Â鶹ÒùÔº

An international study led by the University of Portsmouth has revealed reluctance from industry scientists to test chemicals for their effects on human and wildlife behavior, despite growing evidence linking environmental pollutants to neurological disorders and behavioral changes.

The researchers surveyed 166 scientists across 27 countries working in environmental toxicology and behavioral ecology. They found that while 97% of experts agree that contaminants can impact wildlife behavior and 84% believe they can affect human behavior, there remains a stark divide between sectors on how to address these risks.

Industry scientists were consistently more skeptical about the reliability and necessity of behavioral testing compared to their academic and government counterparts, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest in chemical safety assessment.

The findings, in Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, revealed that 76% of academics and 68% of government scientists considered behavioral experiments reliable, compared to just 30% from industry.

When asked whether regulatory authorities should consider behavioral tests when assessing chemical safety, 80% of academics and 91% of government scientists agreed, but less than a third (30%) of industry respondents supported this approach.

The connection between chemical exposure and behavioral changes is far from new. The English language shows evidence of these links in historical phrases like "mad as a hatter"—referring to hatmakers who suffered neurological damage from mercury poisoning—and "crazy as a painter," describing the erratic behavior of artists exposed to lead-based paints.

Today's concerns center on whether modern pollution could be contributing to rising rates of dementia, Alzheimer's disease, autism, and even criminal behavior. have linked air pollution to neurological disorders, including Parkinson's and Huntington's disease, while research continues to examine the role of environmental contaminants in neurodevelopmental conditions.

Professor Alex Ford from the University of Portsmouth's Institute of Marine Sciences, who led the research, expressed concern about industry attitudes, saying, "What worries me is that industry appears apprehensive that testing chemicals for their behavioral effects will lead to increased costs and potentially uncover effects they'd rather not have to address. When we're talking about protecting human health and wildlife, surely using the most sensitive, and thereby most protective, data should take priority over profit margins."

While the study found that industry respondents were significantly more likely to question the reliability and relevance of behavioral testing, the pharmaceutical industry extensively uses behavioral tests in drug development and there are regulations governing behavioral impairment from substances like alcohol and cannabis.

Recent studies have shown a 34-fold increase in research papers on behavioral effects in environmental toxicology since 2000, yet there's still reluctance to incorporate these harm measurements into regulatory frameworks.

" shows that while European law doesn't prevent regulators from introducing behavioral tests for chemicals, there are very few official testing requirements in place," explained Marlene Ã…gerstrand, co-author and researcher at Stockholm University.

"This means that most studies examining how chemicals affect behavior are carried out by university researchers rather than chemical companies, resulting in incomplete coverage of potentially harmful substances."

The new study builds on award-winning research from 2021, when Professor Ford and international colleagues won two best paper awards for their work on chemical behavioral studies.

The researchers want behavioral testing to become a standard part of chemical safety checks, with consistent testing methods and better cooperation between industry, government and academic scientists.

"The overwhelming majority of scientists—including those in industry—agree that contaminants can affect behavior," said Professor Ford. "The question now is whether we have the collective will to act on that knowledge to better protect human health and the environment."

The study surveyed scientists from academia (47%), government agencies (21%), and industry/consultancy (27%), with the remainder working in environmental NGOs and research institutions.

It was a collaboration between researchers from the University of Portsmouth in England, Stockholm University, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, the German Environment Agency (UBA), the Australian Environment Protection Agency, US EPA, Monash University in Australia, and Baylor University in the U.S.