Writing the Future of Ecotoxicology: Contributing to a Pellston Workshop as a PhD Student

Sophie Mentzel, Sam Welch, Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA); Alizee Desrousseaux, University of York; John Hader, Stockholm University

This June, four ECORISK2050 ITN PhD students participated in the SETAC Pellston workshop “Integrating Global Climate Change (GCC) into Ecological Risk Assessment,” which was held in late June in Oscarsborg, Norway. This workshop brought together more than 30 scientists from different fields and expertise, ranging from GCC modelers to hydrologists and toxicologists, across government, industry and academia, and representing four continents. Those four PhD students were us. Contributing to a Pellston workshop was a rare opportunity for early career scientists, and here are our thoughts.

The location of Oscarsborg Fortress, Norway, and the classrooms where the team came together.

Sam Welch, Norwegian Institute for Water Research – Technical Support

I was invited fairly late in the workshop planning to join as a general technical and logistic assistant. My PhD didn’t have so much of an emphasis on climate change, so I wasn’t able to contribute to the writing of the papers, which is both a blessing and a curse, but it was interesting and educational to get a glimpse into the inner workings of SETAC administration and event management. There were plenty of errands to run and things to plug into other things both before and during the workshop, and a lot of interesting formal discussions in the day and informal discussions in the evening, which gave me plenty of ideas for directions to take my research. I never felt like an outsider at the workshop (even though I absolutely was), so I’d like to encourage other students and early career researchers to get involved with workshops like the GCC Pellston if you have the chance.

John Hader, Stockholm University – Exposure Assessment Work Package

I was incorporated into the workshop some way into its planning and organization. Our working group focuses on using Bayesian networks, and as I had little familiarity with these, it was a challenge for me to understand how the group viewed a problem and how the data needs differed from mine as a typically deterministic chemical fate modeler. I was readily welcomed into the group though and felt like the ideas I brought to the table were equally readily welcomed into the mixing pot of discussions. One thing our group struggled with leading up to the workshop was the issue of being spread across time zones in Australia, the US and Europe. Our group responded by having several asynchronous meetings with overlapping groups of people in the work package. This helped us set the stage nicely for our in-person discussions, where we made a lot of progress on our work (while all roughly in the same phase of our circadian rhythms). Overall, participation in this working group has been an immensely valuable experience, especially for seeing how group dynamics establish, evolve and how to maintain good communication throughout this process.

Sophie Mentzel, Norwegian Institute for Water Research – Effects Assessment Work Package

The workshop was brought to my attention by my PhD supervisor, who has always encouraged me to participate in conferences and workshops. I participated in several of the pre-workshop meetings; these felt overwhelming and intimidating at times. After the research topic and case studies for the work packages were defined, the discussions became more focused and easier to follow. During the workshop and the discussion rounds, the other workshop participants created an environment that enabled fruitful and interesting discussions, to the point that I felt encouraged and “safe” enough to participate in the conversations and add my opinions and knowledge. Personally, it was a great opportunity for me to learn and network with various experts from several different fields that I would not have the opportunity to meet and talk to otherwise. It was a welcome change especially after 2.5 years of pandemic and virtual meetings. The work is not finished yet, so I am looking forward to continuing the research and discussions with the other workshop participants.

Alizée Desrousseaux, University of York – Risk Assessment Work Package

I joined the workshop in the beginning of May and had the opportunity to meet participants from my work package a couple of times at virtual meetings before we met in Oslo. Despite participants being more than welcoming and respectful, it was at the beginning difficult for me to find my place. My work package made many decisions about our article beforehand so we could write during the workshop. The beginning discussions were therefore intense, and the writing started on day 1. As a PhD student next to experts with decades of careers, I questioned my legitimacy to participate. Social events and discussions with other participants made me realize all of the other possibilities offered by this workshop. I had discussions with scientists and regulators about sciences, careers and working culture, but also about working versus personal life balance, social media, feminism in the science community, or their personal careers. The richness of this workshop was, in my opinion, in the social interactions as much as it was in science development. Realizing this made me participate more and allowed me to take full advantages of this impressive workshop.

Lessons Learned

• Talking across disciplines is hard: Different approaches are taken, different terms are used, and things are prioritized differently. Being able to clearly communicate what you see as important from your discipline and how you think it should fit into an analysis is crucial.
• Come prepared: Time flies when you’re doing science, and having papers, ideas and talking points organized beforehand goes a long way to utilizing the valuable time you have in a room together with other scientists.
• Less is more: There are lots of people with lots of valuable ideas to discuss, and very little time to do this, so being concise but effective with discussions is vital. Knowing when to have a “deep dive” discussion in a group versus saving that discussion for a coffee break is very important, and all members of the group need to be aware of this.
• A few days face-to-face is worth years on Zoom: It’s hard to emphasize how much value you get out of having a face-to-face meeting with colleagues instead of Zoom meetings. Particularly as environmental scientists, we must be judicious with how we travel, cutting out unnecessary and frequent trips and moving meetings to virtual spaces when possible. To us, having one in-person workshop to meet people and have an organized series of discussions seems vital to kickstarting the scientific process and forging important group dynamics that can result in better teamwork and better science than if it were held fully virtually.
• Diversity – climate change is a global issue: Though this workshop had invited participants from various continents, most participants were from the West, and we think that a lot of important ideas and perspectives could be added if more participants from non-western countries were in attendance. That said, we were impressed with the clear attention to having a great diversity in career stages and gender balance at the workshop.

Author’s contact: Sophie Mentzel, [email protected]