Using SETAC’s Successes as a Bridge to the Future

A special session at the SETAC North America 45th Annual Meeting in Fort Worth, Texas, celebrated SETAC’s 45th anniversary. The session was organized by Adriana Bejarano, Lawrence Kapustka, Barnett Rattner, April Reed and Bruce Vigon, and it focused on our founding principles of multisector engagement, multidisciplinary approaches and scientific objectivity. April Reed moderated a discussion between the audience and a dozen panelists from diverse backgrounds and expertise—Thomas Bean, Mark Johnson, Niranjana Krishnan, Annegaaike Leopold, Carys Mitchelmore, Derek Muir, Mandy Olsgard, Beatrice Opeolu, Martha Orozco Medina, Sandy Raimondo, Glenn Suter and Adam Wronski—on what has worked, what hasn’t, and opportunities for the future. Opening speaker Beatrice Opeolu, SETAC President, reviewed the global nature and evolution of SETAC, emphasizing events that have driven the advancement of science and policy related to pollution and chemical management, SETAC’s role in disseminating objective information, and the opportunities it has afforded its membership.

Annegaaike Leopold spoke to multisectoral engagement that originally sought a tripartite balance in membership among academia, business and government, but it has since been expanded to include non-governmental organizations and other sectors to provide a broader forum for communication. While SETAC symposia, Pellston Workshops® and regional conferences embrace this multisectoral approach, obtaining government and NGO representation has been challenging. Engaging different sectors has enhanced both the transparency of value judgements and objectivity, and has seemingly strengthened the leveraging of knowledge by regulatory and management organizations. For example, the European Commission formed a high-level roundtable for the implementation of the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability, and the Director General for Science and Innovation sought consultation input from SETAC. In contrast, some SETAC members perceive a dominance of industry influence and claim that the recurring lack of government representation has weakened the outcome of workshops and data communication. Future opportunities include greater representation by some sectors, and the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge. Audience comments included topics such as inherent bias regardless of sector and engagement of interested individuals in ways other than in-person and virtual meetings and workshops.

Carys Mitchelmore described multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary science as approaches for solving complex environmental problems. Over the past 45 years, many new fundamental and applied disciplines and knowledge areas have evolved, with the need to communicate to a multisectoral audience that extends beyond science to socioeconomic issues. The answers to questions such as “Should SETAC refine its mission to be more focused on its historic areas?” or “Should SETAC engage more disciplines to better promote interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary science?” remain unclear. What is clear is that fostering multidisciplinary science by collaboration with other groups and colleagues in social sciences and humanities would likely enhance knowledge use and output, as well as new approaches in risk assessment. Some of the panel and audience commented on the role SETAC has played in bringing transdisciplinary science to yield a multifaceted output, but also the realization that SETAC may not always be the best way to influence regulatory decisions.

Glenn Suter stated that scientific objectivity is a remarkably difficult concept. Simply, it is basing belief on evidence and logic, but it can be negatively defined as the absence of bias. In reality, there is often a gradient of truth, and advice can be given with less-than-absolute confidence. SETAC has attempted to be a trusted source of science by balancing sectors and potentially providing consensus, with achievement of consensus on some contentious topics. Perceived objectivity is important for SETAC to influence the wider world, and some of our contributions (e.g., Congressional Staff briefing on the framing of the Lautenberg Act) illustrate the way science can contribute to decision-making. SETAC could be a friend of the courts by providing briefs on scientific issues, interacting with decision-makers, and serving as experts for journalists addressing environmental issues. SETAC should provide standards for unbiased and objective scientific practices to its members and consider new approaches for SETAC positions on scientific issues and public policy that are unbiased. Many comments from the audience followed, including observations that management decisions don’t get made by consensus, objectivity in science can be biased by one’s background, and the need to protect ecosystems, which includes humans, can require a delicate balance to achieve sustainability.

Mark Johnson described the results of a recent SETAC web-based survey and provided closing commentary. Some of the many findings of the survey indicate that networking is incredibly important to SETAC members, that SETAC should continue to communicate emerging scientific information to influence policy, and the most important thing SETAC can do is to maintain the integrity and quality of its journals and stay on the cutting edge of environmental science. By upholding its core values, SETAC does a good job at maintaining its reputation, with key opportunities including increased inter-societal collaborations, enhancing work on sustainable alternatives, and training more ecotoxicologists. Audience comments included more efforts to identify priorities of management and decision-makers, the need for management agencies to use more contemporary tools in hazard and risk assessment, and the ability to make decisions while dealing with uncertainty.

The panel hopes to prepare a more in-depth analysis and report of its observations to help SETAC flourish for years to come.

Author’s contact: [email protected]