Search

Scientists are usually good at teaching, sometimes even to lay audiences. But communicating with journalists, activists, or policymakers can be a different story – hesitancy to make mistakes as well as the temptation to disproportionally promote one’s own case come into play. The multitude of social media and other web-based outlets has diversified and accelerated the communication of science. Real-time reactions, sharing of data, tools and results, increasing invitation of personal opinion, demand for transparency, political correctness, and loss of trust in experts are challenges to researchers in general. The field of alternatives to animal testing is more political and important to lay audiences than many others, so its scientists must be especially aware of these challenges. Public engagement offers the opportunity to form community and create wide support for non-animal research and its implementation. This requires scientists to step out of the ivory tower of higher education and engage with diverse interest groups by outreach activities, interviews, and press releases, etc. by employing tailored communication. published

The robustness of the international system of radiological protection relies on regularly updating its scientific underpinnings while providing a clear understanding of the assumptions needed to cope with the remaining uncertainties associated to radiation-induced health risks at low dose/low dose rate (i.e. below 100 mSv or below 0.1 mSv/minute). Recent reviews of biological and epidemiological data tend to provide additional support to the assumption that, for low dose, low dose rate exposures, stochastic effects (e.g. cancer risk) follow a dose response with no threshold. However, the adoption of this Linear-Non-Threshold (LNT) model remains controversial because of the large uncertainties persisting about health risks associated with low dose/low dose rate radiation exposures. Current knowledge in low dose or low dose rate radiobiology shows that the mechanisms involved in carcinogenesis are extremely complex. The integration of biological evidence on radiation-induced cancers with epidemiological results offers a promising mechanism-based approach for a less uncertain inference from high doses/dose rates to low doses/dose rates. This approach also applies to non-cancer effects (e.g. circulatory diseases, cognitive effects, lens opacities), where interpretation of epidemiological and animal studies could be reconciled through the development of Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOP), adopting the strategy used for chemical toxicity and its regulation. Given the importance placed on such research by public funding bodies and the broad amount of research being conducted and continued in this area across the globe, while noting national and regional ongoing efforts to effectively collaborate and co-ordinate research, ongoing and planned work merits consideration under an international meta-coordination. One way to reduce uncertainties in low dose/low dose rate health risks is to advance related research strategically, ensuring better use of key results in policy making and improving the way research findings and policies are communicated to stakeholders. To address these issues, the High-Level Group on Low-Dose Research (HLG-LDR) operating under the auspices of the Nuclear Energy Agencies (NEA���s) Committee on Radiological Protection and Public Health (CRPPH), aims to facilitate global networking of low dose research funding organisations and research implementing organisations. This initiative will also integrate a policy-oriented communication strategy on risk uncertainties. Finally, the HLG-LDR activities will enhance the impact of research and have implications for radiological protection policy, regulation and implementation, which will contribute to the revision of the International Commission on Radiological Protection system and beyond., License: Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 2.5 Generic Grants: I would like to leave it blank.

This Workbook will help community leaders, local organizers, and citizens groups assess environmental health problems in their neighborhoods and assist them in tackling these problems. It outlines an approach to identifying problems, gathering information, and establishing the community’s priorities for improving the environmental health of its residents. The Workbook is divided into four parts. It is written mainly for the citizen organizer, community leader, or other person who will serve as the project manager and take the lead in organizing the assessment. Part One is a brief introduction and discussion of this Workbook. Part Two discusses the reasons why your community should undertake an environmental health assessment, and outlines the assessment process. Part Three explains the community environmental health assessment process step-by-step, and shows citizens in detail how to conduct an assessment. Part Four suggests possible next steps after a community assessment is completed.