DEPARTMENT USA LAND WELFARE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20014 May 5, 1980 Daniel L. Weiss, M.D. National Research Council Dear Dr. Weiss: Pursuant to Contract No. NO1-CO-95466, the NIH is responsible We will expect to receive a critique of this draft from the Sincerely yours, Unour Charles U. Lowe, M.D. Acting Associate Director for Enclosure DRAFT Federal Strategy for Research into the Biological Effects Submitted by Federal Committee on Research into the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation For Review by National Academy of Sciences Pursuant to Contract N01-CG-4-2004 with the National Institutes of Health May 5, 1980 This research agenda for the Federal Government on the problems of ionizing radiation has come into being through the impetus of the Congress (P.L. 95-622) and through the cooperation of the several Federal agencies concerned with ionizing radiation. The prime sources of information for this agenda have been the meetings and resulting working documents sponsored by the Committee on Federal Research into the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. These working documents, Volume I-Issue Papers and Volume IIScience Projection Papers, constitute appendices A and B to this agenda. Many other sources were also consulted, including reports from other government and quasi-government sources (e.g., The National Academy of Sciences Reports on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation [BEIR reports], publications of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation [UNSCEAR reports], the "Report of the Interagency Task Force on the Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation," and the "President's Commission Report on the Accident at Three Mile Island") and scientists, administrators, and the general public. The agenda sets forth issues on research into the biological effects of ionizing radiation that provide scientific and technical information for use by the Federal Government in its program to protect the public from undue risks from exposure to manmade or enhanced* natural radiation and to improve the benefit-to-risk ratio of the use of radiation. * This refers to radiation resulting from naturally occurring radioactive materials in concentrations and/or locations different from those found in nature. -1 Public concern exists with respect to the risks to human health that can result from exposures to ionizing radiations. Exposures may occur from the use and handling of radionuclides and other radiation sources. They may occur routinely or accidentally in the nuclear industry, in the manufacture and use of consumer products, and in other categories such as medical and dental practice. The concern has increased in recent years because a significant segment of the public appears to believe that there is great uncertainty among scientists about the actual risks. The approach taken in developing and presenting this agenda has been to review what is known (or believed to be known) in a given area, what is uncertain, and what research would reduce that uncertainty. The cost of reducing uncertainty is an important consideration which should not be overlooked. The scientific research needed falls into the two areas which on paper appear more different from each other than they are in the real world: applied science and basic science. Applied science is related to finding solutions and answers to current questions and problems that are perceived to be important both by the scientists working on them and by the public. Basic science is related to solving problems perceived to be important by the scientist working on them and serves the purpose of expanding the base of knowledge from which applied science can derive its resources to solve its problems. These fields of science feed back and forth to each other. A proper Federal research agenda must strive for an appropriate balance between basic and applied research. This important relationship will be discussed throughout this document, although it is not divided into these categories per se. Some important areas related to effects of radiation, or perceptions of radiation hazards, were not addressed in the present draft report in -2 |