Part 2. OUR STOLEN FUTURE - Continuation of the book review by 
W.R. Moomaw in Chem. & Eng. News 1996, 74(14), 34-35.
   ...Admittedly, much of the evidence is not causative but correlative, 
such as relationship between high doses of PCB in mothers milk and 
behavioral problems in their offspring.  More solid data are the 
reproductive problems found in children of women taking the artificial
hormone diethylstilbestrol during pregnancy, the estrogen-like 
proliferation response of breast cells to alkyl phenols leached from 
some plastic ware (plastic food wraps!).
   Importantly, there is a need for large-scale synthesis of information
buried in separate scientific specialties.   Colborn deserves credit for 
seeking out experts in different fields and reading a vast number of 
research papers to create this synthesis.   Continued support of 
disciplinary-specific research is still needed but a portion of the 
research budget could also be spent on attempts to synthesize and 
integrate findings from individual fields.
   The book demonstates how scientists and funding agencies become 
captives of existing paradigms.  One example is the imbalance between 
the amount of money spent to find cancer genes, about which we can 
do little, and the low level of support to study the sources and 
mechanisms of cancers caused by diet and agents in the environment. 
 Most of the regulatory debate of the past 20 years has been shaped 
by the idea that chemically induced alterations to DNA can cause birth
defects, and cancer.  But dioxins could more likely be dangerous 
because of their effects on the endocrine system rather than on DNA.
   Dismissing the book because of several shortcomings, or because 
one sees it as an attack on chemicals will only be undermine public 
confidence in chemists and the chemical industry.  We have moved a 
long way since "Silent Spring" when the response of a defensive 
industrial community was denial, and even Chem. Eng. News joined in 
titling its review of the book:  Silence, Miss Carson.  With successful
industry-sponsored programs like Responsible Care, initiatives like ISO
14000, pledges such as the Business Center for Sustainable 
Development, and general compliance with the EPA's Toxic Release 
Inventory, it's hard to imagine a return to the reflexive lashing out
against "Silent Spring".
   The authors make clear: there are many gaps in the proposed links 
between very low levels of chemicals and the observed 
endocrine-related anatomical / behavioral anomalies.  Yet, the 
extensive environmental distribution of synthetic chemicals and the 
demonstrated impact of exposure to minuscule doses of endocrine 
mimics at critical times during fetal development require a credible 
response.
   Though some aspects of the book will be annoying to many 
chemists, ignoring its message would be a mistake.  Neither the public
nor political leaders are likely to ignore an alleged threat to the 
reproductive future of our own species.  The book has already played 
a role in the decision to convene a panel of the National Academy of 
Sciences to conduct a two-year evaluation of endocrine disrupters.
   Increasing support to test the validity of the proposed links will 
challenge the discipline-based funding structures at agencies like NSF
and NIH.  The chemical industry might create a fund to support 
independent, peer-reviewed hypothesis testing, as it did for the ozone
depletion issue.  At the very least, the public and the scientific 
community should demand an open debate on the scientific merits of 
the proposal.