| 1. |
- Cho, Kunwoo, et al.
(författare)
-
Funding for radiation research : past, present and future
- 2019
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Radiation Biology. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0955-3002 .- 1362-3095. ; 95:7, s. 816-840
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- For more than a century, ionizing radiation has been indispensable mainly in medicine and industry. Radiation research is a multidisciplinary field that investigates radiation effects. Radiation research was very active in the mid- to late 20th century, but has then faced challenges, during which time funding has fluctuated widely. Here we review historical changes in funding situations in the field of radiation research, particularly in Canada, European Union countries, Japan, South Korea, and the US. We also provide a brief overview of the current situations in education and training in this field. A better understanding of the biological consequences of radiation exposure is becoming more important with increasing public concerns on radiation risks and other radiation literacy. Continued funding for radiation research is needed, and education and training in this field are also important.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pernot, Eileen, et al.
(författare)
-
Ionizing radiation biomarkers for potential use in epidemiological studies
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Mutation Research. - : Elsevier BV. - 1383-5742 .- 1388-2139. ; 751:2, s. 258-286
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Ionizing radiation is a known human carcinogen that can induce a variety of biological effects depending on the physical nature, duration, doses and dose-rates of exposure. However, the magnitude of health risks at low doses and dose-rates (below 100 mSv and/or 0.1 mSv min(-1)) remains controversial due to a lack of direct human evidence. It is anticipated that significant insights will emerge from the integration of epidemiological and biological research, made possible by molecular epidemiology studies incorporating biomarkers and bioassays. A number of these have been used to investigate exposure, effects and susceptibility to ionizing radiation, albeit often at higher doses and dose rates, with each reflecting time-limited cellular or physiological alterations. This review summarises the multidisciplinary work undertaken in the framework of the European project DoReMi (Low Dose Research towards Multidisciplinary Integration) to identify the most appropriate biomarkers for use in population studies. In addition to logistical and ethical considerations for conducting large-scale epidemiological studies, we discuss the relevance of their use for assessing the effects of low dose ionizing radiation exposure at the cellular and physiological level. We also propose a temporal classification of biomarkers that may be relevant for molecular epidemiology studies which need to take into account the time elapsed since exposure. Finally, the integration of biology with epidemiology requires careful planning and enhanced discussions between the epidemiology, biology and dosimetry communities in order to determine the most important questions to be addressed in light of pragmatic considerations including the appropriate population to be investigated (occupationally, environmentally or medically exposed), and study design. The consideration of the logistics of biological sample collection, processing and storing and the choice of biomarker or bioassay, as well as awareness of potential confounding factors, are also essential.
|
|
| 3. |
- Wojcik, Andrzej, et al.
(författare)
-
Considerations on the use of the terms radiosensitivity and radiosusceptibility
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Radiological Protection. - : IOP Publishing. - 0952-4746 .- 1361-6498. ; 38:3, s. N25-N29
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The separate use of the terms 'radiosensitivity' and 'radiosusceptibility' has been suggested to describe variability in the risk of, respectively, adverse tissue reactions (deterministic effect) following radiotherapy and radiationinduced cancer (stochastic effect). The aim of this note is to present arguments against such distinction. We feel that it is premature to make a concrete final judgement on these definitions because of the limited understanding of the mechanisms underlying individual sensitivity to both radiation-related cancers and radiation-related tissue injury. Moreover, the exclusive application of 'radiosensitivity' in relation to deterministic effects and the term 'radiosusceptibility' in relation to cancer carries the risk of being wrongly interpreted as evidence for a high, genetically driven sensitivity to radiation in all patients who develop adverse tissue reactions and a high genetic susceptibility to cancer in those who develop radiation-induced malignancies. There is a need for further research to better define these phenomena and their interrelationships.
|
|
