Meeting Highlights

Superfund Basic Research Program 2004 Annual Meeting: Application of Molecular Technologies for Reducing Uncertainties in Risk

Plenary Sessions – Welcomes

Meeting attendees were warmly welcomed by Craig J Hogan, Vice Provost of the University of Washington and Greg Nickels, the Mayor of Seattle. Both emphasized the critical nature of the research conducted by the SBRP and acknowledged the leading role that the SBRP has played in environmental research. Anne Sassaman, Director of NIEHS Division of Extramural Research and Training, expressed her pride in the maturation and productivity of the SBRP and commented that she viewed SBRP interactions with EPA to be particularly important. She believes that interdisciplinary research is important in our efforts to address environmental health issues and that the SBRP is a good example of the interdisciplinary programs described as "Research Teams of the Future" in Dr. Zerhouni's Roadmap for the NIH.

Bill Suk, Director of the SBRP, discussed the value of the SBRP as a successful vehicle to translate basic research into new ways to improve public health. He also paid tribute to three retiring SBRP Program Directors, Dean Carter (University of Arizona), Richard Monson (Harvard University), and Larry Fischer (Michigan State University). Dr Suk thanked them for their insight, exceptional management skills, and their leadership in the evolving direction of the Program.

Ron Kreizenbeck, EPA Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10, encouraged increased cooperation between EPA and SBRP. He noted that this will require increased communication and stated that EPA and SBRP must share in the responsibility for communication. Mr. Kreizenbeck said that he would push his counterparts in other EPA regions to increase their interaction with SBRP staff and researchers. He identified analytical methods development as an area needing basic and applied research investment, and noted that asbestos, DNAPLs, chlorinated compounds, and metals are contaminants of particular concern in Region 10.

 Back to top

Plenary Sessions – Keynote Addresses

On Wednesday, November 3, Keynote Addresses were presented by Drs. Robert Waterston and Terry Hazen. While they emphasized different applications for the data from new molecular technology approaches, each emphasized the challenges arising as researchers work to understand and utilize the vast quantity of information generated by the new "omics" methods. Dr. Waterston of Washington University discussed the successes of the international effort to map the human genome. He commented that we have learned much, but have also uncovered many new questions. For example, we now know that only 5% of the human genome is undergoing selection, but we do not know which 5%. He sees great potential for application of genomic data in environmental research as a foundation for understanding genetic variations as the first step in determining the effect of variation on phenotype.

Dr. Hazen, of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, presented an overview of several "omics" disciplines and their potential for application to remediation technologies. While he stated that gene sequences alone are not the answer ("a parts list for an airplane doesn't explain flight"), Dr. Hazen believes that the new omics technologies will transform remediation strategies. He commented that genomic analyses of community structure and studies of genomes in an environmental context may lead to new site characterization methods and may provide the knowledge we need to better understand natural degradation processes that hold tremendous potential for bioremediation strategies.

On Thursday, November 5, Keynote Addresses were presented by Dr. Claudia Thompson, SBRP Program Administrator, and Dr. Lee Hofmann, EPA OSWER Science Advisor. Each provided an agency perspective on the potential of genomic research. Dr. Thompson emphasized the potential of genomics to reduce risk by providing new strategies to quantitate exposures and to remediate contaminated environments. She commented that environmental health research must strive to address inherently complex issues such as time, space, and dose of exposures, multiple exposures, and exposure to mixtures – plus the fact that "everyone’s 'environment' is different". Genomics could provide the insights into living systems and allow researchers to apply a systems biology approach to better characterize disease risk.

Dr. Hofmann discussed the EPA regulatory perspective on the promise of genomics research. The interim policy at EPA is that genomics data alone are insufficient to for risk assessment and management decisions. Dr. Hofmann commented that genomics research has the potential to allow researchers to separate toxic responses from ambient responses and that genomics data may have regulatory applications (monitoring for compliance and assessment; reporting requirements for Right-to-Know provisions; regulatory prioritization) and risk assessment applications (modes of action; susceptible populations; mixtures assessments). She reiterated the complexity of linking gene changes to adverse outcomes – and added that linkages must be particularly strong in order to support regulation. Before genomics data can serve as the foundation of regulation, EPA must address complex issues such standardization of data between labs and between platforms; identification of relevant test species; management and reporting of data; and bioethics of data handling. The EPA has a Genomics Action Plan in place and the EPA Genomics Task Force has published a White Paper on the implications and potential applications of genomics research as well as research needs.

 Back to top

Plenary Sessions – Karen Wetterhahn Memorial Award Presentation

Each year, the SBRP presents the Karen Wetterhahn Memorial Award to an outstanding scholar to pay tribute to the life and scientific accomplishments of Karen E. Wetterhahn, former director of the SBRP at Dartmouth College. Dr. Wetterhahn died in 1997 as the result of an accidental exposure to dimethylmercury. An acknowledged international expert on the effects of heavy metals on biological systems, Dr. Wetterhahn was a leader in conducting research on how metals initiate cancer and other metal-induced human diseases at the molecular level. She fostered links between biology, chemistry, environmental studies, engineering, and medical science, insisting that "The life sciences are interdisciplinary". Dr. Anne Spuches of Dartmouth College was the recipient of the seventh annual Karen Wetterhahn Memorial Award.

Dr. Spuches, who earned her Ph.D. in Chemistry at Yale University, is in her second year as a Post-Doctoral Fellow at Dartmouth College. Advised by Professor Dean E. Wilcox, she is participating in interdisciplinary studies addressing the environmental and human health effects of arsenic. She presented a summary of her work to investigate the toxicity of arsenic at low chronic exposure, primarily through arsenite in drinking water, poses a significant health risk for people around the world. Dr. Spuches discussed her use of Isothermal Titration Calorimetry to quantify the interaction of arsenite and monomethylarsenite with various thiols. This information is fundamental to mapping the distribution and chemistry of arsenic in the cell, and may also help in the design of new, more effective, chelating agents for the treatment of arsenic poisoning.

The NIEHS congratulates Dr. Spuches on her research accomplishments and wishes her continued success in her scientific career.

 Back to top

Science Sessions

On both Wednesday and Thursday, concurrent scientific sessions highlighting biomedical and remediation research were followed by plenary discussion sessions. To view speaker abstracts and Power Point Presentations, see the Conference Agenda. (http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/events/pastmtg/2004/sbrp2004/agenda.cfm) Mr. Richard Troast and Dr. A. Jay Gandolfi chaired the discussion sessions, which included brief summaries of the presentations from the breakout sessions. As the scientific sessions addressed both biomedical and non-biomedical research, the power and utility of genomic studies with respect to both areas were discussed in the plenary sessions. While it was agreed that "the power is there" for genomics data to contribute to environmental health research, participants agreed that many issues remain concerning validation of genomic analyses. Systems are needed to assess the accuracy of genomic assays and to analyze data gaps, and it is critical that researchers are able to distinguish real impacts from noise in genomic analytical systems. Dr. Suk commented that advances in mathematics and computational biology are needed to appropriately interpret and apply the findings from genomics studies.

The participants commented that in order to understand the impact of human exposure to a contaminant, or to evaluate a new bioremediation strategy, it is necessary to link genotype changes to phenotype changes. While discussing whether that is possible with current applications of genomics, it was stated that, at this point, it may be most appropriate to use genomics data for screening purposes to focus additional research. Several researchers commented on the complexities of analysis of the large quantities of data generated in genomics research, and one commented that in addition to "too much data", there are "too few hypotheses".

With respect to biomedical research, participants identified several areas where they believe genomics research holds particular promise:

• The investigation of dose/response relationships.
• The identification and measurement of contaminant-induced perturbation; that is, the development of new, more sensitive biomarkers.
• The identification of the mechanisms of action leading to contaminant toxicity.
• The investigation of impacts of exposures to mixtures.

Researchers commented that genomics research may also play an important role in the development and monitoring of remediation strategies, as it may provide tools to:

• Assess the efficiency of target compound removal and analyze the toxicity of residuals.
• Assess the impact of a remediation strategy on non-target compounds in the environment to ensure that remediation techniques do not create new environmental contamination issues.
• Study microbial communities as every site has a unique microbial community and therefore a unique genome.

 Back to top

Joint Science – Outreach Session

The interdisciplinary nature of the SBRP was highlighted in a unique session that included participation of teams researchers and Outreach staff from three universities. They discussed outreach activities whose success was due in part to the participation of research scientists. Chetana Acharya and Stuart Strand (University of Washington) discussed an exhibit and on-line conversations they developed and conducted to teach elementary school children about phytoremediation. Joyce Martin and Dan Oerther (University of Cincinnati) described a one-day workshop they developed and presented to help non-scientists understand some of the science involved in the UC Superfund Basic Research Program. In each of these activities, the presenting researchers were actively involved in the preparation of the materials, and both the scientists and outreach staff learned a great deal from the process.

KC Donnelly (Texas A&M University) and John Barich (EPA Region 10) gave an overview of the coordinated research that they have conducted in the Seattle area. They discussed the processes involved in initiating and carrying out successful research collaborations with EPA. Mr. Barich commented that SBRP researchers interested in developing relationships with EPA need to ask EPA what they need and to be very clear in discussions with EPA about the status and applicability of their research.

 Back to top

Poster Session

In addition to platform presentations, the SBRP meeting provides an opportunity for researchers to present their work and engage in discussions with fellow researchers at a poster session(http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/events/pastmtg/2004/sbrp2004/poster.cfm). At the 2004 Annual Meeting, over 90 SBRP-funded researchers and students, and representatives of the Outreach Cores presented highlights of their accomplishments.

Because the SBRP is committed to the interdisciplinary training and development of emerging scientists in the field of environmental health sciences, student poster presentations are considered a very important aspect of the annual meetings. In 2004, 52 students participated and two students were recognized for the outstanding presentation of their work:

• Heather F. Henry of the University of Cincinnati for her poster "Natural Plant Populations on an Aged Petroleum Refinery Landfarm: Phytotoxicity, Stabilization, and Degradation of Contaminants"
• David C. Volz of Duke University for his poster "2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) Induces Organ-specific Differential Gene Expression in Male Japanese Medaka (Oryzias latipes)"

 Back to top

Outreach Sessions

Following a welcoming session that included introductions and summary highlights from each Outreach Core, the Outreach group took a field trip to the Duwamish River Superfund site. BJ Cummings from the Duwamish River Clean-up Coalition gave an informative and engaging summary of the history of the contamination and the present-day cleanup activities. She pointed out various sources of pollution and discussed community efforts to restore the riverbanks, spawning areas and businesses. The Coalition has been successful in ensuring that the cleanup meets community standards and protects fish, wildlife and human health. The field trip was inspiring to the SBRP Outreach Cores.

The Outreach group held discussions with the goal of sharing experiences and learning from one another. They considered some of the ethical challenges of interacting with community members and discussed strategies for successful approaches to communicating research and translating research into policy. Discussion questions included:

• How do you decide who to work with, and who not to work with?
• How do you approach partners and develop the partnership once you decide?
• How do you prioritize your agenda vs. your partners' needs?
• How and when during the relationship do you introduce your center's research?
• How do you know when you are done and what do you do once you complete a project?
• How do you evaluate your partnership? What are the measures of success?

Administrators' Sessions

In the afternoons, the Administrators meeting ran concurrently with the Research meeting. Topics covered by the Administrators included creating and managing grant budgets in Excel, the eRA Commons, occupational stress, an overview of the new SBRP Web site, and general discussions about project management and plans for 2005. The meeting proved to be dynamic and informative. Thanks to all the administrators who organized and directed the administrative sessions.

 Back to top