Behavioral Teratology: What's Not in a Name: A reply to Cattabeni and Abbracchio

A recent critique of behavioral teratology by Cattabeni and Abbracchio stated four principle criticisms of the field. These were, first, that the documented effects in the literature in this field are poorly understood and may not represent genuine cases of adverse effects upon the progeny. Second, that the field is filled with suspect 'positives' as evidenced by the long list of agents identified as behavioral teratogens. Third, that the term 'behavioral teratology' defines itself in terms of "subtle behavioral effects [occurring] in the absence of overt signs of neurotoxicity." Fourth, that 'behavioral teratology' is a misnomer. First, the assertion that most of the effects in this field are unknown as to whether they are beneficial or adverse is untrue. Most of the effects observed in experimental animals can be compared to those in humans and to established developmental neurotoxins (positive controls). Second, the number of agents identified as behavioral teratogens in experimental animals is not an indication that the methods in the field are flawed. More agents have been identified experimentally as behavioral teratogens than have been confirmed or disconfirmed in humans partly due to a lack of adequate data in humans and partly because behavioral teratogenicity obeys the same principle as occurs in all fields of toxicology, i.e., dose-dependency. Since many of the identified effects are observed at dosages many times those to which humans are exposed, just as occurs for teratogenicity, carcinogenicity, and mutagenicity, this is not an indication of flawed methodology. Third, the notion that behavioral teratogenesis is defined in terms of 'subtle' effects is refuted by examining recent reviews.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)