Scientists agree chemicals can affect behavior, but industry workers more reluctant about safety testing

• Survey of 166 international experts highlights concerns about protecting human and wildlife health from environmental pollutants

• Less than a third of industry scientists support including behavioural tests in chemical safety assessments, compared to 80 per cent of academics and 91 per cent of government scientists

• Despite almost all scientists (97 per cent) agreeing that chemicals can affect wildlife behaviour, most testing is done by universities rather than chemical companies, leaving gaps in safety assessment

Peer-reviewed, survey

An international study led by the University of Portsmouth has revealed reluctance from industry scientists to testing chemicals for their effects on human and wildlife behaviour, despite growing evidence linking environmental pollutants to neurological disorders and behavioural changes.

The researchers surveyed 166 scientists across 27 countries working in environmental toxicology and behavioural ecology. They found that whilst 97 per cent of experts agree that contaminants can impact wildlife behaviour and 84 per cent believe they can affect human behaviour, there remains a stark divide between sectors on how to address these risks.

Industry scientists were consistently more sceptical about the reliability and necessity of behavioural testing compared to their academic and government counterparts, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest in chemical safety assessment.

The findings, published in Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, revealed 76 per cent of academics and 68 per cent of government scientists considered behavioural experiments reliable, compared to just 30 per cent from industry. 

When asked whether regulatory authorities should consider behavioural tests when assessing chemical safety, 80 per cent of academics and 91 per cent of government scientists agreed, but less than a third (30 per cent) of industry respondents supported this approach.

The connection between chemical exposure and behavioural changes is far from new. The English language shows evidence of these links in historical phrases like “mad as a hatter” - referring to hat-makers who suffered neurological damage from mercury poisoning - and “crazy as a painter,” describing the erratic behaviour of artists exposed to lead-based paints.

Today's concerns centre on whether modern pollution could be contributing to rising rates of dementia, Alzheimer's disease, autism, and even criminal behaviour. Recent studies have linked air pollution to neurological disorders, including Parkinson's and Huntington’s disease, whilst research continues to examine the role of environmental contaminants in neurodevelopmental conditions.

Professor Alex Ford from the University of Portsmouth's Institute of Marine Sciences, who led the research, expressed concern about industry attitudes: “What worries me is that industry appears apprehensive that testing chemicals for their behavioural effects will lead to increased costs and potentially uncover effects they'd rather not have to address. When we're talking about protecting human health and wildlife, surely using the most sensitive, and thereby most protective, data should take priority over profit margins.”

While the study found that industry respondents were significantly more likely to question the reliability and relevance of behavioural testing, the pharmaceutical industry extensively uses behavioural tests in drug development and there are regulations governing behavioural impairment from substances like alcohol and cannabis.

Recent studies have shown a 34-fold increase in research papers on behavioural effects in environmental toxicology since 2000, yet there’s still reluctance to incorporate these harm measurements into regulatory frameworks. 

“Our previous research shows that whilst European law doesn't prevent regulators from introducing behavioural tests for chemicals, there are very few official testing requirements in place,” explained Marlene Ågerstrand, co-author and researcher at Stockholm University.

“This means that most studies examining how chemicals affect behaviour are carried out by university researchers rather than chemical companies, resulting in incomplete coverage of potentially harmful substances.”

The new study builds on award-winning research from 2021, when Professor Ford and international colleagues won two best paper awards for their work on chemical behavioural studies.

The researchers want behavioural testing to become a standard part of chemical safety checks, with consistent testing methods and better cooperation between industry, government and academic scientists.

“The overwhelming majority of scientists - including those in industry - agree that contaminants can affect behaviour,” said Professor Ford. “The question now is whether we have the collective will to act on that knowledge to better protect human health and the environment.”

The study surveyed scientists from academia (47 per cent), government agencies (21 per cent), and industry/consultancy (27 per cent), with the remainder working in environmental NGOs and research institutions.

It was a collaboration between researchers from the University of Portsmouth in England, Stockholm University, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, German Environment Agency (UBA), Australian Environment Protection Agency, US EPA, Monash University in Australia), and Baylor University in the USA.