Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 48
Toxicogenomic Technologies and Risk Assessment of Environmental Carcinogens: A Workshop Summary Appendix A WORKSHOP AGENDA Critical Issues in Carcinogenic Risk Assessment and Toxicogenomics Technologies December 15, 2003 National Academies 500 Fifth Street, Washington, DC Regulatory agencies (e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration) are often told that new “–omic” technologies will impact chemical risk assessment, but specifics on how this may occur are not always clear. At the other end of the spectrum, scientists using the new “-omic” technologies could have a greater impact on risk assessment and toxicology by asking questions critically important to the assessment of chemical carcinogenicity. By illustrating critical gaps and discussing how the technologies may be most helpful, this meeting will help stimulate a dialog among risk assessors, toxicologists, and genomics researchers. 8:00 Welcome and Introduction. Dave Eaton and Linda Greer 8:10 Role of non-tumor data in assessment of carcinogenicity. Jim Bus
OCR for page 49
Toxicogenomic Technologies and Risk Assessment of Environmental Carcinogens: A Workshop Summary 8:50 Key issues (common critical gaps) in cancer determinations. Jack Moore 9:45 Break 10:00 What types of toxicogenomics experiments have been attempted to address critical gaps in risk assessment? Cheryl Walker and Ken Ramos 10:45 Case Study Discussion: Identify specific situations in risk assessment where toxicogenomics could be very useful and where it would be less useful. Overview of method for case studies discussion. Linda Greer Case Study Discussion I: • Presentation of 1,3-Butadiene Risk Assessment. Ken Ramos • Discussion of 1,3-Butadiene Risk Assessment questions that might be addressed with toxicogenomics techniques. Ken Ramos 1:30 Case Study Discussion II: • Presentation of Arsenic Risk Assessment. David Eaton • Discussion of Arsenic Risk Assessment questions that might be addressed with toxicogenomics techniques. Cheryl Walker 3:15 Break 3:35 Discussion and summary of issues presented in each of the two chemicals, with an aim of generalizing to list of opportunities for the field of toxicogenomics. Linda Greer 5:15 Adjourn
Representative terms from entire chapter: