32 



Dr. Ford. To begin with, I like the section because I feel that one 

 thing we have missing in this country is a set of national environ- 

 mental goals that research can support. You talk about worries 

 over population. I was reading an article coming up on the plane 

 about global cooling. 



[Laughter.] 



Dr. FORD. Regardless of the argument, the issue is a very impor- 

 tant one, whether or not the world is heating up. We do not have 

 a priority list that includes these things subject to some kind of na- 

 tional debate. Maybe this should come out of EPA. Maybe EPA 

 should supervise it. Maybe it should be done here on the Hill. I 

 don't know. 



But it seems to me that your section 19 kind of points in this di- 

 rection. We need to have some kind of priorities. 



Certainly I would put air issues on there — global warming, ozone 

 effects, and things like that. I would also worry a lot about bays 

 and estuaries, an area that doesn't get looked into very much in 

 this country. The effects here are going to be seen in third world 

 countries, if not seen already. 



Senator Reid. Dr. Glaze, would you add anything to Dr. Ford's 

 list? 



Dr. Glaze. I would say that one of the overriding concerns today, 

 which is a vexing question, is, What really are the risks of chemi- 

 cals not only to human beings but to the environment? 



As you know, our decisionmaking in that area is built upon a 

 dogma, a methodology involving animal bioassays, by and large. 

 The fact of the matter is that there is a huge uncertainty associ- 

 ated with that whole area. It relates to the health of the environ- 

 ment, ecosystems, individual species, endangered species, and it re- 

 lates to human beings. 



I have strongly supported, for example, the initiative of the 

 American Water Works Association Research Foundation to de- 

 velop a better research agenda to address the issues associated 

 with human health and drinking water. I strongly endorse the pro- 

 posal to integrate health risk assessment as it is carried out by 

 NIH and what goes on in EPA. I hate very much to see, for exam- 

 ple, the decline of health-related research within EPA. I think it 

 needs to be enhanced and integrated with ecological research. 



After all, some of the same proteins are involved in the cell divi- 

 sion of bacteria and our cell division. Some of the biochemistry is 

 very similar. Some of the toxicology is very similar. We need to 

 build a world-class capability in toxicology — eco-toxicology as well 

 as human toxicology — and to integrate those two. 



If you talk to the people in industry, you will find that that is 

 one of the biggest problems we have: What are the real risks and 

 how can we improve the methodology for assessing those risks? 



Senator Reid. The committee appreciates each of your being here 

 today and taking time from your busy schedule to help us with this 

 legislation. We look forward in the years to come to working with 

 each of you. 



The committee stands in recess. 



[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to re- 

 convene at the call of the Chair.] 



