What Can Research Contribute to Regulatory Decisions about the Health Risks of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity?

Abstract

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), which may not be caused by chemicals at all, is a serious medical problem of unknown origin and uncertain etiology that raises many fundamental science and policy questions. Regulators, for example, are confronted with a dilemma: what, if anything, should be done to protect people from the scientifically uncertain health risks of exposures to extremely low levels of environmental chemicals. Regulatory agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, do not have the luxury of waiting until conclusive scientific evidence is available before making a decision; however, our present lack of scientific understanding about MCS is so acute that it is not possible to ascertain whether the cause of MCS-related symptoms is chemical, biological, physical, pyschosocial, or some combination thereof. Nevertheless, many MCS sufferers and advocates for the chemically induced hypothesis are clamoring for regulatory action to reduce putative health risks from very-low-level exposures to chemicals in the environment. Unless steps are taken to improve the quantity and quality of the existing scientific data base, we cannot, with any acceptable degree of certainty, evaluate the extent to which regulatory decisions about MCS are either protective of public health or cost-effective. This article examines how research can strengthen the scientific basis for risk-related decisions about MCS, and proposes a framework for establishing research directions and priorities. It is argued that high-priority research on MCS is distinquishable by four attributes: (1) results are valuable for risk-related decisions; (2) findings significantly advance scientific knowledge and understanding; and the hypothesis being tested is both (3) biologically plausible and (4) readily testable.