Industrial Health Foundation, Inc., 34 Penn Circle West, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-3612
Received September 3, 1999; accepted September 3, 1999
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() |
---|
During the spring and summer of 1980, many established and experienced toxicologists became apprentices again: as professors in universities instead of teaching students; as group and department leaders in industry instead of supervising the preparation of reports on toxicity studies; as toxicologists in regulatory agencies instead of scrutinizing reports on safety evaluation studies, all went back to the books and studied toxicology. Their goal: to pass the first certification examination given by the newly created American Board of Toxicology. Success in passing the examination would convey the coveted title of "Diplomate," and thus the distinction of being recognized as an expert in the discipline of toxicology. The examination loomed large in the minds of manya mock exam had become available and it was soon realized that, in order to pass successfully, one had to have a very broad, and yet detailed, knowledge of toxicology, from knowing mechanisms of action of specific poisons to being familiar with biostatistics and risk assessment. The second edition of Casarett's and Doull's Toxicology was eagerly awaited and, when it became available, read by many from cover to cover.
Why had it become necessary to certify toxicologists? In the mid 1970s, the Food and Drug Administration had been stung by several incidents in which the agency had received some unreliable or outright fraudulent reports on the evaluation of chemicals for safety. This prompted the FDA to issue guidelines on "Good Laboratory Practice." If these guidelines were not adhered to in the conduct of toxicity studies, the results would not be acceptable to the FDA.
There was a real possibility that the agency would go even one step further and define who was qualified to conduct such studies, i.e., essentially define by its own criteria who could be considered to be a toxicologist. The Council of SOT was deeply concerned about such a possibility and decided to act. In the fall of 1977, under the chairmanship of SOT councilor Fred Oehme, a group of SOT members met in Manhattan, Kansas for a three-day meeting. One subcommittee of this group dealt with certification and laid the groundwork for what was eventually to become the American Board of Toxicology.
After several years of additional consideration and deliberation, SOT (through its Council) decided that, in order to develop and administer certification in the area of general toxicology, formation of an independent group was appropriate for developing and administering certification in the area of general toxicology. Several lawyers were contracted ad hoc, to deal with incorporation matters, and the application was filed on April 17, 1979. SOT, together with nominees from other existing Boards (Forensic Toxicology, Veterinary Toxicology, Veterinary Pathology, and Occupational Medicine), then appointed the first group to serve on the new Board in the start-up capacity. It was further agreed that the initial Board would not receive automatic grandfathering as Diplomates, and, should they wish to become Diplomates, needed to wait for 3 years after leaving the Board before being eligible for examination. The initial Board (after a few substitutions) was as follows: Drs. Bert Dinman, John Doull, Bob Forney, Seymour Friess, Bert Koestner, Marv Kuschner, Gene Paynter, Bill Rinehart, and Ray Suskind. According to official minutes of the Board, the first organizational meeting to approve the Articles of Incorporation and begin to discuss operational matters was held on April 24, 1979. Officers of the Board (by unanimous resolution) were Seymour Friess, President; John Doull, Vice President; Gene Paynter, Secretary; and Bert Koestner, Treasurer.
The prime issues before the Board consisted of (1) developing criteria for eligibility for examination, and (2) moving toward development of a self-evaluation examination (SEE) that would assist potential Diplomates to prepare for certification.
To the first goal, in recognition that obtaining an advanced degree should not be the sole qualifier, it was felt that candidates should be able to demonstrate experience and expertise in designing, performing, and evaluating results of toxicity studies and/or to function in a professional and decision-making role in the application of toxicity data. Merely acting in a technician-type capacity (regardless of duration) was considered insufficient. To this end, both transcripts of educational background and letters of recommendation detailing a candidate's expertise were required. It is reasonable to state that probably more of the original candidates were rejected due to incomplete or insufficient dossiers than on insufficient technical merit. After initial review by the eligibility sub-committee, a candidate's dossier was classified in one of three ways: (a) clearly eligible; (b) questionable on technical expertise; or (c) probably not eligible due to inadequate experience and/or incomplete documentation. The full Board was then given the opportunity to review the dossiers of all candidates and, following discussion, a decision was made by the full Board on the eligibility of each candidate. Many of these were tough calls [especially in categories (b) and (c)], but it is to be emphasized that unilateral decisions were not made. About 75% of the first group of applicants were found eligible for examination.
With regard to the preparation of the SEE, we started by reviewing a batch of questions provided by John Doull from the University of Kansas, Department of Toxicology. Having concluded that the exam should emphasize three areas (general tox, special tox, and hazard assessment and safety evaluation), the available questions were categorized, modified, and added to, as appropriate, by the examination sub-committee, in order to develop a base of available questions at least twice to three times as large as needed. Again, the full Board reviewed each of the proposed questions and agreed on the appropriate answer before a given question was incorporated into the final ABT bank. For the SEE and the first qualifying exam, questions were selected (by category area) by random computerized generation, to avoid specific bias by the Board.
An agreed-on administrative approach was reached that our original Board would begin to rotate off within 3 years or less, as soon as Diplomates were certified by examination to take our places. The first examination was given in Washington, D.C., Indianapolis, Indiana, San Francisco, California, and London, England on August 4, 1980. Of the approximately 400 persons who took the exam, 217 Diplomates certified in all 3 parts. Other candidates who passed two parts were provided an opportunity to correct the deficiency by re-examination of the failed part in 1981. Those who failed two or three parts were required to retake the full exam. In January 1981, the Board elected Drs. James Beall, John Moore, Fred Oehme, and Charles Reinhardt for four-year terms as new Diplomates to the Board. In late 1981 and 1982, the rotation of the original Board began, leaving the incoming Diplomates to wrestle with keeping things running and addressing the heavy issues of re-certification, etc.
Having been on the original Board was a tremendously gratifying experience and I'm sure the other members would endorse this sentiment. It is hoped this brief history of the activation of the original ABT Board will be helpful to those lacking specific knowledge of some of the "whens" and "hows" that got us where we are today.
![]() |
NOTES |
---|