LAUSR

As the former chair of the MAK Commission, I highly appreciate the recent editorial published in this journal (Hengstler 2018). It not only describes the successful work of the committee—both past and ongoing—but also addresses the future challenges it faces due to the immense impact of its decisions on both industry and society. Also touched upon is the challenge now faced by the MAK Commission to develop new concepts for the evaluation of hazardous chemicals by integrating advanced scientific knowledge. The MAK Commission is one of a handful of permanent Senate Commissions of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the major scientific organisation in Germany. This structure has been of advantage to the committee because it has always assured independence from outside institutions, such as private industries, NGOs and regulatory agencies. This is well accepted by all parties, and to the best of my knowledge, no attempts have thus far been made to influence the decision-making process. The DFG supports a scientific secretariat that closely operates with the chairperson to draft and present reports that are discussed during meetings. The chairperson, who is responsible for the work and efficiency of the MAK Commission, is required to have a broad scientific background, extensive experience, as well as the competence to discuss and promote challenging proposals suggested by the committee members. These include the establishment of occupational exposure levels, and the evaluation of carcinogens, germ cell mutagens, and reprotoxic agents. Further tasks include biomonitoring studies and the improvement of analytical methods. Finally to improve the risk assessment process for hazardous materials, recent scientific findings must be continuously considered in risk assessment procedures. Currently, there are several topics being addressed by the international scientific community that need to be resolved. Among them are the relevance of high dose effects observed in experimental animals for classification and labelling, threshold effects of genotoxic carcinogens, alternatives to life-time carcinogenicity studies, or differentiation between adaptive and adverse effects. By dealing with such questions, the MAK Commission meets one of the main and very relevant tasks of the DFG—to present scientific advice to the political arena and the public. There is international consensus that the aforementioned tasks and others are optimally performed under the commission of the DFG, because it guarantees the independence of the MAK Commission. Any attempt to transfer the MAK Commission to another organization, such as a governmental agency, will certainly impair its independence, efficiency and scientific reputation. Since the outcome of the commission’s work is open for public consultation and is usually evaluated by the competent authorities, its work has a significant impact on the regulation of chemicals at workplaces in Germany as well as internationally. All MAK documents are available online via open access, and each year there are approximately 200,000 logins for further information. On a personal note, I am extremely proud of the work that I, together with the other members of the MAK commission have achieved over the years, and the stellar reputation we have built for the organization, both nationally and internationally. Therefore, it is with a heavy heart that I must amend the editorial (Hengstler 2018) regarding my continued work with the committee. Until this year, despite no longer being the chairperson, I was very content to continue supporting the committee as a guest expert. However, in May 2018, I received a short letter from the DFG informing me that I am no longer suitable to work as an expert for the MAK Commission. The reasons provided for my termination were my involvement in the public discussions on glyphosate and Diesel emissions. No further justification was given—neither by the DFG nor by the present chairperson of the MAK * Helmut Greim [email protected]