论文部分内容阅读
[背景]最近,国际癌症研究机构(IARC)人体致癌风险评估项目因其评估结果和所采用的评估方法而备受批评。一些评论人士认为,IARC工作小组未能认识到工作小组成员的研究弱点和偏倚,从而导致了对一些人体致癌性物质的不恰当分类。[目标]本述评的作者均为人体致癌物识别和危害评估相关学科的科学家。我们仔细检查对于IARC分类过程的评论,确定这些问题的合理性。本文呈现检查结果,回顾IARC评估历史,并描述IARC评估过程。[讨论]我们认为最近的这些批评不足为信。IARC汇集不同学科背景的科学家加入工作小组的程序以及进行文献回顾和各种物质危害评估的方法,提供了恰如其分的评估并合理说明了证据的权重。个别科学家对某些评估的不同意见并不能证明过程存在问题。长久以来评审过程经过了不断的修改,且将在今后继续进行修改,从而得以完善。从理论上而言,任何过程都能完善,我们支持对IARC过程进行持续的回顾和改善。但这并不意味着目前的程序存在错误。[结论]IARC专著已经并将继续为改善公众健康的社会性行动提供科学支持。
[Background] Recently, the IARC Human Carcinogen Risk Assessment Project has been criticized for its assessment results and the assessment methods used. Some commentators believe that the IARC working group failed to recognize the research weaknesses and biases of working group members, leading to an inappropriate classification of some of the human carcinogenic substances. [Objectives] The authors of this review are scientists in the subject related to human carcinogen identification and hazard assessment. We carefully examine the comments on the IARC classification process to determine the rationale for these issues. This article presents the findings, reviews the IARC assessment history, and describes the IARC assessment process. [Discussion] We think these recent criticisms are not enough. IARC brings together scientists from diverse disciplines to join the working group as well as a literature review and various material hazard assessments that provide an appropriate assessment and justify the weight of the evidence. The disagreement of individual scientists about some assessments does not justify the process. The review process has long been subject to continuous changes and will continue to be revised in the future to improve it. In theory, any process is complete and we support ongoing review and improvement of the IARC process. However, this does not mean that there is a mistake in the current procedure. [Conclusion] IARC monographs have provided and will continue to provide scientific support for social actions to improve public health.