4.1 Review

Endocrine disruptors: A new scientific role for clinical pharmacologists? Impact on human health, wildlife, and the environment

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 42, 期 1, 页码 7-23

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1177/0091270002042001001

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is important for the clinical pharmacologist to understand the potential human health implications of exposure to environmental chemicals that may act as hormonally active agents. It is necessary to have an understanding of how pharmaceutical and personal cure products and other chemicals affect the ecosystem of planet Earth and to understand how they may negatively contribute to human disease. Clinical pharmacologists must understand the various definitions of endocrine disruptors and be able to decipher these terms for their patients. Understanding the need for the EPA endocrine disruptor screening program and possessing knowledge of the screening assays used to assess endocrine activity potential are two essential components relevant to the topic of endocrine disruptors. Clinical pharmacologists have an opportunity to play an important role in resolving the question of what role endocrine disruptors play in initiating human disease since some scientists argue that the present evidence is not compelling. Clinical pharmacologists can also play an important role in the evaluation of the risk assessment and use of risk management and risk communication tools required to address public health concerns related to actions of endocrine disruptors. It is important that clinical pharmacologists work with veterinary clinical pharmacologists, toxicologists, industrial chemists, regulators, the scientific community the general public, and environmental groups to understand the impact of endocrine disruptors on human health, wildlife, and the environment with un ultimate goal to minimize and/or alleviate the unwanted, detrimental effects of the endocrine disruptors. (C) 2002 the American College of Clinical Pharmacology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据