Search

Background: We report on community-based participatory research (CBPR) initiated by women firefighters in order to share successful elements that can be instructive for other community-engaged research. This CBPR initiative, known as the Women Worker Biomonitoring Collaborative (WWBC) is the first we are aware of to investigate links between occupational exposures and health outcomes, including breast cancer, for a cohort of exclusively women firefighters., Methods: In order to be reflective of the experiences and knowledge of those most intimately involved, this article is co-authored by leaders of the research initiative. We collected leaders' input via recorded meeting sessions, emails, and a shared online document. We also conducted interviews (N = 10) with key research participants and community leaders to include additional perspectives., Results: Factors contributing to the initiative's success in enacting broadscale social change and advancing scientific knowledge include (1) forming a diverse coalition of impacted community leaders, labor unions, scientists, and advocacy organizations, (2) focusing on impacts at multiple scales of action and nurturing different, yet mutually supportive, goals among partners, (3) adopting innovative communication strategies for study participants, research partners, and the broader community, (4) cultivating a prevention-based ethos in the scientific research, including taking early action to reduce community exposures based on existing evidence of harm, and (5) emphasizing co-learning through all the study stages. Furthermore, we discuss external factors that contribute to success, including funding programs that elevate scientist-community-advocacy partnerships and allow flexibility to respond to emerging science-policy opportunities, as well as institutional structures responsive to worker concerns., Conclusions: While WWBC shares characteristics with other successful CBPR partnerships, it also advances approaches that increase the ability for CBPR to translate into change at multiple levels. This includes incorporating partners with particular skills and resources beyond the traditional researcher-community partnerships that are the focus of much CBPR practice and scholarly attention, and designing studies so they support community action in the initial stages of research. Moreover, we emphasize external structural factors that can be critical for CBPR success. This demonstrates the importance of critically examining and advocating for institutional factors that better support this research., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has coincided with a powerful upsurge in antiracist activism in the United States, linking many forms and consequences of racism to public and environmental health. This commentary develops the concept of eco-pandemic injustice to explain interrelationships between the pandemic and socioecological systems, demonstrating how COVID-19 both reveals and deepens structural inequalities that form along lines of environmental health. Using Pellow's critical environmental justice theory, we examine how the crisis has made more visible and exacerbated links between racism, poverty, and health while providing opportunities to enact change through collective embodied health movements . We describe new collaborations and the potential for meaningful opportunities at the intersections between health, antiracist, environmental, and political movements that are advocating for the types of transformational change described by critical environmental justice.

The Trump administration has severely curtailed the work of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has rolled back environmental protections, lost ground on addressing climate change and environmental justice, and shed large numbers of experienced staff. All of this has accelerated a longer-term decline in EPA resources, expertise, and authority. Here, we present perspectives of EPA employees and retirees on reconfiguring and strengthening the agency to address current and future environmental health problems, based on qualitative data obtained through 100 semi-structured interviews with 76 current and former EPA employees. Interviewees emphasized a number of internal and external issues, including a hyper-partisan context in which the agency operates, lack of public understanding of the extent of domestic and global environmental problems, budget shortfalls, staffing and leadership challenges, reduced scientific capacity and use of science in decision-making, insufficient attention to environmental justice, and lagging technology. We argue that reforms cannot only be expert-driven but must also come from the public, incorporating community driven solutions and focusing on remedying environmental injustice.

Background: Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women worldwide and most cases are not due to high risk inherited genes. In response, breast cancer activists successfully advocated for innovative research on environmental chemical exposures as a possible cause. Since then, new evidence supports hypotheses that common industrial and consumer chemicals are linked to the disease, and expert panels recommend reducing exposures. We evaluated whether these research results and recommendations are translated back into the work of breast cancer organizations and what barriers and opportunities influence their ability to focus on environmental factors., Methods: We used a Python script to evaluate the frequency of environmental terms on the websites of 81 breast cancer organizations (> 14,000 associated URLs) and conducted two focus groups and 20 interviews with leaders of breast cancer organizations. We also analyzed the frequency of terms on two trusted, national cancer websites., Results: 40% of organizations include information on environmental chemicals on their websites, but references are infrequent and rarely cite specific chemicals of concern. Most organizations (82%) discuss other risk factors such as exercise, diet, family history, or genetics. From interviews and focus groups, we identified four types of barriers to addressing environmental chemicals: 1) time and resource constraints, 2) limited knowledge of the state of the research and lack of access to experts, 3) difficulties with messaging, including concern that cultural and economic factors make it difficult for individuals to reduce their exposures, and 4) institutional obstacles, such as the downplaying of environmental risks by industry interests. Participants expressed the desire for easy-to-adopt educational programs and increased federal funding for scientist-advocate research partnerships., Conclusion: Our research underscores the need for environmental breast cancer experts and trusted cancer organizations to increase research translation activities so that breast cancer organizations can communicate new science on environmental factors in their online and in-person work. Moreover, our research highlights how most groups are focusing on providing resources to diagnosed women, including addressing problems with healthcare access, which displaces their ability to work on breast cancer prevention.

The dismantlement of evidence-based environmental governance by the Trump Administration requires new forms of activism that uphold science and environmental regulatory agencies while critiquing the politics of knowledge production. The Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI) emerged after the November 2016 U.S. Presidential elections, becoming an organization of over 175 volunteer researchers, technologists, archivists, and activists innovating more just forms of government accountability and environmental regulation. Our successes include: 1) leading a public movement to archive vulnerable federal data evidencing climate change and environmental injustice; 2) conducting multi-sited interviews of current and former federal agency personnel regarding the transition into the Trump administration; 3) tracking changes to federal websites. In this article, we conduct a "social movement organizational autoethnography" on the field of movements intersecting within EDGI and on our theory, tactics, and practices. We offer ideas for expanding and iterating on methods of public, collaborative scholarship and advocacy.

Background: Emerging 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., Methods: The 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., Results: Report-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., Conclusions: Report-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.

The Trump administration has undertaken an assault on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an agency critical to environmental health. This assault has precedents in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The early Reagan administration (1981-1983) launched an overt attack on the EPA, combining deregulation with budget and staff cuts, whereas the George W. Bush administration (2001-2008) adopted a subtler approach, undermining science-based policy. The current administration combines both these strategies and operates in a political context more favorable to its designs on the EPA. The Republican Party has shifted right and now controls the executive branch and both chambers of Congress. Wealthy donors, think tanks, and fossil fuel and chemical industries have become more influential in pushing deregulation. Among the public, political polarization has increased, the environment has become a partisan issue, and science and the mainstream media are distrusted. For these reasons, the effects of today's ongoing regulatory delays, rollbacks, and staff cuts may well surpass those of the administrations of Reagan and Bush, whose impacts on environmental health were considerable.

We explore and contextualize changes at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the first 6 months of the Trump administration, arguing that its pro-business direction is enabling a form of regulatory capture. We draw on news articles, public documents, and a rapid response, multisited interview study of current and retired EPA employees to (1) document changes associated with the new administration, (2) contextualize and compare the current pro-business makeover with previous ones, and (3) publicly convey findings in a timely manner. The lengthy, combined experience of interviewees with previous Republican and Democratic administrations made them valuable analysts for assessing recent shifts at the Scott Pruitt-led EPA and the extent to which these shifts steer the EPA away from its stated mission to "protect human and environmental health." Considering the extent of its pro-business leanings in the absence of mitigating power from the legislative branch, we conclude that its regulatory capture has become likely-more so than at similar moments in the agency's 47-year history. The public and environmental health consequences of regulatory capture of the EPA will probably be severe and far-reaching.

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., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.)