Scientific basis for the Soviet and Russian radiofrequency standards for the general public

The former Soviet Union (USSR) and the USA were the first countries to introduce standards limiting exposure to radiofrequency (RF) fields. However, the exposure limits in the USSR standards were always much lower than those in the USA and other countries. The objective of this article is to provide a history of the development of the Soviet and Russian RF standards. In addition, we summarize the scientific evidence used to develop the original USSR RF and subsequent Russian public health standards, as well as the mobile telecommunications standard published in 2003, but we do not critique them. We also describe the protective approaches used by the Soviet and Russian scientists for setting their limits. A translation of the papers of the key studies used to develop their standards is available in the online version of this publication. Bioelectromagnetics 33:623–633, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Toward a broader notion of community

Both leading scientific journals and the popular press now regularly report the convincing evidence of massive environmental degradation and decline. Yet despite the seriousness of the problems, despite their anthropogenic nature, and despite their profound implications for present and future population health, such topics are rarely discussed in the leading public health journals. When these issues are mentioned, they are examined in the same limited framework as other questions in public health--questions of models and tests of independent causal associations dominate. This approach will not suffice, for both scientific and ethical reasons. If public health scientists wish to sustain human health in the face of such crises, and to retain our integrity as scholars who speak truthfully about public health matters, we will have to broaden the notions of "health" and "community" to include nonhumans. I draw on recent scholarship in moral philosophy and in the philosophy of science to support my argument. Scholars in the health professions must take seriously the words of theologian Andrew Linzey, who states that the attempt to place human well-being in a special and absolute category of its own is perhaps the primary cause of our ecological travail.     

Time to talk

Debate over the publication of the H5N1 flu virus papers highlights the need for better risk management of dual-use research. Scientists should start this discussion instead of waiting for governments to implement regulation.EMBO reports (2012) 13, 578; doi:10.1038/embor.2012.77Freedom of research is a concept widely respected in democratic societies and is often enshrined in constitutional law. We tout academics′ freedom to pursue their quest for knowledge and understanding as a hallmark of a truly free society.The reality, though, is a little more nuanced. Although academics in democracies are usually free to investigate any idea they like, they are not as free when it comes to the design and conduct of their experiments. In fact, academic research is probably more regulated than most enterprises. Researchers who falsify or misrepresent data might well find themselves joining the queue at the local job centre; when it comes to corporate or financial fraud, only the most egregious cases are ever punished. Experiments conducted on vertebrates must be vetted to ensure they meet the standards of animal welfare; industrial agriculture has no such qualms about how it treats its livestock. Privacy and consent are paramount when conducting research using databases of human genetic and medical data; the business models of Facebook or Google play fast and loose with privacy and consent.Despite the plethora of rules and laws that govern the conduct of science and hold scientists to high standards they do not seem to have slowed the overall pace of research, even if some areas are seen as overregulated. Yet, as Michele Garfinkel pointed out in the context of stem cell research, regulation is a relatively small price to pay in exchange for public trust in—and financial support of—research and researchers[1].New laws and stricter rules should therefore not be seen as an end to academic freedom or an undue hurdle for research. We may well see a new wave of regulations addressing renewed concerns about biosafety and biosecurity, triggered by research into a mutant version of the avian H5N1 influenza virus. Two papers—one published in Nature, one still to come from Science—have attracted considerable attention from the media and politicians, and led to the unprecedented recommendation by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), an advisory board for the US government, to restrict the publication of crucial information. In the meantime, the NSABB has recommended publication of revised versions of these papers, but their original argument—that the information about manipulating the virus could be abused to create a biological weapon—remains valid.Notwithstanding the discussion about murky risks versus vague benefits for public health, there is a broader need to address concerns about research that could endanger human health or the environment. Many biologists feel that this was addressed at the 1975 Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA technology and that nothing bad has happened. Although true, the concerns that inspired the conference have also led to regulations on how to handle recombinant DNA and organisms.What has changed, though, is the ability of molecular biologists to manipulate living matter. At the time of Asilomar, DNA recombinant technology was in its infancy and PCR was not even invented. Modern technologies now allow scientists to analyse whole organisms at different levels of organization, manipulate their genomes and biochemistry, and even create new viruses and bacteria from scratch. Whilst some of these technologies still require a level of instrumentation, know-how and sophistication that few laboratories can muster, it is only a matter of time until these technologies and skills become widely available—including to the mentally unhinged researcher or someone else who may have less then beneficial intents. Misuse need not be criminal in intent: scientists who use cholera toxin for their experiments or work on filoviruses may not even be aware that they are handling a dual-use agent.These risks are ill-defined, but they are not negligible. The lesson from the H5N1 debates is that biological research might require new regulations to manage these risks without unduly hindering research or public health. It would not be in the interests of science, however, if such debates were left to policy-makers and the media. The scientific community should proactively acknowledge the need for better risk management and set discussions in motion.The H5N1 experience has also provided some pointers as to how a system to manage biosafety and biosecurity could look. Two crucial choking points in research are funding and publication. Funding agencies could determine whether any given research project poses dual-use risks, and whether the potential benefits outweigh possible future abuse, and could accordingly demand stricter safety measures. The NSABB has also recommended expanding the role of institutional biosafety review to address dual-use risks and biosecurity. Journals could perform a similar risk–benefit analysis—preferably involving experts in biosafety and biosecurity—to determine whether the information offered for publication poses an undue risk to public or environmental safety. Many journals and funding agencies already require that experiments using human subjects or animals are done in an ethically acceptable manner; biosecurity review would become another measure by which to ensure scientists act responsibly and benefit from public trust in science. It''s time to start talking.     

Current status of regulating biotechnology-derived animals in Canada: animal health and food safety considerations

Development of an effective regulatory system for genetically engineered animals and their products has been the subject of increasing discussion among researchers, industry and policy developers, as well as the public. Since transgenesis and cloning are relatively new scientific techniques, transgenic animals are 'novel' organisms for which there is limited information. The issues associated with the regulation of transgenic animals pertain to environmental impact, human food safety, animal health and welfare, trade and ethics. It is a challenge for the developers to prove the safety of the products of biotechnology-derived animals and also for regulators to regulate this increasingly powerful technology with limited background information. In principle, an effective regulatory sieve should permit safe products while forming a formidable barrier for those posing an unacceptable risk. Regulatory initiatives for biotechnology-derived animals and their products should be able to ensure high standards for human and animal health, a sound scientific basis for evaluation; transparency and public involvement, and maintenance of genetic diversity. This review proposes a regulatory regime that is based on scientific risk based assessment and approval of products or by-products of biotechnology-derived animals and its application in context to Canadian regulations.     

Skepticism, statistical methods, and the cigarette: a historical analysis of a methodological debate

The discipline of modern "risk factor" epidemiology was in its formative stages in the early 1950s, when epidemiologic studies revealed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer mortality. Many medical scientists and physicians were reluctant to accept these studies as a demonstration of causation because the methods were "statistical" and involved data collected in uncontrolled conditions outside the laboratory. But a substantial number of senior biostatisticians and epidemiologists also voiced concerns, albeit more methodologically sophisticated, about the quality of the evidence at the time. Statistical methods were just beginning to work their way into medicine and public health, and many epidemiologists and statisticians were concerned about the potential misuse of these methods by untrained investigators. When studies of smoking and lung cancer gained increasing publicity and were being used to recommend public health policies, some prominent epidemiologists and statisticians highlighted this debate in their efforts to pursue methodological reform. Participants in the debate over smoking and lung cancer saw the need for explicit and rigorous standards for evaluating etiologic hypotheses, but they held conflicting views about what those standards should be. These diverging views reflect an underlying tension within the discipline of epidemiology between the search for "objective" methods of scientific inference and the practical needs of public health research that persists today.     

Comment: a biological guide for electromagnetic safety: the stress response

Questions of safety of electromagnetic (EM) fields should be based on relevant biological properties, i.e., specific cellular reactions to potentially harmful stimuli. The stress response is a well documented protective reaction of plant and animal cells to a variety of environmental threats, and it is stimulated by both extremely low frequency (ELF) and radio frequency (RF) EM fields. It involves activation of DNA to initiate synthesis of stress proteins. Thermal and non-thermal stimuli affect different segments of DNA and utilize different biochemical pathways. However, both ELF and RF stimulate the same non-thermal pathway. Since the same biochemical reactions are stimulated in different frequency ranges with very different specific absorption rates (SARs), SAR level is not a valid basis for safety standards. Studies of EM field interactions with DNA and with model systems provide insight into a plausible mechanism that can be effective in ELF and RF ranges.     

In the trenches: lessons for scientists from California's Proposition 71 campaign

I describe a number of valuable lessons I learned from participating in California's Proposition 71 effort about the role that scientists and rigorous scientific advice can play in a public political process. I describe how scientists can provide valuable information and advice and how they can also gain a great deal from the experience that is valuable to a practicing research scientist. Finally, I argue that in the future, building similar broad coalitions to support biomedical and other areas of scientific research will be essential to protect publicly funded science. Thus, a key lesson from the Proposition 71 experience is that engagement of scientists with diverse nonscientific groups can make a big difference and that scientists must actively engage with the public in the future if we are to contribute robustly to the medical and economic health of our communities.     

Status of nutrition and health claims in Europe

Functional foods are closely associated with claims on foods. There are two categories of claims on foods: nutrition claims and health claims. Health claims on (functional) foods must be scientifically substantiated. In December 2006, the European Union published its Regulation 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. As concerns scientific evaluation, the EU-project PASSCLAIM resulted in a set of criteria for the scientific substantiation of health claims on foods. The European Food Safety Authority provides the scientific advise to the European Commission for health claims submitted under Regulation 1924/2006 and has hitherto published several hundreds of opinions on health claims, part of which are positive, part which are negative and a few with insufficient evidence. Antioxidant claims have been approved for the general function of vitamins but not for direct health effects in humans. Another issue with claims is consumer understanding. Consumers can hardly distinguish between graded levels of evidence, and they do make only little or no distinction between nutrition and health claims. Consumers understand nutrition and health claims different from scientists and regulators. Therefore, innovation in industry can readily proceed via approved nutrition claims and approved health claims. The market and the shelves in the stores will not be empty; rather they will look different in the years to come.     

Challenges in Translational Research: The Views of Addiction Scientists

Objectives

To explore scientists'' perspectives on the challenges and pressures of translating research findings into clinical practice and public health policy.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 20 leading scientists engaged in genetic research on addiction. We asked participants for their views on how their own research translates, how genetic research addresses addiction as a public health problem and how it may affect the public''s view of addiction.

Results

Most scientists described a direct translational route for their research, positing that their research will have significant societal benefits, leading to advances in treatment and novel prevention strategies. However, scientists also pointed to the inherent pressures they feel to quickly translate their research findings into actual clinical or public health use. They stressed the importance of allowing the scientific process to play out, voicing ambivalence about the recent push to speed translation.

Conclusions

High expectations have been raised that biomedical science will lead to new prevention and treatment modalities, exerting pressure on scientists. Our data suggest that scientists feel caught in the push for immediate applications. This overemphasis on rapid translation can lead to technologies and applications being rushed into use without critical evaluation of ethical, policy, and social implications, and without balancing their value compared to public health policies and interventions currently in place.     

Regulating Transgenic Crops: A Comparative Analysis of Different Regulatory Processes

Transgenic crops have the potential to benefit both developed and developing countries. To ensure safe crops to humans and the environment, a strong, but not stifling, regulatory system needs to be established and properly implemented. This paper explores some essential components of a strong regulatory structure for transgenic crops. First, five different regulatory systems for transgenic crops--the United States, the European Union, South Africa, Taiwan, and Argentina--are described and explained. The major components of those systems are then compared to components necessary to a regulatory system that ensures safe products and engenders public trust. The key components discussed include: (1) mandatory pre-market approval; (2) established safety standards; (3) transparency; (4) public participation; (5) use of outside scientists for expert scientific advice; (6) independent agency decisions; (7) post-approval activities; and (8) enforcement authority and resources. Although no one of the existing systems analyzed adequately achieves all the necessary components of a strong regulatory system, those systems serve as models for deciding which regulatory procedures should be emulated and which should be avoided. A mandatory pre-market approval system that applies established safety standards in procedures that are transparent and allows for public participation with no pre-conceived notions or biases will best achieve both safe products and consumer trust.     

Using education as a public relations tool for biotechnology

The advances in the biotechnology industry, and in biosciences research are impressive by any measure, but it is not sufficient just to continue to make spectacular scientific breakthroughs. It is important that the general public is assisted to keep up with the pace of technological change. Some efforts have been made, but they have not been enough. A public relations strategy is required. The biotechnology industry needs to influence public opinion as well as lead discovery. The aims of a public relations campaign should not be just to inform and convince legislators and regulators, but should target the average consumer of the 21st century. There are two areas where the science community must direct its attention if the international public is to be brought along on this biotechnological odyssey: the compulsory school sector – including teachers, students and policy makers; and key sector groups that can be specifically targeted such as farmers, indigenous peoples, horticulturists, food sector people, health professionals, and in particular, the recently retired. If the potential of biotechnological advances is to be realised, scientists must be proactive in educating the general public. This will also involve educating the educators. No amount of public education will completely remove the opposition to genetic engineering, but with an educated public there is an increased opportunity for a fair debate and scare tactics, half-truths and innuendo will gain less traction.     

Dissemination of evidence-based standards of care

Standards of care pertain to crafting and implementing patient-centered treatment interventions. Standards of care must take into consideration the patient's gender, ethnicity, medical and dental history, insurance coverage (or socioeconomic level, if a private patient), and the timeliness of the targeted scientific evidence. This resolves into a process by which clinical decision-making about the optimal patient-centered treatment relies on the best available research evidence, and all other necessary inputs and factors to provide the best possible treatment. Standards of care must be evidence-based, and not merely based on the evidence - the dichotomy being critical in contemporary health services research and practice. Evidence-based standards of care must rest on the best available evidence that emerges from a concerted hypothesis-driven process of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Health information technology needs to become an every-day reality in health services research and practice to ensure evidence-based standards of care. Current trends indicate that user-friendly methodologies, for the dissemination of evidence-based standards of care, must be developed, tested and distributed. They should include approaches for the quantification and analysis of the textual content of systematic reviews and of their summaries in the form of critical reviews and lay-language summaries.     

SysFinder:A customized platform for search,comparison and assisted design of appropriate animal models based on systematic similarity

Animal models are increasingly gaining values by cross-comparisons of response or resistance to clinical agents used for patients.However,many disease mechanisms and drug effects generated from animal models are not transferable to human.To address these issues,we developed SysFinder(http://lifecenter.sgst.cn/SysFinder),a platform for scientists to find appropriate animal models for translational research.SysFinder offers a "topic-centered" approach for systematic comparisons of human genes,whose functions are involved in a specific scientific topic,to the corresponding homologous genes of animal models.Scientific topic can be a certain disease,drug,gene function or biological pathway.SysFinder calculates multi-level similarity indexes to evaluate the similarities between human and animal models in specified scientific topics.Meanwhile,SysFinder offers species-specific information to investigate the differences in molecular mechanisms between humans and animal models.Furthermore,SysFinder provides a userfriendly platform for determination of short guide RNAs(sgRNAs) and homology arms to design a new animal model.Case studies illustrate the ability of SysFinder in helping experimental scientists.SysFinder is a useful platform for experimental scientists to carry out their research in the human molecular mechanisms.     

Qualichem In Vivo: A Tool for Assessing the Quality of In Vivo Studies and Its Application for Bisphenol A

In regulatory toxicology, quality assessment of in vivo studies is a critical step for assessing chemical risks. It is crucial for preserving public health studies that are considered suitable for regulating chemicals are robust. Current procedures for conducting quality assessments in safety agencies are not structured, clear or consistent. This leaves room for criticism about lack of transparency, subjective influence and the potential for insufficient protection provided by resulting safety standards. We propose a tool called “Qualichem in vivo” that is designed to systematically and transparently assess the quality of in vivo studies used in chemical health risk assessment. We demonstrate its use here with 12 experts, using two controversial studies on Bisphenol A (BPA) that played an important role in BPA regulation in Europe. The results obtained with Qualichem contradict the quality assessments conducted by expert committees in safety agencies for both of these studies. Furthermore, they show that reliance on standardized guidelines to ensure scientific quality is only partially justified. Qualichem allows experts with different disciplinary backgrounds and professional experiences to express their individual and sometimes divergent views—an improvement over the current way of dealing with minority opinions. It provides a transparent framework for expressing an aggregated, multi-expert level of confidence in a study, and allows a simple graphical representation of how well the study integrates the best available scientific knowledge. Qualichem can be used to compare assessments of the same study by different health agencies, increasing transparency and trust in the work of expert committees. In addition, it may be used in systematic evaluation of in vivo studies submitted by industry in the dossiers that are required for compliance with the REACH Regulation. Qualichem provides a balanced, common framework for assessing the quality of studies that may or may not be following standardized guidelines.     

猪异种器官移植的人源化修饰

利用猪的器官来解决当前人源器官严重短缺,为解决移植器官短缺的可行的途径。用定向基因转移(gene targeting)手段,直接并准确地对α-1,3半乳糖苷转移酶（α-1,3GT）基因进行同源重组,使α-1,3GT失活,再结合猪体细胞克隆技术,对其进行人源化改造,减弱或消除排异反应。除对2-1.3GT进行基因定向修饰外,阻断由异种器官移植而激活的人类补体的串联反应是猪异种器官人源化修饰的另一途径。然而,猪内源性逆转录病毒（porcine endogenous retrovirus,PERV）造成的公共卫生问题,给异种器官移植的前景投下了阴影。因此,即要剔除导致人类排异反应的猪细胞表面的α-1,3GT及其相关的分子, 又要确保猪器官异种移植的安全性, 是尚待研究的重大课题。 Abstract:Xenotransplantation (XP) from pig into human has been considered as means to overcome the great lack of donor organ available in transplantation surgery.In order to weaken rejection between human and pig,approaches of gene targeting have been proposed to eliminate “ rejection gene”α-1,3GT from porcine cells directly and accurately.α-1,3GT knockout pigs can be produced by nuclear transfer cloning with the porcine cells(knocking out α-1,3GT).Besides the genetic modification of α-1,3GT in porcine cells,there is another technical way to interdict activity of complement in series for human by XP.However,porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERV) during XP has been thought to not be negligible in being transmitted with the xenograft to the human recipient.Therefore,it is importance task that we should not only knockout α-1,3GT and relative molecules from pigs,but also ensure safety in public health of XP from PERV.     

The origin of acquired immune deficiency syndrome: Can science afford to ignore it?

There is a crisis of public faith in science and scientists. Recent research shows concern over scientific ethics, transparency and who benefits from research and development, exemplified in the genetically modified organism debate. Scientific discussion of the polio vaccine hypothesis for the origin of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) has been systematically suppressed for more than 12 years. The author calls for an international multidisciplinary inquiry into the origin of AIDS, arguing it is essential to human health, prevention of new pandemics, and to protect the integrity of science in the eyes of the public.     

Emerging journals. The benefits of and challenges for publishing scientific journals in and by emerging countries

Emerging countries have established national scientific journals as an alternative publication route for their researchers. However, these journals eventually need to catch up to international standards.Since the first scientific journal was founded—The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665—the number of journals dedicated to publishing academic research has literally exploded. The Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge database alone—which represents far less than the total number of academic journals—includes more than 11,000 journals from non-profit, society and commercial publishers, published in numerous languages and with content ranging from the natural sciences to the social sciences and humanities. Notwithstanding the sheer scale and diversity of academic publishing, however, there is a difference between the publishing enterprise in developed countries and emerging countries in terms of the commercial rationale behind the journals.…‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals…Although all academic journals seek to serve their readership by publishing the highest quality and most interesting advances, a growing trend in the twentieth century has also seen publishers in developed countries viewing academic publishing as a way of generating profit, and the desire of journal editors to publish the best and most interesting science thereby serves the commercial interest of publishers who want people to buy the publication.In emerging countries, however, there are few commercial reasons to publish a journal. Instead, ‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals, either because the topic is of only local or marginal interest, or because the research does not meet the high standards for publication at an international level. Consequently, most ‘national'' journals are not able to finance themselves and depend on public funding. In Brazil, for instance, the national journals account for one-third of the publications of all scientific articles from Brazil and are mostly funded by the government. Other emerging countries that invest in research—notably China, India and Russia—also have a sizable number of national journals, most of which are published in their native language.There is little competition between developed countries to publish the most or the best scientific journals. There is clear competition between the top-flight journals—Nature and Science, for example—but this competition is academically and/or commercially, rather than nationally, based. In fact, countries with similar scientific calibres in terms of the research they generate, differ greatly in terms of the number of journals published within their borders. According to the Thomson Reuters database, for example, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden published 847, 202 and 30 scientific journal, respectively, in 2010—the Netherlands has been a traditional haven for publishers. However, the number of articles published by researchers in these countries in journals indexed by Thomson Reuters—a rough measurement of scientific productivity—does not differ significantly.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals […] some emerging countries have increased the number of national journalsScientists who edit directly or serve on the editorial boards of high-quality, international journals have a major responsibility because they guide the direction and set the standards of scientific research. In deciding what to publish, they define the quality of research, promote emerging research areas and set the criteria by which research is judged to be new and exciting; they are the gatekeepers of science. The distribution of these scientists also reflects the division between developed and emerging countries in scientific publishing. Using the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden as examples, they respectively contributed 235, 256 and 160 scientists to the editorial teams or boards of 220 high-impact, selected journals in 2005 (Braun & Diospatonyi, 2005). These numbers are comparable with the scientific production of these countries in terms of publications. On the other hand, Brazil, South Korea and Russia, countries as scientifically productive in terms of total number of articles as the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden, contributed only 28, 29 and 55 ‘gatekeepers'', respectively. A principal reason for this difference is, of course, the more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries, but it is nevertheless clear that their scientists are under-represented on the teams that define the course and standards of scientific research.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals, and to address the significant barriers to getting published that their scientists face, some emerging countries have increased the number of national journals (Sumathipala et al, 2004). Such barriers have been well documented and include poor written English and the generally lower or more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries. However, although English, which is the lingua franca of modern science (Meneghini & Packer, 2007), is not as great a barrier as some would claim, there is some evidence of a conscious or subconscious bias among reviewers and editors in judging articles from emerging countries. (Meneghini et al, 2008; Sumathipala et al, 2004).A third pressure has also forced some emerging countries to introduce more national journals in which to publish academic research from within their borders: greater scientific output. During the past two or three decades, several of these countries have made huge investments into research—notably China, India and Brazil, among others—which has enormously increased their scientific productivity. Initially, the new national journals aspired to adopt the rigid rules of peer review and the quality standards of international journals, but this approach did not produce satisfactory results in terms of the quality of papers published. On the one hand, it is hard for national journals to secure the expertise of scientists competent to review their submissions; on the other, the reviewers who do agree tend to be more lenient, ostensibly believing that peer review as rigorous as that of international journals would run counter to the purpose of making scientific results publicly available, at least on the national level.The establishment of national journals has, in effect, created two parallel communication streams for scientists in emerging countries: publication in international journals—the selective route—and publication in national journals—the regional route. On the basis of their perceived chances to be accepted by an international journal, authors can choose the route that gives them the best opportunity to make their results public. Economic conditions are also important as the resources to produce national journals come from government, so national journals can face budget cuts in times of austerity. In the worst case, this can lead to the demise of national journals to the disadvantage of authors who have built their careers by publishing in them.…to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progressThere is some anecdotal evidence that authors who often or almost exclusively publish in international journals hold national journals in some contempt—they regard them as a way of avoiding the effort and hassle of publishing internationally. Moreover, although the way in which governments regard and support the divergent routes varies between countries, in general, scientists who endure and succeed through the selective route often receive more prestige and have more influence in shaping national science policies. Conversely, authors who choose the regional publication route regard their efforts as an important contribution to the dissemination of information generated by the national scientific community, which might otherwise remain locked away—by either language or access policies. Either way, it is worth mentioning that publication is obviously not the end point of a scientific discovery: the results should feed into the pool of knowledge and might inspire other researchers to pursue new avenues or devise new experiments. Hence, to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progress.The choice of pursuing publication in regional or international journals also has direct consequences for the research being published. The selective, international route ensures greater visibility, especially if the paper is published in a high-impact journal. The regional route also makes the results and experiments public, but it fails to attract international visibility, in particular if the research is not published in English.It seems that, for the foreseeable future, this scenario will not change. If it is to change, however, then the revolution must be driven by the national journals. In fact, a change that raises the quality and value of national journals would be prudent because it would give scientists from emerging countries the opportunity to sit on the editorial boards of, or referee for, the resulting high-quality national journals. In this way, the importance of national journals would be enhanced and scientists from emerging countries would invest effort and gain experience in serving as editors or referees.The regional route has various weaknesses, however, the most important of which is the peer-review process. Peer-review at national journals is simply of a lower standard owing to several factors that include a lack of training in objective research assessment, greater leniency and tolerance of poor-quality science, and an unwillingness by top researchers to participate because they prefer to give their time to the selective journals. This creates an awkward situation: on the one hand, the inability to properly assess submissions, and on the other hand, a lack of motivation to do so.Notwithstanding these difficulties, most editors and authors of national journals hope that their publications will ultimately be recognized as visible, reliable sources of information, and not only as instruments to communicate national research to the public. In other words, their aspiration is not only to publish good science—albeit of lesser interest to international journals—but also to attain the second or third quartiles of impact factors in their areas. These journals should eventually be good enough to compete with the international ones, mitigating their national character and attracting authors from other countries.The key is to raise the assessment procedures at national journals to international standards, and to professionalize their operations. Both goals are interdependent. The vast majority of national journals are published by societies and research organizations and their editorial structures are often limited to local researchers. As a result, they are shoestring operations that lack proper administrative support and international input, and can come across as amateurish. The SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), which indexes national journals and measures their quality, can require certain changes when it indexes a journal, including the requirement to internationalize the editorial body or board.…experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors…In terms of improving this status quo, a range of other changes could be introduced. First, more decision-making authority should be given to publishers to decide how to structure the editorial body. The choice of ad hoc assistants—that is, professional scientists who can lend expertise at the editorial level should be selected by the editors—who should also assess journal performance. Moreover, publishers should try to attract international scientists with editorial experience to join a core group of two or three chief or senior editors. Their English skills, their experience in their research field and their influence in the community would catalyse a rapid improvement of the journals and their quality. In other words, experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors with the long-term objective to join the international scientific editing community. It would eventually merge the national and the selective routes of publishing into a single international route of scientific communication.Of course, there is a long way to go. The problem is that many societies and organizations do not have sufficient resources—money or experience—to attract international scientists as editors. However, new publishing and financial models could provide incentives to attract this kind of expertise. Ultimately, relying on government money alone is neither a reliable nor sufficient source of income to make national journals successful. One way of enhancing revenue streams might be to switch to an open-access model that would charge author fees that could be reinvested to improve the journals. In Brazil, for instance, almost all journals have adopted the open access model (Hedlund et al, 2004). The author fees—around US$1,250—if adopted, would provide financial support for increasing the quality and performance of the journals. Moreover, increased competition between journals at a national level should create a more dynamic and competitive situation among journals, raising the general quality of the science they publish. This would also feed back to the scientific community and help to raise the general standards of science in emerging countries.     

The use of government to protect and promote the health of the public through nutrition.

There are broad requirements for translation of scientific knowledge in nutrition to public policy through the legislative process. First, it requires an ability to take highly objective, highly specific, scientifically derived facts--the stuff of scientific knowledge--and translate them into legislation based on highly subjective, quite general, broadly perceived values. Another requirement is to keep the level of uncertainty to tolerable levels during consideration of a legislative proposal. Finally, the governmental action proposed must conform to the perception held at that particular time of the role of government in carrying out the law. Three examples of the use of government to protect and promote the health of the public through nutrition are given. They illustrate very well the trials and tribulations of the untidy process of translating scientific knowledge in nutrition to public policy. Governmental action to improve the health of the general public through dietary means has been much a part of this country's policies. The augmentation of purchasing power of the poor, the distribution of surplus commodities to the indigent, the provision of meals to school children and the elderly, etc., are examples of govermental action. There will be further use of government to protect and promote the health of the public through nutrition. A basic requirement is further understanding of the relationship between nutrients and health through good scientific work.     

Human safety controversies surrounding nitrate and nitrite in the diet

Nitrate and nitrite are part of the human diet as nutrients in many vegetables and part of food preservation systems. In the 1950s and 1960s the potential for formation of nitrosamines in food was discovered and it ignited a debate about the safety of ingested nitrite which ultimately focused on cured meats. Nitrate impurities in salt used in the drying of meat in ancient times resulted in improved protection from spoilage during storage. This evolved into their deliberate modern use as curing ingredient responsible for 'fixing' the characteristic color associated with cured meats, creating a unique flavor profile, controlling the oxidation of lipids, and serving as an effective antimicrobial. Several critical reports and comprehensive reviews reporting weak associations and equivocal evidence of nitrite human health safety have fostered concerns and debate among scientists, regulators, press, consumer groups, and consumers. Despite periodic controversy regarding human health concerns from nitrite consumption, a building base of scientific evidence about nitrate, nitrite, heme chemistry, and the overall metabolism of nitrogen oxides in humans has and continues to affirm the general safety of nitrate/nitrite in human health. As nitrite based therapeutics emerge, it is important to consider the past controversies and also understand the beneficial role in the human diet.