The Importance of Fostering and Funding Scientific Research, and its Relevance to Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

What do environmental contaminants and climate change have in common with the virus SARS-CoV-2 and the disease COVID-19? We argue that one common element is the wealth of basic and applied scientific research that provides the knowledge and tools essential in developing effective programs for addressing threats to humans and social-ecological systems. Research on various chemicals, including dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, resulted in regulatory action to protect environmental and human health. Moreover, decades of research on coronaviruses, mRNA, and recently SARS-CoV-2 enabled the rapid development of vaccines to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. In the present study, we explore the common elements of basic and applied scientific research breakthroughs that link chemicals, climate change, and SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 and describe how scientific information was applied for protecting human health and, more broadly, socio-ecological systems. We also offer a cautionary note on the misuse and mistrust of science that is not new in human history, but unfortunately is surging in modern times. Our goal was to illustrate the critical role of scientific research to society, and we argue that research must be intentionally fostered, better funded, and applied appropriately. To that end, we offer evidence that supports the importance of investing in scientific research and, where needed, ways to counter the spread of misinformation and disinformation that undermines legitimate discourse. Environ Toxicol Chem 2023;42:581-593. © 2022 SETAC.

Integration of ecosystem science into radioecology: A consensus perspective.

In the Fall of 2016 a workshop was held which brought together over 50 scientists from the ecological and radiological fields to discuss feasibility and challenges of reintegrating ecosystem science into radioecology. There is a growing desire to incorporate attributes of ecosystem science into radiological risk assessment and radioecological research more generally, fueled by recent advances in quantification of emergent ecosystem attributes and the desire to accurately reflect impacts of radiological stressors upon ecosystem function. This paper is a synthesis of the discussions and consensus of the workshop participant's responses to three primary questions, which were: 1) How can ecosystem science support radiological risk assessment? 2) What ecosystem level endpoints potentially could be used for radiological risk assessment? and 3) What inference strategies and associated methods would be most appropriate to assess the effects of radionuclides on ecosystem structure and function? The consensus of the participants was that ecosystem science can and should support radiological risk assessment through the incorporation of quantitative metrics that reflect ecosystem functions which are sensitive to radiological contaminants. The participants also agreed that many such endpoints exit or are thought to exit and while many are used in ecological risk assessment currently, additional data need to be collected that link the causal mechanisms of radiological exposure to these endpoints. Finally, the participants agreed that radiological risk assessments must be designed and informed by rigorous statistical frameworks capable of revealing the causal inference tying radiological exposure to the endpoints selected for measurement.

Using ecological production functions to link ecological processes to ecosystem services.

Ecological production functions (EPFs) link ecosystems, stressors, and management actions to ecosystem services (ES) production. Although EPFs are acknowledged as being essential to improve environmental management, their use in ecological risk assessment has received relatively little attention. Ecological production functions may be defined as usable expressions (i.e., models) of the processes by which ecosystems produce ES, often including external influences on those processes. We identify key attributes of EPFs and discuss both actual and idealized examples of their use to inform decision making. Whenever possible, EPFs should estimate final, rather than intermediate, ES. Although various types of EPFs have been developed, we suggest that EPFs are more useful for decision making if they quantify ES outcomes, respond to ecosystem condition, respond to stressor levels or management scenarios, reflect ecological complexity, rely on data with broad coverage, have performed well previously, are practical to use, and are open and transparent. In an example using pesticides, we illustrate how EPFs with these attributes could enable the inclusion of ES in ecological risk assessment. The biggest challenges to ES inclusion are limited data sets that are easily adapted for use in modeling EPFs and generally poor understanding of linkages among ecological components and the processes that ultimately deliver the ES. We conclude by advocating for the incorporation into EPFs of added ecological complexity and greater ability to represent the trade-offs among ES. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:52-61. © 2016 SETAC.

Considerations of Environmentally Relevant Test Conditions for Improved Evaluation of Ecological Hazards of Engineered Nanomaterials.

Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) are increasingly entering the environment with uncertain consequences including potential ecological effects. Various research communities view differently whether ecotoxicological testing of ENMs should be conducted using environmentally relevant concentrations-where observing outcomes is difficult-versus higher ENM doses, where responses are observable. What exposure conditions are typically used in assessing ENM hazards to populations? What conditions are used to test ecosystem-scale hazards? What is known regarding actual ENMs in the environment, via measurements or modeling simulations? How should exposure conditions, ENM transformation, dose, and body burden be used in interpreting biological and computational findings for assessing risks? These questions were addressed in the context of this critical review. As a result, three main recommendations emerged. First, researchers should improve ecotoxicology of ENMs by choosing test end points, duration, and study conditions-including ENM test concentrations-that align with realistic exposure scenarios. Second, testing should proceed via tiers with iterative feedback that informs experiments at other levels of biological organization. Finally, environmental realism in ENM hazard assessments should involve greater coordination among ENM quantitative analysts, exposure modelers, and ecotoxicologists, across government, industry, and academia.

Exploring SETAC's roles in the global dialogue on sustainability--an opening debate.

A combination platform-debate session was held at the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) North America annual meeting in Boston (November 2011). The session was organized by members of the Advisory Group on Sustainability, newly formed and approved as a global entity by the SETAC World Council just prior to the meeting. The platform portion of the session provided a historical backdrop for the debate that was designed to explore SETAC's role in the sustainability dialogue. The debate portion presented arguments for and against the proposition that "Science is the primary contribution of SETAC to the global dialogue on sustainability." Although the debate was not designed to achieve a definitive sustainability policy for SETAC, the audience clearly rejected the proposition, indicating a desire from the SETAC membership for an expanded role in global sustainability forums. This commentary details the key elements of the session, identifies the contribution the Advisory Group will have at the World Congress in Berlin (May 2012), and invites interested persons to become active in the Advisory Group.

Recommendations from the International Union of Radioecology to improve guidance on radiation protection.

This brief commentary summarizes the views of a working group assembled by the International Union of Radioecology to advance the approaches used to evaluate effects of radioactive materials in the environment. The key message in both the research needs and the recommendations for management of radioactive materials centers around the need to adopt an ecocentric approach that recognizes the interconnectedness of biota, including humans, and ecological processes.

A new process for organizing assessments of social, economic, and environmental outcomes: case study of wildland fire management in the USA.

Ecological risk assessments typically are organized using the processes of planning (a discussion among managers, stakeholders, and analysts to clarify ecosystem management goals and assessment scope) and problem formulation (evaluation of existing information to generate hypotheses about adverse ecological effects, select assessment endpoints, and develop an analysis plan). These processes require modification to be applicable for integrated assessments that evaluate ecosystem management alternatives in terms of their ecological, economic, and social consequences.We present 8 questions that define the steps of a new process we term integrated problem formulation (IPF), and we illustrate the use of IPF through a retrospective case study comparing 2 recent phases of development of the Fire Program Analysis (FPA) system, a planning and budgeting system for the management of wildland fire throughout publicly managed lands in the United States. IPF extends traditional planning and problem formulation by including the explicit comparison of management alternatives, the valuation of ecological, economic and social endpoints, and the combination or integration of those endpoints. The phase 1, limited prototype FPA system used a set of assessment endpoints of common form (i.e., probabilities of given flame heights over acres of selected land-resource types), which were specified and assigned relative weights at the local level in relation to a uniform national standard. This approach was chosen to permit system-wide optimization of fire management budget allocations according to a cost-effectiveness criterion. Before full development, however, the agencies abandoned this approach in favor of a phase 2 system that examined locally specified (rather than system-optimized) allocation alternatives and was more permissive as to endpoint form. We demonstrate how the IPF process illuminates the nature, rationale, and consequences of these differences, and argue that its early use for the FPA system may have enabled a smoother development path.

Effective coordination and cooperation between ecological risk assessments and natural resource damage assessments: a new synthesis.

Although ecological risk assessments (ERAs) and natural resource damage assessments (NRDAs) are performed under different statutory and regulatory authorities, primarily the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as currently practiced, the activities typically overlap. ERAs performed as part of the response process (typically by the US Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA]) should be closely coordinated with the natural resource trustees' (trustees') NRDAs. Trustees should actively participate in the early stages of the remedial investigation (RI) and work with USEPA, including the potentially responsible parties (PRPs), when appropriate, to coordinate NRDA data needs with those of the RI. Close coordination can present opportunities to avoid inefficiencies, such as unnecessary resampling or duplicate data gathering, and provide the opportunity to fulfill both process requirements with a few well-designed investigations. Early identification of opportunities for practical combined assessment can save money and time as the restoration process proceeds and facilitate a cooperative resolution of the entire site's CERCLA liability. The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) convened an invited workshop (August 2008) to address coordination between ERA and NRDA efforts. This paper presents the findings and conclusions of the Framework Work Group, which considered technical issues common to each process, while mindful of the current legal and policy landscape, and developed recommendations for future practice.

Limitations of the current practices used to perform ecological risk assessment.

The framework for ecological risk assessments has provided a way to analyze stressors in the environment. Despite the power of this tool to inform environmental management decisions, the practice has not reached its full potential. In this paper, limitations of the practice are described under 2 categories, namely inherent and contrived. Inherent limitations are constraints of nature that we need to be aware of as we design and interpret studies. Contrived limitations are impediments that have arisen in the practice through precedent or policy. The closing portion of this paper provides a series of short-term and long-term steps that could remove some of the limitations, especially the contrived ones, and improve the usefulness of risk assessments.