Search

Environmental health research is at a promising stage for more precisely identifying gene-environment components of disease. Simplistic models and reductionist approaches that have been the norm both in toxicology and in clinical medicine are beginning to be replaced with a more holistic or systems biology approach. We are slowly moving to an understanding that the time between an exposure and its consequence as a diagnosed disease is a time during which many different biochemical changes are occurring and a time during which many biomarkers of disease progression could be identified and used. With such information in hand, clinicians would be able to intervene early in disease progression. With such information, environmental health researchers and policy makers could more reliably identify which elements in our environment need to be controlled or reduced and which populations need the most protection. With such information, the incidence of many human diseases could be dramatically reduced., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Introduction: Disaster research response (DR2) is necessary to answer scientific questions about the environmental health impacts of disasters and the effectiveness of response and recovery strategies. This research explores the preparedness and capacity of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) P30 Core Centers (CCs) to conduct DR2 and engage with communities in the context of disasters., Methods: In early 2018, we conducted an online survey of CC Directors (n = 16, 69.5% response rate) to identify their DR2 relevant scientific assets, capabilities, and activities. Summary statistics were calculated. We also conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 16 (69.5%) CC Community Engagement Core directors to identify facilitators and barriers of DR2 community engagement. Interview notes were coded and thematically analyzed., Results: Survey: While 56% of responding CCs reported prior participation in DR2 and preparedness to repurpose funding to support DR2, less than one third reported development of a disaster-specific data collection protocol, deployment plan, or concept of operations plan, participation in an exercise to test DR2 capacity, development of academic partnerships to conduct DR2, development of a process for fast-tracking institutional review board approvals for DR2, or maintenance of formal agreements with state, local, or community-based partner(s). A number of CCs reported developing or considering developing capacity in these areas. Barriers to, and tools and resources to enhance, CC engagement in DR2 were identified. Interviews: Four key components for community engaged DR2 were identified: pre-existing community relationships, responsive research that benefits communities, coordination among researchers, and coordination with community response partners. Several roles for, benefits of, and barriers to Community Engagement Rapid Response Teams (CERRT) were described., Conclusions: CCs have significant scientific assets and community partnerships that can be leveraged for DR2; however, additional planning is necessary to ensure that these scientific assets and community partnerships are leveraged when disasters strike.

Abstract Introduction Disaster research response (DR2) is necessary to answer scientific questions about the environmental health impacts of disasters and the effectiveness of response and recovery strategies. This research explores the preparedness and capacity of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) P30 Core Centers (CCs) to conduct DR2 and engage with communities in the context of disasters. Methods In early 2018, we conducted an online survey of CC Directors (n = 16, 69.5% response rate) to identify their DR2 relevant scientific assets, capabilities, and activities. Summary statistics were calculated. We also conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 16 (69.5%) CC Community Engagement Core directors to identify facilitators and barriers of DR2 community engagement. Interview notes were coded and thematically analyzed. Results Survey: While 56% of responding CCs reported prior participation in DR2 and preparedness to repurpose funding to support DR2, less than one third reported development of a disaster-specific data collection protocol, deployment plan, or concept of operations plan, participation in an exercise to test DR2 capacity, development of academic partnerships to conduct DR2, development of a process for fast-tracking institutional review board approvals for DR2, or maintenance of formal agreements with state, local, or community-based partner(s). A number of CCs reported developing or considering developing capacity in these areas. Barriers to, and tools and resources to enhance, CC engagement in DR2 were identified. Interviews: Four key components for community engaged DR2 were identified: pre-existing community relationships, responsive research that benefits communities, coordination among researchers, and coordination with community response partners. Several roles for, benefits of, and barriers to Community Engagement Rapid Response Teams (CERRT) were described. Conclusions CCs have significant scientific assets and community partnerships that can be leveraged for DR2; however, additional planning is necessary to ensure that these scientific assets and community partnerships are leveraged when disasters strike.

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences we reflect on how environmental research incorporating community members as active partners has evolved, benefited communities and advanced environmental health research. We highlight the commitment to community partnerships in the aftermath of the 2010 Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill, and how that commitment helped improve science. We provide examples of community-academic partnerships across the engagement spectrum. Finally, we offer suggestions to improve the community engagement in order to cultivate more long partnerships and better scientific research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

oBjective: In this review we highlight the need to expand the scope of environmental health research, which now focuses largely on the study of toxicants, to incorporate infectious agents. We provide evidence that environmental health research would be strengthened through finding com­mon ground with the tools and approaches of infectious disease research. data sources and extraction: We conducted a literature review for examples of interactions between toxic agents and infectious diseases, as well as the role of these interactions as risk factors in classic "environmental" diseases. We investigated existing funding sources and research mandates in the United States from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, particularly the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. data synthesis: We adapted the toxicological paradigm to guide reintegration of infectious disease into environmental health research and to identify common ground between these two fields as well as opportunities for improving public health through interdisciplinary research. conclusions: Environmental health encompasses complex disease processes, many of which involve interactions among multiple risk factors, including toxicant exposures, pathogens, and susceptibil­ity. Funding and program mandates for environmental health studies should be expanded to include pathogens in order to capture the true scope of these overlapping risks, thus creating more effective research investments with greater relevance to the complexity of real-world exposures and multifactorial health outcomes. We propose a new model that integrates the toxicology and infectious disease paradigms to facilitate improved collaboration and communication by providing a framework for interdisciplinary research. Pathogens should be part of environmental health research planning and funding allocation, as well as applications such as surveillance and policy development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to significant environmental health challenges in Southeast Texas, a National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences Center at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston was created to promote and conduct inter-disciplinary research in the areas of: (1) the molecular biology of DNA repair, replication and mutagenesis, (2) asthma pathogenesis in response to oxidative stress and viral exposures, and (3) environmental toxicant biotransformation. In addition, the NIEHS Center maintains close ties with neighboring communities through an active Community Outreach & Education Program (COEP) that develops and disseminates translational materials for use in environmental health awareness outreach, toxicology consultation, K-12 curriculum enrichment and in developing site-specific Community Partnership projects. The COEP core service divisions include: Environmental Arts & Sciences, Asthma Outreach & Education, Theater Outreach & Education, and Public Forum & Toxics Assistance. Public Forums focus on the use of Augusto Boal’s Forum Theater dramaturgy to include the voices and local knowledge of communities within the process of Participatory Research. Forums create the preconditions for significant partnerships that link the hazardous risk perceptions and environmental health needs of communities with the expertise of NIEHS Center investigators and translational services provided through COEP outreach programs. The Forum process also creates leadership cores within environmentally challenged communities that facilitate the ongoing translational process and maintain the vital linkage between the health needs of communities and the analytic tools and the field and clinical technologies of the environmental sciences. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Introduction: Disaster research response (DR2) is necessary to answer scientific questions about the environmental health impacts of disasters and the effectiveness of response and recovery strategies. This research explores the preparedness and capacity of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) P30 Core Centers (CCs) to conduct DR2 and engage with communities in the context of disasters.Methods: In early 2018, we conducted an online survey of CC Directors (n = 16, 69.5% response rate) to identify their DR2 relevant scientific assets, capabilities, and activities. Summary statistics were calculated. We also conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 16 (69.5%) CC Community Engagement Core directors to identify facilitators and barriers of DR2 community engagement. Interview notes were coded and thematically analyzed.Results: Survey: While 56% of responding CCs reported prior participation in DR2 and preparedness to repurpose funding to support DR2, less than one third reported development of a disaster-specific data collection protocol, deployment plan, or concept of operations plan, participation in an exercise to test DR2 capacity, development of academic partnerships to conduct DR2, development of a process for fast-tracking institutional review board approvals for DR2, or maintenance of formal agreements with state, local, or community-based partner(s). A number of CCs reported developing or considering developing capacity in these areas. Barriers to, and tools and resources to enhance, CC engagement in DR2 were identified. Interviews: Four key components for community engaged DR2 were identified: pre-existing community relationships, responsive research that benefits communities, coordination among researchers, and coordination with community response partners. Several roles for, benefits of, and barriers to Community Engagement Rapid Response Teams (CERRT) were described.Conclusions: CCs have significant scientific assets and community partnerships that can be leveraged for DR2; however, additional planning is necessary to ensure that these scientific assets and community partnerships are leveraged when disasters strike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]