Society For Risk Analysis Annual Meeting 2017

Session Schedule & Abstracts

* Disclaimer: All presentations represent the views of the authors, and not the organizations that support their research. Please apply the standard disclaimer that any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in abstracts, posters, and presentations at the meeting are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other organization or agency. Meeting attendees and authors should be aware that this disclaimer is intended to apply to all abstracts contained in this document. Authors who wish to emphasize this disclaimer should do so in their presentation or poster. In an effort to make the abstracts as concise as possible and easy for meeting participants to read, the abstracts have been formatted such that they exclude references to papers, affiliations, and/or funding sources. Authors who wish to provide attendees with this information should do so in their presentation or poster.

Common abbreviations

Symposium: SETAC and SRA Joint Symposium on Bridging Human and Ecological Risk Assessment

Room: Salon E   3:30 pm–5:10 pm

Chair(s): Patricia Nance, Charles Menzie

Sponsored by Ecological Risk Assessment Specialty Group

This is a joint symposium collaboration between the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) and Society of Risk Analysis (SRA) to explore concepts, methods, and tools related to bridging human health and ecological risk assessment. Some of these tools have been in practice separately for many years and others are new to field. The session will show how the collaboration of efforts can build a stronger risk assessment field. Leaders from both societies will share insights and lead discussions on each of the topics. • The development and application of weight-of-evidence methodologies for human and ecological risk assessment: common pathways over uneven terrain. (C Menzie and R Kashuba) • One Health— Opportunities for SRA and SETAC Leadership and Cooperation to Improve the Health of People, Animals and the Environment. (T Augspurger and N Basu) • Integration of Emerging Science into Characterizing Toxicity for Ecological & Human Health. (M Johnson and L Braydich-Stolle) • Integration of ecological risk assessment with the assessment of risk to human health and well-being within a Bayesian network framework. (W Landis) • Communicating risk sciences related to human and ecological risks. (P Nance) The symposium will be comprised of a presentations followed by a panel discussion.

M4-E.1  3:30 pm  One Health: Opportunities for SRA and SETAC Leadership and Cooperation to Improve the Health of People, Animals and the Environment. Augspurger T*, Basu N, ; 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh, NC, USA; 2 McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, Canada

Abstract: “One Health” is a concept to encourage and expand interdisciplinary collaborations in research, clinical practice, policy, and communication related to health of people, other animals, plants and the environment. The term is relatively new (since ~2003), and it is increasingly common to see One Health included by name in inter-institutional research partnerships, conferences, communications, and organizational frameworks – particularly those championed by the human health and veterinary medical communities. One Health as a term is seldom used within Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) and Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) communications despite our histories of interdisciplinary environmental science (i.e., we do that work; we just call it by other names in our journals, newsletters, and presentations). The One Health concept (and related frameworks including Conservation Medicine and EcoHealth) presents opportunities for funding, communicating our science to new outlets, and new collaborations. We will discuss the origins, evolution, and utility of the One Health approach as an organizational framework and provide examples of ways in which SRA and SETAC expertise can benefit the One Health community, especially for chemically mediated health concerns shared among humans, domestic animals, and wildlife. We highlight examples from low- and middle-income countries where adverse outcome pathways and risk assessments, broadened by a One Health framework, could optimize the health of people, animals and the environment.

M4-E.2  3:50 pm  Integration of Emerging Science into Characterizing Toxicity for Ecological & Human Health. Johnson MJ*, Braydich-Stolle L; US Army Public Health Center, US Air Force Research Laboratory

Abstract: Understanding the potential for toxic effects from exposures to chemicals is critical for estimating risk for public health and ecological outcomes. Recently, new science has greatly expanded the tools that are available to define toxicity, and these read-across techniques can assist in refining in vivo study designs to investigate specific tissues and mechanisms of interest. To begin, modeling (in silico) approaches can provide dose estimates and predictions on toxic mechanisms that can be used quickly for emergency response applications. Secondly, in vitro cell lines, cultures and other techniques have been refined for human-derived tissues and many alternative animal cultures are also now available. Furthermore, cell cultures incorporating three dimensional growth environments and media flow have increased physiological relevance and predictive power. Lastly, pharmacological ligand-binding assays can provide non-cell alternatives in either confirming or ruling out neurological or endocrine disruption potential. Together, these new technologies can provide refined predictions on thresholds and mechanisms of toxic responses to better define risk for exposed populations. Examples on how these tools can be used in screening and refined risk applications will be discussed and examples will be provided.

M4-E.3  4:10 pm  Integration of ecological risk assessment with the assessment of risk to human health and well-being within a Bayesian network framework as applied to the Salish Sea. Landis WG*, Harris MJ; Western Washington University (WGL) , Whatcom Conservation District (MJH)

Abstract: An ongoing dilemma in risk assessment is the perceived duality between ecological risk assessment and the assessment to human health. More recently there has been the inclusion of ecosystem services and those factors that contribute to human well-being. Historically, the assessment of risk to human health was developed in the early 1980s and marked by the publication of Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, 1984). Ecological risk assessment was codified in the 1990s by the EPA framework and then guidance documents in 1992 and 1998 respectively. From the late 2000s until recently, there has been an interest in defining ecosystem services and in the calculation of risk to these properties. Human well-being has become part of the lexicon to included endpoints such as a sense of place, education, employment, public safety and traditional activities. Now there are efforts to produce risk assessments that integrate all three of these domains. In a recent publication (Harris et al. 2017) we demonstrated that it is possible to estimate risk in a contaminated site to ecological endpoints, human health and ecosystem services using clearly defined causal pathways and Bayesian networks. We are expanding this process to a broader spatial scale, the Salish Sea. The Salish Sea is a term applied to both the Puget Sound and its watersheds in the United States and the Straits of Georgia in Canada. Vancouver, Seattle, Tacoma, major ports, numerous refineries, paper mills, and high tech industries contribute chemical and biological pollutants to these watersheds. The same area is also noted for intense agricultural use and outdoor recreation, activities that function both as sources of contamination and as endpoints for risk assessment. We will demonstrate strategies for estimating risks in this diverse transboundary region by applying the Bayesian network relative risk model for the long-term, sustainable, management of this region.

M4-E.4  4:30 pm  • The development and application of weight-of-evidence methodologies for human and ecological risk assessment: common pathways over uneven terrain. Menzie C*, Kashuba R; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)

Abstract: Human health and ecological risk assessments have evolved in tandem and they share common concepts and frameworks. However, the evolution of methods have journeyed uneven terrain and there exist notable differences. The variances reflects, in part, the backgrounds of the scientists and policy makers involved in these endeavors as well as the purposes of the assessments. We discuss the commonalities and differences and show that they reflect variations in perspectives and language rather than scientific underpinnings. Recent efforts within the United States and elsewhere have focused on how to integrate the disciplines and even how to conduct integrated cumulative risk assessments. While there are many dimensions for exploration of similarities and differences, the concept of "weight of evidence" is commonly evoked as a central tenet. But, this phrase has somewhat different meanings to toxicologists, health risk assessors, and ecological risk assessors. Despite the differences in usage of the term, these groups of scientists share common ideas about evidence and its attendant weight. That offers a means of bridging across and integrating disciplines. EPA has recently put forward guidance on conducting weight of evidence assessments. This echoes concepts that have been developed over the past few decades. We use the draft guidance as a starting point and show how the concepts may be employed in toxicological assessments, health assessments, and ecological risk assessments.

M4-E.5  4:50 pm  Communicating risk sciences related to human and ecological risks. Nance P*; University of Cincinnati

Abstract: The key principles in risk communication do not change whether you are talking about human health risk assessment or ecological risk assessment issues. Communicating science involves the interaction between environmental risk assessment scientists, risk managers, policy makers, media and the general public. The media play the role of “mediators” between scientists and the public. We have to ensure the information we present to media is clear, concise and transparent. The information that needs communicated depends on the decisions that people face, so understanding the key motivations are critical to communicating the science appropriately. One must also consider the perceptions the intended audience of the message have regarding the situation, as this plays a role on how the information is presented. The key principles of communicating science have not changed for many years, however the method in which information is now communicated changes every year. We will discuss the various tools for communicating science to the various audiences. Come share your personal experiences communicating science!

[back to schedule]