Can mutation theories of carcinogenesis set priorities for carcinogen testing programs?

Abstract

The recent activity in designing, validating and implementing short-term tests for carcinogens has been spurred by the fairly convincing correlation between the carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of chemicals and by the assumption that mutations are somehow involved in neoplastic transformation. Moreover, it has been tacitly assumed that the mutagenic capacity alone of compounds would induce regulatory agencies to pass rules for their removal from man's environment, and would lead the public to avoid them. The actual response, however, is quite different. Government departments shy away from making any decisions on the basis of in vitro test systems, the public at large is becoming irritated by daily announcements that many of their cherished habits could adversely affect their health, and industries feel threatened and may reduce their search for new beneficial chemicals. The reluctance to accept wholeheartedly the mutagenicity tests for the detection of carcinogens is partly due to the uncertainty about the involvement of mutations in the formation of benign and malignant tumors. Following the initial rapid advances in the detection of environmental chemicals with carcinogenic and mutagenic properties, we seem to have arrived at the cross roads: we must now set new priorities for future research, and must make an unbiased assessment of the actual hazard of a compound to man and the human population.