Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

The pertinence of Sutton’s law to exposure science: Lessons from unconventional shale gas drilling


Sutton’s Law urges the medical practitioner to utilize the test that goes directly to the problem. When applied to exposure science, Sutton’s Law would argue that the major emphasis should be on techniques that directly measure exposure in or close to the human, animal or ecosystem receptors of concern. Exposure science largely and appropriately violates Sutton’s Law by estimating exposure based on information on emissions or measurements obtained at a distance from the receptors of concern. I suggest four criteria to help determine whether Sutton’s law should be violated for an innovative technology, and explore these criteria in relation to potential human exposure resulting from unconventional gas drilling (UGD): (1) The technological processes possibly leading to release of the chemical or physical agents of concern are reasonably understood; (2) the agents of concern are known; (3) the source and geographical location of the releases can be reasonably identified; and (4) there is information about the likely temporal pattern of the releases and resulting pollutant levels in relation to the temporal patterns of receptor susceptibility. For UGD, the complexity of the technology including many possible release points at different time periods; the existence of three variable mixtures of chemical and physical agents as well as possible unknown reactants; the demonstrated large variation in releases from site to site; and deficiencies in transparency and regulatory oversight, all suggest that studies of the potential health impact of UGD should follow Sutton’s Law. This includes the use of techniques that more directly measure exposure close to or within the receptors of concern, such as biological markers or through community-based citizen science. Understanding the implications of Sutton’s Law could help focus scientific and regulatory efforts on effective approaches to evaluate the potential health and ecosystem implications of new and evolving technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Mortati KA, Arnedo V, Post N, Jimenez E, Grant AC. Sutton’s law in epilepsy: because that is where the lesion is. Epilepsy Behav. 2012;24:279–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Baughman RP, Raghu G. Bronchoalveolar cellular analysis in scleroderma lung disease: does Sutton’s law hold? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;177:2–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Slater PE. Sutton’s Law and AIDS prevention in Israel. Public Health Rev. 1993;21:285–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Todd JK. Office laboratory diagnosis of skin and soft tissue infections. Pediatr Infect Dis. 1985;4:84–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gochfeld M. Occupational medicine practice in the United States since the industrial revolution. J Occup Environ Med. 2005;47:115–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lioy P. Assessing total human exposure to contaminants: a multidisciplinary approach. Environ Sci Technol. 1990;24:938–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. National Research Council. Exposure science in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. Committee on Human and Environmental Exposure Science in the 21st Century. Washington: National Academies Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kelso M. Unconventional drilling activity down in Pennsylvania. Fracttracker Alliance. Accessed 29 May 2017.

  9. Environmental Protection Agency. Hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas: impacts from the hydraulic fracturing water cycle on drinking water resources in the United States. EPA-600-R-16-236Fa. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development EPA; 2016.

  10. Goldstein BD, Brooks BW, Cohen SD, Gates AE, Honeycutt ME, Morris JB, et al. The role of toxicological science in meeting the challenges and opportunities of hydraulic fracturing. Toxicol Sci. 2014;139:271–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. How is shale gas produced? Accessed 29 May 2017.

  12. Korfmacher K, Jones SA, Malone SL, Vinci LF. Public health and high volume hydraulic fracturing. New Solut. 2013;23:13–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brasier KJ, Filteau MR, Jacquet J, Stedman RC, Kelsey TW, Goetz SJ, et al. Residents’ perceptions of community and environmental impacts from development of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale: a comparison of Pennsylvania and New York cases. J Rural Sci. 2011;26:32–61.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Goldstein BD, Renn O, Jovanovic A. Public Health, risk perception and risk communication: unconventional shale gas in the United States and the European Union. In: Kaden DA, Rose TL, editors. Environmental and health issues in unconventional oil and gas development. Elsevier, London, 2015.

  15. Krupnick A, Gordon H, Olmstead S. Pathways dialogue: what the experts say about the environmental risks of shale gas development, RFF Report. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 2013. p. 1–81. Accessed 29 May 2017.

  16. Davenport C. Reversing course, E.P.A. says fracking can contaminate drinking water. New York Times. 2016. moduleDetail=recommendations-0&action=click&contentCollection=DealBook&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article&_r=0. Accessed 29 May 2017.

  17. Moore CW, Zielinska B, Pétron G, Jackson RB. Air impacts of increased natural gas acquisition, procession, and use: a critical review. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:8349–59.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nash J. Assessing the potential for self-regulation in the shale gas industry. In: Workshop on governance of risks of shale gas development, Washington, DC. 2013. Accessed 29 May 2017.

  19. GAO. Unconventional oil and gas development. key environmental and public health requirements. GAO 12-874. 2012. Accessed 29 May 2017.

  20. Litovitz A, Curtright A, Abramzon S, Burger N, Samaras C. Estimation of regional air-quality damages from Marcellus shale natural gas extraction in Pennsylvania. Environ Res Lett. 2013;8:014017.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ferrar KJ, Michanowicz DR, Christen CL, Mulchay N, Malone SL, Sharma RK. Assessment of effluent contaminants from three facilities discharging Marcellus shale wastewater to surface waters in Pennsylvania. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:3472–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wilson JM, VanBriesen JM. Source water changes and energy extraction activities in the Monongahela River, 2009-2012. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:12575–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ellsworth WL. Injection-induced earthquakes. Science. 2013;341:1225942

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lutz BD, Lewis AN, Doyle MW. Generation, transport, and disposal of wastewater associated with Marcellus Shale gas development. Water Resour Res. 2013;49:647–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Goldstein BD. Flowback: The Environmental Forum. 2016;33:23–9.

  26. Goldstein BD. Relevance of transparency to sustainability and to Pennsylvania’s shale gas legislation. In: Dernbach JC, May JR, editors. Shale gas and the future of energy: law and policy for sustainability. London: Edward Elgar; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Stacy SL, Brink LL, Larkin JC, Sadovsky Y, Goldstein BD, Pitt BR, et al. Perinatal outcomes and unconventional natural gas operations in Southwest Pennsylvania. PLoS One 2015; 10.

  28. Rabinowitz PM, Slizovskiy IB, Lamers V, Trufan SJ, Holford TR, Dziura JD, et al. Proximity to natural gas wells and reported health status: results of a household survey in Washington County, Pennsylvania. Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123:21–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. McKenzie LM, Guo R, Witter RZ, Savitz DA, Newman LS, Adgate JL. Birth outcomes and maternaL residential proximity to natural gas development in rural Colorado. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:412–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. McKenzie LM, Witter RZ, Newman LS, Adgate JL. Human health risk assessment of air emissions from development of unconventional natural gas resources. 2012; 424:79–87.

  31. Casey JA, Savitz DA, Rasmussen SG, Ogburn EL, Pollak J, Mercer DG, et al. Unconventional gas development and birth outcomes in Pennsylvania. USA Epidemiol. 2016;27:163–72.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rasmussen SG, Ogburn EL, McCormach M, Casey JA, Bandeen-Roche K, Mercer DG, et al. Association between unconventional natural gas development in the Marcellus shale and asthma exacerbations. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1334–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Tustin AW, Hirsch AG, Rasmussen SG, Casey JA, Bandeen-Roche K, Schwartz BS. Associations between unconventional natural gas development and nasal and sinus, migraine headache, and fatigue symptoms in Pennsylvania. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;

  34. Kemball-Cook S, Bar-Ilan A, Grant J, Parker L, Jung J, Santamaria W, Mathews J, Yarwood G. Ozone impacts of natural gas development in the Haynesville Shale. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44:9357–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Vidic RD, Brantley SL, Vandenbossche JM, Yoxtheimer D, Abad JD. Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science. 2013;340:826–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Allen DT, Torres VM, Thomas J, Sullivan DW, Harrison M, Hendler A, et al. Measurements of methane emissions at natural gas production sites in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:17768–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Esswein EJ, Snawder J, King B, Breitenstein M, Alexander-Scott M, Kiefer M. Evaluation of some potential chemical exposure risks during flowback operations in unconventional oil and gas extraction: preliminary results. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2014;11:D174–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. National Research Council. Biologic markers in reproductive toxicology. Chapter 1: Report of the Oversight Committee. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1989. ISBN 0-309-03937-7.

  39. Scientific Group on Methodologies for the Safety Evaluation of Chemicals. Methods for assessing exposure of human and non-human Biota. In: Tardiff RG and Goldstein BD, editors. Chapter 4: biological monitoring of exposure to chemicals. SCOPE 46; IPCS Joint Symposia 13, SGOMSEC 5. John Wiley & Sons, London. 1991. ISBN 0 471 92954 9.

  40. Ott WR, Roberts JW. Everyday exposure to toxic pollutants. Sci Am. 1998;278:72–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Suk WA, Wilson SH. Chapter 1: overview and future of molecular biomarkers of exposure and early disease in environmental health. In: Wilson SH, Suk WA eds. Biomarkers of environmentally associated disease: technologies, concepts and perspectives. Lewis Publishers, Cleveland, Ohio, 2002. ISBN 156670-596-7.

  42. Uppal K, Soltow QA, Promislow DEL, Wachtman LM, Quyyumi AA, Jone DP. MetabNet: an R package for metabolic association analysis of high-resolution metabolomics data. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2015.

  43. Rappaport SM. Implications of the exposome for exposure science. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2011;21:5–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Wild CP. The exposome: from concept to utility. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:24–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Egeghy PP, Sheldon LS, Isaacs KK, Özkaynak H, Goldsmith M-R, WambaughJF, Judson RS, Buckley TJ. Computational exposure science: an emerging approach for 21st century risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;124:697–702.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Uppal K, Soltow QA, Strobel FH, Pittard WS, Gernert KM, Yu T, Jones DP. xMSanalyzer: automated pipeline for improved feature detection and downstream analysis of large-scale, non-targeted metabolomics data. BMC Bioinform. 2013;14:15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Adgate JL, Goldstein BD, McKenzie LM. Potential public health hazards, exposures and health effects from unconventional natural gas development. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:8307–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Small MJ, Stern PC, Bomberg E, Christopherson SM, Goldstein BD, Israel AL, et al. Risks and risk governance in unconventional shale gas development. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:8289–97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Council of Canadian Academies. Environmental impacts of shale gas extraction in Canada: report of the expert panel on harnessing science and technology to understand the environmental impacts on shale gas extraction. Science Advice in the Public Interest, Ottawa, CA; 2014. 292 p.

  50. Cleary E. Chief Medical Officer of Health’s recommendations concerning shale gas development in New Brunswick. 2012. p. 1–82. Accessed 29 May 2016.

  51. Shonkoff SB, Hays J, Finkel ML. Environmental public health dimensions of shale and tight gas development. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:787–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Kovats S, Depledge M, Haines A, Fleming LE, Wilkinson P, Shonkoff SB, et al. The health implications of fracking. Lancet. 2014;383:757–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. New York State Department of Health. A public review of high volume hydraulic fracturing for shale gas development. 2014; 1–86.

  54. Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health. Potential public health impacts of natural gas development and production in the Marcellus Shale in Western Maryland. University of Maryland School of Public Health. (2014). Accessed 29 May 2017.

  55. HEI Special Scientific Committee on Unconventional Oil and Gas Development in the Appalachian Basin. Strategic Research Agenda on the potential impacts of 21st century oil and natural gas development in the Appalachian Region and beyond. Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Rombout PA, Lioy PJ, Goldstein BD. Rationale for an eight-hour ozone standard. J Air Pollut Control Assoc. 1989;35:701–10.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Fowle JR, Sexton K. EPA priorities for biological marker research in environmental health. Environ Health Perspect. 1992;98:235–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Macey GP, Breech R, Chernaik M, Cox C, Larson D, Thomas D, et al. Air concentrations of volatile compounds near oil and gas production: a community-based exploratory study. Environ Health. 2014;13:1–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T, Rosenberg KV, et al. Citizen science; a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience. 2009;59:977–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Brown D, Weinberger B, Lewis C, Bonaparte H. Understanding exposure from natural gas drilling puts current air standards to the test. Rev Environ Health. 2014;29:277–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Bamberger M, Oswald RE. Impacts of gas drilling on human and animal health. New Solut. 2012;22:51–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Goldstein BD, Kreisky J, Pavliakova B. Missing from the table: role of the environmental public health community in governmental advisory commissions related to Marcellus shale drilling. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120:483–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Goldstein BD. The importance of public health agency independence: Marcellus Shale gas drilling in Pennsylvania. Am J Public Health. 2014;104:e13–e15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Helfenbein KG, DeSalle R. Falsifications and corroborations: Karl Popper’s influence on systematics. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2005;35:271–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Frazier R. ‘Cracker’ plant will bring jobs, but what about the air? The Allegheny. 2012. Accessed 29 May 2017.

  66. Korfmacher KS, Elam S, Gray KM, Haynes E, Hughes H. Unconventional natural gas development and public health: toward a community-informed research agenda. Rev Environ Health. 2014;29:293–306.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


I thank BeLinda Berry for her superb assistance. This work was partially performed while a visiting professor at the University of Cologne, Department of Political Science and European Affairs, during a project comparing EU and US approaches to shale gas. I thank the University of Pittsburgh European Union Center of Excellence for support through Grant Agreement No. 318983FP7—people-2012-IRSES EU-GLOBAL from the European Union.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernard D. Goldstein.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goldstein, B.D. The pertinence of Sutton’s law to exposure science: Lessons from unconventional shale gas drilling. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 28, 427–436 (2018).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:



Quick links