Understanding the factors that may impact the transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery of DNA (DNA-TPPR), and the availability of data to assign probabilities to DNA quantities and profile types being obtained given particular scenarios and circumstances, is paramount when performing, and giving guidance on, evaluations of DNA findings given activity level propositions (activity level evaluations). In late 2018 and early 2019, three major reviews were published on aspects of DNA-TPPR, with each advocating the need for further research and other actions to support the conduct of DNA-related activity level evaluations. Here, we look at how challenges are being met, primarily by providing a synopsis of DNA-TPPR-related articles published since the conduct of these reviews and briefly exploring some of the actions taken by industry stakeholders towards addressing identified gaps. Much has been carried out in recent years, and efforts continue, to meet the challenges to continually improve the capacity of forensic experts to provide the guidance sought by the judiciary with respect to the transfer of DNA.
Despite changing attitudes towards animal testing and current legislation to protect experimental animals, the rate of animal experiments seems to have changed little in recent years. On May 15–16, 2013, the In Vitro Testing Industrial Platform (IVTIP) held an open meeting to discuss the state of the art in alternative methods, how companies have, can, and will need to adapt and what drives and hinders regulatory acceptance and use. Several key messages arose from the meeting. First, industry and regulatory bodies should not wait for complete suites of alternative tests to become available, but should begin working with methods available right now (e.g., mining of existing animal data to direct future studies, implementation of alternative tests wherever scientifically valid rather than continuing to rely on animal tests) in non-animal and animal integrated strategies to reduce the numbers of animals tested. Sharing of information (communication), harmonization and standardization (coordination), commitment and collaboration are all required to improve the quality and speed of validation, acceptance, and implementation of tests. Finally, we consider how alternative methods can be used in research and development before formal implementation in regulations. Here we present the conclusions on what can be done already and suggest some solutions and strategies for the future.
The main objective of the study is to determine if non-specific physical symptoms (NSPS) in people with self-declared sensitivity to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) can be explained (across subjects) by exposure to RF EMF. Furthermore, we pioneered whether analysis at the individual level or at the group level may lead to different conclusions. By our knowledge, this is the first longitudinal study exploring the data at the individual level. A group of 57 participants was equipped with a measurement set for five consecutive days. The measurement set consisted of a body worn exposimeter measuring the radiofrequency electromagnetic field in twelve frequency bands used for communication, a GPS logger, and an electronic diary giving cues at random intervals within a two to three hour interval. At every cue, a questionnaire on the most important health complaint and nine NSPS had to be filled out. We analysed the (time-lagged) associations between RF-EMF exposure in the included frequency bands and the total number of NSPS and self-rated severity of the most important health complaint. The manifestation of NSPS was studied during two different time lags - 0–1 h, and 1–4 h - after exposure and for different exposure metrics of RF EMF. The exposure was characterised by exposure metrics describing the central tendency and the intermittency of the signal, i.e. the time-weighted average exposure, the time above an exposure level or the rate of change metric. At group level, there was no statistically significant and relevant (fixed effect) association between the measured personal exposure to RF EMF and NSPS. At individual level, after correction for multiple testing and confounding, we found significant within-person associations between WiFi (the self-declared most important source) exposure metrics and the total NSPS score and severity of the most important complaint in one participant. However, it cannot be ruled out that this association is explained by residual confounding due to imperfect control for location or activities. Therefore, the outcomes have to be regarded very prudently. The significant associations were found for the short and the long time lag, but not always concurrently, so both provide complementary information. We also conclude that analyses at the individual level can lead to different findings when compared to an analysis at group level. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.104948 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-bolte-0856134/
MULTIFILE
