The NIEHS Predictive-Toxicology Evaluation Project: the need to distinguish informed uncertainty from ignorant equivocation.

stated that the Focus article did not "ade-quately explore the artist's or art faculty responsibility for learning to use art materials properly," and that Monona Rossol and I didn't believe that the hazard labeling regulations for art materials were adequate. Gottsegen also states that Rossol and I "place the blame for all this in the laps of the manufacturers of art materials or consulting toxicologists." Speaking for myself, I said in the Focus article that the Labeling of Hazardous Art Materials Act of 1988 improved labeling. My comments related to enforcement of labeling of imported art materials and the labeling of products from small companies. I agree with Gottsegen that the Consumer Product Safety Commission does not have an adequate budget for enforcement and education. However, that is not the fault of the users of art materials and does not take away from manufacturers the responsibility to follow existing regulations and to manufacture the safest possible art materials. Without adequate labeling, artists cannot know the hazards and needed precautions. Concerning the responsibility of artists and faculty to use materials properly, an extensive part of the article deals with the responsibility of the art schools to provide a safe environment, a point ignored by Gottsegen. In addition, Gottsegen well knows that education of artists and art teachers has been the major thrust of my more than 20 years of experience in this field, as illustrated by the several books and hundreds of lectures I have done on art hazards. I agree with his statement that it is the responsibility of artists to find out about the safe use of materials that are not marketed as art materials. That is why I emphasize the need for education of art students and teachers about art hazards and the need to change existing attitudes. During the public meeting that followed the first phase of the NIEHS Predictive-Toxicology Evaluation Project (1), a discussion took place regarding the status of equivocal predictions of carcinogenicity in relation to equivocal classifications of carcinogenicity. The matter was not resolved at that time. The same question resurfaced in the recent letter by Bristol et al. (2) in relation to the second (current) collaborative study. Given that the public meeting that will follow the present study will have many issues to debate (2,3) it seems worth discussing in advance how equivocal predictions should be handled. In situations where a predictive technique …