If you were to gather a group of ecotoxicologists in a room and ask each what the most significant chemical threat is to the environment, chances are you would find as many different contaminants as individuals. Perhaps a more difficult question would be which, if any, truly represents an existential environmental threat relative to macro‐scale problems, such as habitat loss, invasive species, disease and pathogens, or climate change. Even when contaminant impacts are clear and pronounced, effects tend to be localized and, in many cases, without broader, lasting ecological implications (e.g., effects of estrogenic compounds in wastewater on fish, soil, and plant biodiversity at contaminated industrial sites or impairment of fish and benthos due to mine or pulp and paper mill effluent). In our minds, this raises the issue that perhaps, as a discipline, we have lost context and perspective on the role of ecotoxicological research, potentially to our peril.

Anecdotally, but with seemingly regular occurrence, we observe that when research is featured in the popular press or even at conferences, the narrative often conveys proclamations of profound outcomes associated with the newest “bad actor.” Yet many studies pronouncing the next watershed moment in the field of ecotoxicology often suffer from lack of replication, inconsistency of observed effects, and methodological flaws and are frequently taken out of context (see the discredited case of microplastic toxicity in fish for an example of confirmation bias overwhelming common sense [Lönnstedt and Eklöv 2016]). Overall, it is rare to see a narrative indicating “this issue is really not a significant problem,” and although some media outlets have a propensity to stoke sensationalist fires, we as ecotoxicologists should not.

As scientists, we need to ensure that the relative risks associated with anthropogenic stressors are put in their appropriate context. Unless we cast a critical and introspective eye, we risk overemphasizing contaminants as seminal anthropogenic drivers of environmental change that may actually be ancillary (relatively speaking), potentially resulting in a gradual deterioration in credibility regarding our role in a much broader collective effort to preserve and enhance environmental protection; and we are not alone in sharing this concern (see Burton 2017a, 2017b; Johnson et al. 2020). This is effectively a call to intellectual self‐awareness such that when we identify something as a consequential “problem,” it is one, one that justifies corresponding resources to resolve. The question of why ecotoxicologists tend to “up‐sell” is a complicated one, worthy of further discussion because it speaks to a root problem but may be explained by the same motivators that influence science research in general at times (e.g., the need for funding, the need to publish, the need for impact, the desire for career advancement [Hanson et al. 2018]).

This discussion is in no way meant to diminish what we do and have done as scientists and our significant contributions to environmental protection. Nor is it to say that contaminants have not, could not, and do not have potential to cause ecological harm. We are also not advocating that contaminants be introduced to our soil, air, or water unimpeded or unregulated; in fact, the opposite is true. Robust regulatory oversight grounded fundamentally in science is critical and, in many cases, highly effective at ensuring that contaminants do not result in unacceptable impacts (though the definition of what is or is not acceptable is not always explicit). What we are saying is that we need to be conscientious, pragmatic, and judicious with respect to defining and declaring consequential agents of environmental change.

Stepping back, it is important to remember that ecotoxicology emerged as a response to a growing awareness of actual observed impacts of inadequately regulated chemicals used in industry and agriculture on the environment (Hoffman et al. 2002). Consequently, laws and regulations were created, primarily in the United States initially, to oversee the evaluation and approval of new and existing chemicals (e.g., the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) and ensure the protection of sensitive species (e.g., the Endangered Species Act of 1973). Domestically, these have since expanded dramatically, and variations have been adopted internationally, including global treaties (Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants of 2001). In turn, the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) was born as a forum to bring tripartite stakeholders (industry, government, and academia) together and has advanced science in the service of environmental protection for over 40 yr. We have now undoubtedly reached a point where, for the majority of ecotoxicologists and SETAC members, these milestones and the events that precipitated them predate living memory. Our history is becoming just that—“history.” We feel it is time to critically reflect and reevaluate how we as scientists think about, prioritize, and tackle potential contaminant threats to ecosystems and society as a whole.

All of us can think of examples where a chemical contaminant was highly problematic and, as a result of regulatory oversight, effective action was taken; and many of these compounds are now “legacy” issues (e.g., organochlorines and polychlorinated biphenyls). More recently, the most significant contemporary species loss explicitly known to be contaminant‐related was a result of vultures inadvertently exposed to the pharmaceutical diclofenac (see Oaks et al. 2004). This is an elegant case study in how conservation biology and ecotoxicology worked together to successfully identify and address an observed decline in a species. A number of putative causes were hypothesized (pesticides, metals, disease) and tested, allowing for a weight‐of‐evidence determination of cause, and ultimately for action to be taken, hopefully in time to save this species from the brink of extinction. However, if our impulse is to simply implicate the contaminant sujet du jour et intérêt, we collectively run the risk of potentially identifying and addressing the wrong source of the right problem. This will ultimately erode our credibility in the court of public and professional opinion and do the environment no good.

To help obtain perspective and ensure that ecotoxicology remains a significant contributor to environmental protection, we suggest the following. 1) Know the regulatory framework that oversees stressors of interest. Will your studies contribute to data gaps and ensure that effects are effectively and pragmatically mitigated? How are you helping to improve that regulatory framework? To echo Johnson et al. (2020), are more studies on the effects of ethinyl estradiol in fish really needed by regulators? 2) Familiarize yourself with what is being done in other disciplines in the areas of environmental protection (e.g., conservation biology, agriculture, forestry, engineering) and what they see as the major drivers of ecological change. To illustrate, today bird populations in North America and elsewhere are influenced by several significant drivers, such as invasive species (including domestic and feral cats), collisions with buildings, habitat loss, and poaching, that ultimately eclipse contaminant contributions (Brain and Anderson 2019), many times without the benefit of concerted regulatory oversight to help address. 3) Perform simple thought experiments. a) If this contaminant were to disappear, what specific and measurable improvements would occur and over what time frame? b) What could be the negative or unintended consequences of its prohibition (e.g., are the replacements or alternatives worse)? 4) Characterize the scale of a given contaminant's influence. What are the extent and magnitude of exposure? Is this a local, regional, or global issue? 5) Consider the totality of causal evidence in support of the hypothesis that the contaminant contributes significantly to environmental harm. Is it truly compelling? 6) Each of us should be our own toughest critic. What data or studies would refute your hypothesis of harm? Are you performing those studies yourself? 7) Finally, and perhaps most importantly, be open to the notion that your contaminant of interest/research may not be the fundamental issue. Again, we do not want to make it appear as though a problem has been solved when the underlying fundamental issues remain. This should not be seen as a failure but rather a good news story—“This is not a significant problem.”

Ecotoxicology has made and continues to make valuable contributions to collectively protect the environment. We think we can best live up to our potential, and those of future ecotoxicologists, by remembering to step back occasionally to see the entire (figurative) forest and not just the trees.

如果您要在一个房间里聚集一组生态毒理学家，并询问每一个对环境最重要的化学威胁，那么很可能您会发现与个体一样多的不同污染物。相对于宏观问题，例如栖息地丧失，入侵物种，疾病和病原体或气候变化，相对于宏观问题，哪怕是真正存在的生存环境威胁，也许是一个更困难的问题。即使污染物的影响是明显且明显的，其影响也往往是局部的，并且在许多情况下，没有更广泛，持久的生态影响（例如，废水中的雌激素化合物对受污染的工业场所的鱼类，土壤和植物生物多样性的影响）。鱼和底栖动物（由于矿山或纸浆和造纸厂的废水）。在我们看来，这引起了一个问题，也许是，

有趣的是，但似乎是定期发生的，我们观察到，当研究成为大众媒体甚至会议上的报道时，叙事往往传达出与最新“坏演员”相关的深刻成果。然而，许多宣布生态毒理学下一分水岭时刻的研究通常遭受重复性不足，观察到的结果不一致以及方法学缺陷的困扰，并且经常被排除在背景之外（请参见鱼类中微塑性毒性的失信案例，作为证实的例子）偏见压倒常识[Lönnstedt和Eklöv  2016]）。总体而言，很少有人会说“这个问题确实不是一个大问题”，尽管一些媒体有煽动轰动效应的倾向，但作为生态毒理学家的我们却不应该这样做。

作为科学家，我们需要确保将与人为压力源相关的相对风险置于适当的范围内。除非我们以批判性和内省的眼光看待，否则我们可能会过分强调污染物作为环境变化的主要人为驱动因素（实际上可能是辅助的）（相对而言），有可能导致我们在更广泛的集体保护和保护工作中所扮演的角色的信誉逐渐下降加强环境保护；我们并不孤单地分享这种担忧（见Burton  2017a，  2017b ; Johnson等 2020）。这实际上是对智力自我意识的呼吁，这样，当我们将某事物识别为相应的“问题”时，它就是一个可以证明需要相应资源解决的问题。生态毒理学家为何倾向于“追加销售”的问题是一个复杂的问题，值得进一步讨论，因为它提出了一个根本问题，但可能由有时会影响科学研究的同一动机来解释（例如，资金，发布的需要，影响的需要，职业发展的愿望[Hanson等人 2018 ]）。

讨论绝不意味着削弱我们作为科学家所做的工作和所做的工作以及我们对环境保护的重大贡献。也不能说污染物没有，不可能，也没有造成生态危害的潜力。我们也不主张将污染物不受阻碍或不受管制地引入我们的土壤，空气或水中；事实上，情况正好相反。从根本上建立在科学基础上的强有力的监管监督至关重要，并且在许多情况下，对确保污染物不会造成不可接受的影响非常有效（尽管对可接受或不可接受的定义并不总是很明确）。我们的意思是，在定义和宣布环境变化的间接推动者方面，我们需要认真，务实和明智。

退后一步，重要的是要记住，生态毒理学的出现是对工业和农业中使用的监管不当的化学品对环境的实际观察到的影响的日益认识的回应（Hoffman等，  2002）。）。因此，最初主要在美国制定了法律和法规，以监督对新化学品和现有化学品的评估和批准（例如，1972年的《联邦环境农药管制法》，1976年的《有毒物质管制法》和《综合环境》 1980年的《应对，赔偿和责任法》，并确保保护敏感物种（例如1973年的《濒危物种法》）。自那以后，这些在国内得到了极大的扩展，国际上也采纳了各种变化，包括全球条约（2001年《斯德哥尔摩关于持久性有机污染物的公约》）。反过来，环境毒理化学学会（SETAC）诞生了，是一个由三方利益相关者（工业界，政府，和学术界），并在环境保护方面拥有40多年的先进科学知识。对于大多数生态毒理学家和SETAC成员来说，我们现在无疑已经到达了一个里程碑，这些里程碑和促使他们成长的事件早于活着的记忆。我们的历史正变成这样的“历史”。我们认为，现在是时候批判性地反思和重新评估我们作为科学家的方式，如何考虑，优先处理和应对对生态系统和整个社会的潜在污染物威胁。

我们所有人都可以想到一些例子，其中的化学污染物问题严重，并且由于监管的监督，采取了有效的行动；这些化合物中的许多现在已成为“遗留”问题（例如有机氯和多氯联苯）。最近，最明显的与物种相关的当代物种损失最严重的原因是秃鹰无意中暴露于双氯芬酸药物中（参见Oaks等，  2004）。）。这是一个关于保护生物学和生态毒理学如何协同工作以成功地识别和解决观察到的物种减少的优雅案例研究。对许多假定的原因（杀虫剂，金属，疾病）进行了假设和测试，从而可以通过证据来确定原因，并最终采取行动，以期及时挽救该物种免于灭绝。但是，如果我们的冲动只是简单地暗示sujet du jour etintérêt污染物，我们就会冒着潜在地识别和解决正确问题的错误来源的风险。这最终会削弱我们在公众和专业意见法庭上的信誉，对环境没有好处。

为了帮助获得观点并确保生态毒理学仍然是环境保护的重要贡献者，我们提出以下建议。1）了解监督关注压力源的监管框架。您的研究是否会加剧数据缺口并确保有效，务实地减轻影响？您如何帮助改善监管框架？为了回应约翰逊等。（2020年），监管机构是否真的需要进行更多有关乙炔雌二醇对鱼类影响的研究？2）熟悉其他领域在环境保护领域（例如，保护生物学，农业，林业，工程学）所做的工作以及它们被视为生态变化的主要驱动力。为了说明这一点，今天北美和其他地区的鸟类种群受到几种重要驱动因素的影响，例如入侵物种（包括家猫和野猫），与建筑物的碰撞，栖息地的丧失和偷猎，最终使污染物的贡献超过了（Brain and Anderson  2019），但很多时候却没有协调一致的监管监督来帮助解决。3）进行简单的思想实验。a）如果这种污染物消失了，将在什么时间范围内进行哪些具体且可衡量的改进？b）禁止该禁令可能带来负面或意想不到的后果（例如，替代品或替代品是否更糟）？4）描述给定污染物影响的规模。接触的程度和程度如何？这是本地，区域还是全球性的问题？5）考虑所有因果证据，以支持污染物对环境造成重大损害的假设。真的令人信服吗？6）我们每个人都应该是我们自己最坚强的批评家。哪些数据或研究会驳斥您的伤害假说？您自己进行这些研究吗？7）最后，也许最重要的是，对您感兴趣的/研究的污染可能不是根本问题持开放态度。同样，我们不想让它看起来像当基本问题仍然存在时问题已经解决了。这不应该被视为失败，而应该是一个好消息-“这不是重大问题。”

生态毒理学已经并且将继续为集体保护环境做出宝贵的贡献。我们认为我们可以最好地发挥自己以及未来生态毒理学家的潜力，方法是记得偶尔退后一步去看看整个（象征性的）森林，而不仅仅是树木。