Search

Science is under attack and scientists are becoming more involved in efforts to defend it. The rise in science advocacy raises important questions regarding how science mobilization can both defend science and promote its use for the public good while also including the communities that benefit from science. This article begins with a discussion of the relevance of science advocacy. It then reviews research pointing to how scientists can sustain, diversify, and increase the political impact of their mobilization. Scientists, we argue, can build and maintain politically impactful coalitions by engaging with and addressing social group differences and diversity instead of suppressing them. The article concludes with a reflection on how the study of science-related mobilization would benefit from further research.

BackgroundUnderstanding, characterizing, and quantifying human exposures to environmental chemicals is critical to protect public health. Exposure assessments are key to determining risks to the general population and for specific subpopulations given that exposures differ between groups. Exposure data are also important for understanding where interventions, including public policies, should be targeted and the extent to which interventions have been successful. In this review, we aim to show how inadequacies in exposure assessments conducted by polluting industries or regulatory agencies have led to downplaying or disregarding exposure concerns raised by communities; that underestimates of exposure can lead regulatory agencies to conclude that unacceptable risks are, instead, acceptable, allowing pollutants to go unregulated; and that researchers, risk assessors, and policy makers need to better understand the issues that have affected exposure assessments and how appropriate use of exposure data can contribute to health-protective decisions.MethodsWe describe current approaches used by regulatory agencies to estimate human exposures to environmental chemicals, including approaches to address limitations in exposure data. We then illustrate how some exposure assessments have been used to reach flawed conclusions about environmental chemicals and make recommendations for improvements.ResultsExposure data are important for communities, public health advocates, scientists, policy makers, and other groups to understand the extent of environmental exposures in diverse populations. We identify four areas where exposure assessments need to be improved due to systemic sources of error or uncertainty in exposure assessments and illustrate these areas with examples. These include: (1) an inability of regulatory agencies to keep pace with the increasing number of chemicals registered for use or assess their exposures, as well as complications added by use of 'confidential business information' which reduce available exposure data; (2) the failure to keep assessments up-to-date; (3) how inadequate assumptions about human behaviors and co-exposures contribute to underestimates of exposure; and (4) that insufficient models of toxicokinetics similarly affect exposure estimates.ConclusionWe identified key issues that impact capacity to conduct scientifically robust exposure assessments. These issues must be addressed with scientific or policy approaches to improve estimates of exposure and protect public health.

The manufacture and production of industrial chemicals continues to increase, with hundreds of thousands of chemicals and chemical mixtures used worldwide, leading to widespread population exposures and resultant health impacts. Low-wealth communities and communities of color often bear disproportionate burdens of exposure and impact; all compounded by regulatory delays to the detriment of public health. Multiple authoritative bodies and scientific consensus groups have called for actions to prevent harmful exposures via improved policy approaches. We worked across multiple disciplines to develop consensus recommendations for health-protective, scientific approaches to reduce harmful chemical exposures, which can be applied to current US policies governing industrial chemicals and environmental pollutants. This consensus identifies five principles and scientific recommendations for improving how agencies like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approach and conduct hazard and risk assessment and risk management analyses: (1) the financial burden of data generation for any given chemical on (or to be introduced to) the market should be on the chemical producers that benefit from their production and use; (2) lack of data does not equate to lack of hazard, exposure, or risk; (3) populations at greater risk, including those that are more susceptible or more highly exposed, must be better identified and protected to account for their real-world risks; (4) hazard and risk assessments should not assume existence of a "safe" or "no-risk" level of chemical exposure in the diverse general population; and (5) hazard and risk assessments must evaluate and account for financial conflicts of interest in the body of evidence. While many of these recommendations focus specifically on the EPA, they are general principles for environmental health that could be adopted by any agency or entity engaged in exposure, hazard, and risk assessment. We also detail recommendations for four priority areas in companion papers (exposure assessment methods, human variability assessment, methods for quantifying non-cancer health outcomes, and a framework for defining chemical classes). These recommendations constitute key steps for improved evidence-based environmental health decision-making and public health protection.

Participants in biomonitoring studies who receive personal exposure reports seek information to reduce exposures. Many chemical exposures are driven by systems-level policies rather than individual actions; therefore, change requires engagement in collective action. Participants' perceptions of collective action and use of report-back to support engagement remain unclear. We conducted virtual focus groups during summer 2020 in a diverse group of peripartum people from cohorts in the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Program (N = 18). We assessed baseline exposure and collective action experience, and report-back preferences. Participants were motivated to protect the health of their families and communities despite significant time and cognitive burdens. They requested time-conscious tactics and accessible information to enable action to reduce individual and collective exposures. Participant input informed the design of digital report-back in the cohorts. This study highlights opportunities to shift responsibility from individuals to policymakers to reduce chemical exposures at the systems level.

BackgroundEmerging evidence about the effects of endocrine disruptors on asthma symptoms suggests new opportunities to reduce asthma by changing personal environments. Right-to-know ethics supports returning personal results for these chemicals to participants, so they can make decisions to reduce exposures. Yet researchers and institutional review boards have been reluctant to approve results reports in low-income communities, which are disproportionately affected by asthma. Concerns include limited literacy, lack of resources to reduce exposures, co-occurring stressors, and lack of models for effective reporting. To better understand the ethical and public health implications of returning personal results in low-income communities, we investigated parents' experiences of learning their children's environmental chemical and biomonitoring results in the Green Housing Study of asthma.MethodsThe Green Housing Study measured indoor chemical exposures, allergens, and children's asthma symptoms in "green"-renovated public housing and control sites in metro-Boston and Cincinnati in 2011-2013. We developed reports for parents of children in the study, including results for their child and community. We observed community meetings where results were reported, and metro-Boston residents participated in semi-structured interviews in 2015 about their report-back experience. Interviews were systematically coded and analyzed.ResultsReport-back was positively received, contributed to greater understanding, built trust between researchers and participants, and facilitated action to improve health. Sampling visits and community meetings also contributed to creating a positive study experience for participants. Participants were able to make changes in their homes, such as altering product use and habits that may reduce asthma symptoms, though some faced roadblocks from family members. Participants also gained access to medical resources, though some felt that clinicians were not responsive. Participants wanted larger scale change from government or industry and wanted researchers to leverage study results to achieve change.ConclusionsReport-back on environmental chemical exposures in low-income communities can enhance research benefits by engaging residents with personally relevant information that informs and motivates actions to reduce exposure to asthma triggers. Ethical practices in research should support deliberative report-back in vulnerable communities.

Improving the quality of places is a crucial element in addressing the inequalities that exist across the UK. While standardised tools exist to structure conversations about place, the extent to which these capture inequalities remain unclear. This study examined the utility of the Place Standard Tool (PST) as a means of understanding inequalities in relation to place. A dataset of 8,218 PST responses collected in the north of England, and the PST itself, were analysed using an inequalities lens with a particular focus on the qualitative data collected through the tool. The results showed that despite limits to the demographic data recorded by the PST such as the lack of ethnicity and disability data, key themes relating to protected characteristic groups were captured in the data. The analysis identified the themes of ethnicity, gender, physical mobility, economic status, and housing situation as particularly prominent within the dataset, and reflects on how these themes affect people's relationships with place. In its current form, the PST demonstrates an ability to improve understanding of inequalities in relation to place. However, extra consideration, particularly relating to ensuring the PST is applied equitably, and some adaptation of questions would unlock its full potential. Improving the quality of demographic data collected is a key part of improving the accuracy and equity of data collection. Responding proactively to gaps in response rates during data collection exercises can improve the overall quality of data collected, particularly for minority groups. Considering equitable and accessible ways to collect data using the Place Standard Tool is key to fulfilling its potential as a tool for examining inequalities in relation to place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Protection of human subjects in research typically focuses on extrinsic rather than intrinsic motivations for participation in research. Recent sociological literature on altruism suggests that multiple kinds of altruism exist and are grounded in a sense of connection to common humanity. We interviewed participants in eight community-centered research studies that sampled for endocrine disrupting compounds and that shared research findings with participants. The results of our analysis of participation in these studies indicate that altruistic motivations were commonly held. We found that these sentiments were tied to feeling a sense of connection to society broadly, a sense of connection to science, or a sense of connection with the community partner organization. We develop a new concept of banal altruism to address mundane practices that work towards promoting social benefits. Further, we offer that research altruism is a specific type of banal altruism that is a multi-faceted and important reason for which individuals choose to participate in community-centered research.

Researchers and clinicians in environmental health and medicine increasingly show respect for participants and patients by involving them in decision-making. In this context, the return of personal results to study participants is becoming ethical best practice, and many participants now expect to see their data. However, researchers often lack the time and expertise required for report-back, especially as studies measure greater numbers of analytes, including many without clear health guidelines. In this article, our goal is to demonstrate how a prototype digital method, the Digital Exposure Report-Back Interface (DERBI), can reduce practical barriers to high-quality report-back. DERBI uses decision rules to automate the production of personalized summaries of notable results and generates graphs of individual results with comparisons to the study group and benchmark populations. Reports discuss potential sources of chemical exposure, what is known and unknown about health effects, strategies for exposure reduction, and study-wide findings. Researcher tools promote discovery by drawing attention to patterns of high exposure and offer novel ways to increase participant engagement. DERBI reports have been field tested in two studies. Digital methods like DERBI reduce practical barriers to report-back thus enabling researchers to meet their ethical obligations and participants to get knowledge they can use to make informed choices.

As the number of personal exposure studies expands and trends favor greater openness and transparency in the health sciences, ethical issues arise around reporting back individual results for contaminants without clear health guidelines. Past research demonstrates that research participants want their results even when the health implications are not known. The experiences of researchers and institutional review boards (IRBs) in studies that have reported personal chemical exposures can provide insights about ethical and practical approaches while also revealing areas of continued uncertainty. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 researchers and nine IRB members from seven personal exposure studies across the United States to investigate their experiences and attitudes about the report-back process. Researchers reported multiple benefits of report-back, including increasing retention and recruitment, advancing environmental health literacy, empowering study participants to take actions to reduce exposures, encouraging shifts in government and industry practices, and helping researchers discover sources of exposure through participant consultation. Researchers also reported challenges, including maintaining ongoing contact with participants, adopting protocols for notification of high exposures to chemicals without health guidelines, developing meaningful report-back materials, and resource limitations. IRB members reported concern for potential harm to participants, such as anxiety about personal results and counterproductive behavior changes. In contrast, researchers who have conducted personal report-back in their studies said that participants did not appear overly alarmed and noted that worry can be a positive outcome to motivate action to reduce harmful exposures. While key concerns raised during the early days of report-back have been substantially resolved for scientists with report-back experience, areas of uncertainty remain. These include ethical tensions surrounding the responsibility of researchers to leverage study results and resources to assist participants in policy or community-level actions to reduce chemical exposures, and how to navigate report-back to vulnerable populations.

Reporting data back to study participants is increasingly being integrated into exposure and biomonitoring studies. Informal science learning opportunities are valuable in environmental health literacy efforts and report back efforts are filling an important gap in these efforts. Using the University of Arizona's Metals Exposure Study in Homes, this commentary reflects on how community-engaged exposure assessment studies, partnered with data report back efforts are providing a new informal education setting and stimulating free-choice learning. Participants are capitalizing on participating in research and leveraging their research experience to meet personal and community environmental health literacy goals. Observations from report back activities conducted in a mining community support the idea that reporting back biomonitoring data reinforces free-choice learning and this activity can lead to improvements in environmental health literacy. By linking the field of informal science education to the environmental health literacy concepts, this commentary demonstrates how reporting data back to participants is tapping into what an individual is intrinsically motivated to learn and how these efforts are successfully responding to community-identified education and research needs.

Introduction Systemic environmental health disparities exist for residents of Tribal Nations in the United States, who are disproportionately burdened by diseases and experience lower life expectancy compared to non-Native individuals. [...]

Understanding the short- and long-term impacts of a biomonitoring and exposure project and reporting personal results back to study participants is critical for guiding future efforts, especially in the context of environmental justice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate learning outcomes from environmental communication efforts and whether environmental health literacy goals were met in an environmental justice community. We conducted 14 interviews with parents who had participated in the University of Arizona's Metals Exposure Study in Homes and analyzed their responses using NVivo, a qualitative data management and analysis program. Key findings were that participants used the data to cope with their challenging circumstances, the majority of participants described changing their families' household behaviors, and participants reported specific interventions to reduce family exposures. The strength of this study is that it provides insight into what people learn and gain from such results communication efforts, what participants want to know, and what type of additional information participants need to advance their environmental health literacy. This information can help improve future report back efforts and advance environmental health and justice.

Puerto Rico was hit by two major hurricanes in September 2017 causing great devastation, losing over 90% of the power grid, wireless communication and access to potable water, and destroying many homes. Our research programs: Puerto Rico Testsite for Exploring Contamination Threats (PROTECT), Center for Research on Early Childhood Exposure and Development in Puerto Rico (CRECE), Zika in Infants and Pregnancy (ZIP), and Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) are ongoing observational cohort studies that have been investigating environmental risk factors for perinatal health outcomes among Puerto Rican mothers and infants. Our projects paused operations for about two weeks, to begin recovery process and become a source of assistance, retaining 95% of study participants across all research programs. We joined with various groups to ensure the safety and welfare of team members, study participants, community health center partners, and members of the surrounding communities. We learned important lessons about the impact of these hurricanes and the difficulties of the recovery. Major challenges post-hurricanes were access to care and nutrition, maternal stress, and environmental damage. We understood the need to integrate disaster preparedness into our programs' operating procedures and future applications, recognizing that these events will recur. We will grow resilience among our staff, maternal and child health partners, and participants by building on the experience of these two storms., Author(s): Michael Welton [sup.1] , Carmen M. Vélez Vega [sup.2] , Colleen B. Murphy [sup.2] , Zaira Rosario [sup.2] , Hector Torres [sup.2] , Elle Russell [sup.3] , Phil Brown [...]