Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
Imagine if someone spread a human carcinogen across millions of acres of land. Then imagine that the carcinogen was found to be entering surface waters due to runoff from the treated acreage. And then that the carcinogen was found to be accumulating in the dust in homes located near the treated acres.
Far-fetched? Hardly. Welcome to the good ol’ US of A. Read More
Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.
Parts in this series: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4
This is the third in a series of blog posts on new approaches that federal agencies are exploring to improve how chemicals are evaluated for safety. Previous posts primarily focused on the scientific principles underlying these efforts. This post will take a pause from scientific fundamentals to discuss some of the opportunities presented by these more novel methods, while subsequent posts will address some of their limitations and remaining challenges. (Not to worry, though, I’ll soon get back to computer-simulated organs as promised.) Read More
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
In an earlier post by my colleague Dr. Jennifer McPartland, she described new research that is linking certain chemical exposures to the rising epidemic of diabetes and obesity. Some of that research, mainly conducted in laboratory animals, is revealing that when a mother is exposed to such chemicals before or during pregnancy, her offspring are more likely to suffer from diabetes and obesity as they mature.
How might such a proclivity toward development of diabetes and obesity later in life be transferred from one generation to the next, from mother to child?
In a word, epigenetics. Read More
Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.
Parts in this series: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4
In my last post I introduced EPA’s collaborative NexGen effort and briefly described the scientific advances underpinning the program. In this post, I’ll explore some of the potential power of EPA’s efforts, which will require that we get a bit into the nitty gritty (nerd spoiler alert!).
NexGen is focusing on how new scientific knowledge and technological capabilities may interplay with traditional hazard and risk assessment that predominantly relies on more expensive and time-consuming animal studies.
There has been a lot of buzz around what is called high-throughput (HT) testing of chemicals. Just last week, EPA issued a public statement describing the unveiling of a new robot housed at the National Institutes of Health Chemical Genomics Center (NCGC). I highly recommend watching the robot in action by clicking on the “Toxicity Testing Robot System” video link available on the NIH National Human Genome Research Institute’s website. The robot is scheduled to test 10,000 chemicals for potential toxicity! So, what does that actually mean? Read More
Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.
Parts in this series: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4
Remember that then-new dance move from the 20th century? Now don’t get too excited, EPA is not adding a dance category to its new sustainability research program.
No, the ‘Robot’ in my title refers to some of the impressive machines involved in EPA’s efforts to develop and apply new automated approaches to chemical toxicity testing. These approaches integrate modern insights being gleaned from the biological sciences with advances in computation. A new term has even been coined for all this: Computational toxicology.
Though perhaps less of a draw than a dance-off featuring EPA staff, EPA’s exploration of new ways to better assess and address the safety of the tens of thousands of chemicals in use today is pretty exciting. Read More
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
Remember that old naïve saw, “Dilution is the Solution to Pollution”? When it comes to the dispersants used last year to address the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, that axiom appears to be the operative mechanism.
Last week, researchers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute published data showing that a key component of the Corexit dispersant used by BP to address the oil spill, did not degrade – as had been predicted by just about everybody, including BP, the Coast Guard, the dispersant manufacturer Nalco and EPA. In fact, it was still detectable when last looked for in September, 5 months after the spill began and at least two months after use of dispersants had ceased. Read More
