University of California, Irvine
Charles G. Plopper
University of California, Davis
Gerald M. Saidel
Case Western Reserve University
Peter W. Scherer
University of Pennsylvania
Dennis Schuetzle
Ford Motor Company
Bernd Seifert
Institute for Water, Soil, and Air Hygiene,
Federal Health Office Berlin, Federal
Republic of Germany
John H. Seinfeld
California Institute of Technology
Dean Sheppard
University of California, San Francisco
Thomas I. Slaga
The University of Texas System Cancer
Center
lames A. Swenberg
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
Ira Tager
University of California, San Francisco
Thomas R. Tephly
University of Iowa
Lance Wallace
Harvard University School of Public
Health
Peter A. Ward
University of Michigan
David Warshawsky
University of Cincinnati Medical
Center
I. Bernard Weinstein
Columbia University
George T. Wolff
General Motors Research
OCR for page 16
Representative terms from entire chapter:
exposure analysis
