Panel recommends shifts in EPA research priorities, resources A long-awaited National Research Council (NRC) report recommends some fundamental changes in EPA's research programs. A draft of the study, released in late June, ad­vises the agency to take a more balanced approach, one that con­tinues EPA's current focus on "problem-driven" research while increasing its emphasis on long-term "core" studies. Core studies, the report said, would help EPA understand the underlying reasons for immediate problems and antic­ipate environmental issues of the future.

"In the past, pressing enviro-nental issues have been addressed primarily through focused research efforts directed toward solving particular problems," said the re­port, which is due out in final form this fall. "Although this ap­proach to environmental research can be effective, . . . it also has limitations. In order to address the abundance of established, emerging, and as-yet-unknown environmental issues, an ex­panded understanding of the sci­entific principles underlying envi­ronmental systems is needed."

The changes, said Raymond C. Loehr, the University of Texas civil

engineering professor who chaired the committee, "would allow them to be much more an­ticipatory than they have been" in the past. Loehr also said a greater emphasis on core research could help the agency better under­stand current problems. EPA's current approach toward risk as­sessment, for example, is "far from perfect." Areas for improve­ment include extrapolation of an­imal data to human risk, quantifi­cation of the variability in human population responses to the same levels of toxic chemical exposure, and better exposure assessment for humans and ecosystems alike. "These questions can be ap­proached by better defining the underlying molecular, biochemi­cal, and cellular changes that ac­cumulate to produce a toxic re­sponse," the report said.

The report, the first of two by the council, is a key component of the Clinton administration's effort to overhaul EPA's oft-criticized re­search programs outlined earlier (ES&T, November 1996, 492A). In 1994, EPA Administrator Carol Browner drastically reorganized the agency's 12 major laboratories into four national "megalabs" to

focus the agency's research. As part of that overhaul, NRC was asked to offer recommendations on future research direction. An­other NRC committee, assessing the reorganization itself, is ex­pected to issue a report this fall.

EPA officials said the report will be invaluable as the agency sets its research priorities for the next decade and beyond and, presumably, asks Congress for more money to fund the ex­panded research effort. Signifi­cant action is unlikely, however, until EPA names a replacement for Robert Huggett, assistant ad­ministrator for the Office of Re­search and Development (ORD), who resigned in May. "Having a report like this prepared by some­one with the credibility of the Na­tional Research Council will cer­tainly be very helpful to us," said Joseph Alexander, acting assistant administrator of ORD.

In addition to achieving greater balance between prob­lem-driven and core research, the committee recommended that the agency staff develop an inter­nal mechanism to identify emerg­ing issues and then apply a risk assessment evaluation to deter­mine the highest priorities. The agency also was encouraged to develop an in-house mechanism for establishing research priorities among current and emerging is­sues, with an emphasis on those with "relevance to EPA's mission." Alexander said EPA would ask several professional scientific so­cieties to assist in this task.

The report said EPA should also cooperate more closely with other agencies, organizations, municipalities, universities, and industries involved in environ­mental research and encourage more interaction among scien­tists. "This would help 'scanning the horizon' to identify environ­mental trends and emerging problems," the report said.

Finally, the agency should compile and issue an annual summary of all research done or funded by the agency to facilitate greater cooperation among scien­tists. EPA funds about $500 mil­lion in research annually. —RAE TYSON

HEALTH ADVISORY

Mercury incidents rise, agencies issue warning

Two federal agencies say they are alarmed that an increasing number of U.S. children and teens are being exposed to liquid mercury. Both EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) issued an advi­sory July 11 warning parents, school administrators, and teachers about the potential risks of mercury exposure. Although evidence is largely anecdotal, "we are definitely seeing an increase in mercury incidents; and most of the incidents involve children," said ATSDR spokesperson Loretta Bush.

Metallic mercury, a hazardous material that vaporizes at room tempera­ture, is found in a host of common household items, including thermometers, fluorescent lights, and barometers. It is also used in classrooms for experi­mentation and can be found in medical testing devices. Once spilled, it is ex­tremely difficult to clean up. One of the most instinctive responses in the home, for example—using a vacuum cleaner to clean up a mercury spill—will simply hasten the vaporization process and increase the risk.

The main risk in the classroom is from an accidental spill, but the agen­cies also said science teachers and school administrators should put mercury or mercury-containing instruments in locked cabinets when not in use.

Although much of the advisory dealt with school-related incidents, the agencies warned of similar risks in the home. The biggest problem, they said, comes from the lack of parental awareness. Even a few drops "can raise air concentrations to levels that may be harmful," the advisory said. —RAE TYSON

4 1 0 A • VOL. 31, NO. 9, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS