New Year, New Volume and New Chairman

A new year, a new volume of the Journal of Environmental Monitoring (JEM), number 5, and a new name at the foot of this latest editorial. Under Royal Society of Chemistry Terms of Reference for Editorial Boards, the Chairman of an Editorial Board cannot serve for more than four years. Thus, Professor Evert Nieboer, has retired from this Board and I have taken over as the new Chairman, effective from January 2003. My first duty, therefore, is to recognise the achievements of Professor Nieboer in his crucial role in the creation of JEM and in guiding it through its crucial first four years. His leadership of this exciting project during those years, coupled with his own personal international standing as an environmental scholar, has provided a firm platform for the Journal's burgeoning reputation and secure future. On behalf of the Editorial Board, I would like to thank him for his wisdom, sensitivity and vision – and not least his hard work – during the past four years and more. Professor Nieboer will of course continue to serve the Journal as a member of the International Advisory Board, and I am sure that I for one will continue to beat a path to his door for advice on all matters relating to the continued development and enhancement of the Journal. On a personal note, having known Evert Nieboer as a friend and colleague for more years than either of us would care to be reminded, I wish him continued success in his outstanding research career, and hope to see many more papers under his name within the pages of the Journal. I would also like to thank Dr Terry Clark, our column Editor for “Pesticides in Perspective”, who has also completed his three-year term on the Board. Dr. Clark has helped to effectively promote the journal to the general pesticides community, and his column has been very international and has spanned a variety of issues from organic farming through pesticide residues in food to legislative issues. He has established the precedent and quality criteria for future such columns in JEM, and we especially appreciate the style and format he has established.

As will be seen from the Aims and Scope of the Journal, environmental monitoring is a very broad multi- and interdisciplinary field of scientific enquiry. It represents a balanced blend of not only chemistry, but also the other core scientific disciplines of physics and biology, as well as the wide spectrum of applied physical and life science disciplines described by engineering and toxicology, respectively. These fields in turn interface with the more remote ones of epidemiology and medicine. But it is especially in the field of environmental health where all these disciplines come together. Here, while the characterization and quantitation of the natural environment have traditionally played strong roles, and will continue to do so, opportunities may emerge by which to widen our readership and, in turn, our influence.

With all this in mind, while remaining firmly within the remit of the Journal, we have the potential to widen our focus still further. To explore this question, we may refer to the environmental health paradigm that is often used during graduate education in the environmental health sciences. In this paradigm, we identify the environment and the people interacting with it, leading to exposure. In turn, this translates to some sort of cumulative dose in the exposed organism, followed by biological responses that may lead eventually to health effects. It follows that a full understanding of this scenario provides the basis of intervention, starting with policies and standards and in turn leading to technical and administrative actions. At this point, continued surveillance is required to ensure that the intervention is maintained and continues to be successful. The Aims and Scope of the Journal, as currently stated, clearly identify the opportunity for participation across the whole breadth of such activities. Indeed papers published during the first four years reflect this philosophy to a considerable extent.

Even the environment itself – as it relates to human health – may be defined very broadly. Air, water and soil of course remain cornerstones of our interest. But what we eat is also clearly part of our environment. So too are aspects of the physical environment, including temperature, humidity, pressure, ionizing and non-ionizing radiations, and sound. In addition, it is interesting to consider hazards in the environment that also include factors (e.g., dangerous machinery, roads, flying, etc.,) and activities (e.g., driving, violence, etc.) that might lead to injury. In this widest definition of the environment as it relates to human health, all such environmental factors are amenable to monitoring and quantitation. At its extreme edge, even, recent interest in environmental terrorism has raised many questions relating to the detection of “environmental events”, including the application of such non-traditional tools as the monitoring of indices of public health far removed from the traditional approaches reflected in the contents of journals whose emphasis lies firmly in the domain of the natural sciences. These may include, for example, the monitoring of population-based indices such as the rates of hospital admissions, insurance claims, etc. It might be said that such exercises are “environmental monitoring” in the broadest sense of the definition.

As we look at this framework, the question is asked: how far should the aims and scope of JEM be stretched towards encompassing the very broad description implied in the preceding? How far, or how often, should the content of papers stray from the traditional areas that relate to the monitoring of chemical, physical and biological agents in air, water and soil? To what extent can it – should it – be guided by the very general statement of the environmental health paradigm? Such periodic re-visiting of our definitions, assumptions and presumptions should be welcomed. But of course, in any re-interpretation of our aims and scope, the challenge would be for us to continue to speak to our primary constituency while attracting outstanding contributions and readership from those other areas. Whether such science belongs in the pages of JEM is a matter for its Editorial Board and ultimately its readers. Meanwhile, such discussion about the context of what we do provides much food for thought.

Finally, as we launch into Volume Five, I want to say that I will strive to work towards the same broad goals and attempt to meet the very high standards set by my predecessor and the Editorial Board. As we proceed, I should appreciate hearing from readers in response to the issues I have raised here or on any other matter relating to environmental monitoring. For all readers of JEM, I wish you all a good scientific year.

Professor James H. Vincent

Chairman

---