Neurodevelopmental effects: making the case for biologic plausibility

It has been suggested that the most critical missing link between science and policy is causality; that is, the establishment of a definite cause-effect relationship between exposure and adverse health effects. As has been clearly demonstrated by the decades-long tobacco debate, causality is extremely difficult to establish with absolute certainty, particularly in the minds of scientists. Because of this, it has been suggested that a "weight of evidence" approach based on biologic plausibility should be used as a surrogate for causality when translating science into policy and public health practice. In the case of neurodevelopmental effects, the case for biologic plausibility is supported by scientific findings from three broad areas consisting of wildlife biology, toxicology, and epidemiology. A striking example of this is provided by research findings from the Great Lakes Basin, an area which has been the focus of significant scientific research for the last thirty years in these three broad areas. In this paper, we examine relevant findings from the Great Lakes Basin and elsewhere as they relate to establishing and supporting the biologic plausibility of neurodevelopmental effects associated with environmental exposures to persistent toxic substances.