There was a clear conflict between the ‘precautionary approach’ and the

‘pragmatic approach’, with the former supporting a ban on suspected endocrine disrupting pesticides until there are studies showing no adverse effects and the latter suggesting that all currently approved compounds have already been rigorously tested and not enough evidence found to deny their approval. Ultimately the decision to go pragmatic or precautionary must be made before all the evidence is in, but we should be careful of those who will continue to argue long past the point of reason that there is not enough evidence – look at the cigarette companies claiming for decades that there was no conclusive evidence linking smoking and lung cancer. The other area of distinct disagreement concerned exposure to mixtures of endocrine active compounds. On the one side was a group calling for ‘reality testing’ – humans and other non-target organisms are exposed to a mixture JNK inhibitor cell line of endocrine active compounds not to a single compound a time. Thus current tests don’t give a true picture of the risks we face and, given the evidence of additive and synergistic

effects, we cannot afford to ignore this reality. Others, however, argued that adequate mixture testing is almost impossible because of the infinite number of compounds and concentrations possible and that we should focus on single compounds. There was disagreement on the relative value of academic versus industry-funded studies, with arguments that only open access, academic research SB431542 be used when making regulatory decisions. Based on conversations during and after the workshop, the workshop goals of i) stimulating an informed debate on effects of exposure to endocrine-active pesticides and ii) stimulating policy making based on scientific evidence were achieved. It was largely agreed that this workshop contributed to a debate that should continue,

and that contentious issues related to endocrine disrupting effects, e.g., low dose effects, mixtures Etoposide order and worldwide vs. European regulatory efforts, need further examination. To address this, the SAFE consortium is organizing a second workshop on endocrines, with a focus on low dose exposures and non-monotonic dose–response curves in March 2011, and a report of that workshop will follow. “
“Clinical Nurse Consultants (CNCs) are a type of advanced practice nurse in the Registered Nurse scope in the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia (NSW Health, 2011a). The CNC position was introduced into the NSW state award structure in 1986 (O’Baugh, Wilkes, Vaughan, & O’Donohue, 2007), and was modeled on the Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS) role in the UK and USA (Baldwin et al., 2013). The role was created to provide a career pathway for experienced nurses who wished to maintain a clinical role, rather than moving into administration or education (Elsom, Happell, & Manias, 2006).