SETAC Europe Meeting 2011 in Milan

ra summaryAlthough it’s already a couple of weeks in the past: I’m still going through all the follow-up tasks from the SETAC Europe meeting in Milan in May. Oh well… didn’t a wise man say that the journey is the reward?

Anyway, although exhausting it was great to meet lots of old friends and acquaintances, getting to know new people, making new plans, reviewing (or being reminded of) old ideas  – and generally not getting enough sleep. Fun!

SETAC actually put a lot of the meeting slides online, at meetings.setac.org/

I had the honor of giving the final summary of the talks and topics related to the “risk assessment” theme. In 15 minutes. Summarizing 12 session “offically” dedicated to risk assessment, countless others that touched upon the subject one way or another, hundreds of related posters and some keynote lectures. Meaning, that this was simply an impossible task. I could not even highlight most issues on a general scale – and it certainly was a very biased, personal summary. My sincere apologies to everybody I didn’t mention, for every topic that I didn’t list.

Anyway, if you’re interested to see how I tried to wiggle my way through: here’s a copy of the slides. Enjoy!

See you next year in Berlin! And don’t forget to submit a session proposal until the 15th of August… ;)

Thomas


We’ve all been there…

No comment… ;)

From “Piled Higher and Deeper” by Jorge Cham www.phdcomics.com


Call for papers: environmental challenges to nuclear power

call for papers In case somebody feels competent: We (the editoral board of IEAM, that is) are looking for manuscripts on the “environmental challenges to nuclear power”. Please feel free to check the details of the call here and get in touch with any of us.

Deadline is the 15th of April.


Power of research

power of researchAnd nobody believed me…

So, here’s the link and the background: The EU Commission actually put together an online game, called “the power of research”, which can be found at http://www.powerofresearch.eu/. It is supposed to “to inspire young Europeans to pursue scientific careers”, according to the press release from the Commission. To be honest, in addition to an online game, I could think of one or two things  that could be improved if we want to inspire students to pursue a career in science. But I guess, that’s just me…

Anyway, have fun and tell me how the game performs!

Thomas


Summary of the SETAC Special Science Symposium on Chemical Mixtures

SETAC_SESSS03Ok, it’s been a while. Time for some updates…

Let me start with a quick summary of the recent Special Science Symposium that I organized with my colleagues Nina Cedergreen and Tom Hutchinson. You find PDF-copies of all presentations here and some photos here.

What I really enjoyed (besides the science and meeting colleagues and friends): we decided to actually give people enought time to spin their story – and the presenters took up the challenge. We hence had really engaging talks, which were also accessible for an audience who did not share the office with the presenter for the last 10 years (I I often have the impression that this is the target audience for ordinary talks at SETAC conferences ). And the scope was really broad! From amored combat vehicles to white unicorns

Anyway, here’s the summary which will also appear in SETACs Globe in April.

3rd SETAC Europe Special Science Symposium “Prospective and Retrospective Environmental Risk Assessment of Mixtures: Moving from Research to Regulation”

Thomas Backhaus, Nina Cedergreen, Tom Hutchinson

Chemical-analytical surveys demonstrate that organisms in the environment are exposed to complex chemical mixtures. Recent eco-epidemiology studies indicate that the ‘toxic pressure’ due to chemical mixtures is correlated with reduced biodiversity in river catchments. Also chemical products, such as e.g. pesticides or surfactants are usually combination products, comprising active ingredients, preservatives, filling agents, etc. However, the environmental effects of chemicals are traditionally evaluated and regulated on the basis of single substances, chemical by chemical. This approach might not be sufficient, especially because the toxicity of a mixture of chemicals is usually higher than each of the individual substances.

In December 2009 the EU environment ministers therefore asked the European Commission to strengthen its work on managing the risks posed by chemical mixtures. In parallel, a range of reviews, guidelines and recommendations on how to assess risks of chemical mixtures have been compiled by academic working groups as well as national, European and international bodies (e.g. WHO or EFSA).

In order to provide an overview of the state of the art and to facilitate knowledge exchange between scientists from different disciplines, regulators and chemical industry, SETAC organized a 2-days Special Science Symposium on the issue, which was held in Brussels, 2-3 February 2011. Presentations were given by a range of well-known experts from environmental regulation, ecotoxicological risk assessment, human health oriented toxicology, analytical environmental chemistry. Approaches to mixture risk assessment were discussed from a retrospective as well as a prospective perspective. Retrospective studies were discussed with the aim to identify key components in a given mixture or exposure scenario, e.g. a river catchment or waste disposal site. Prospective studies on the other hand were presented with a view on predicting mixture toxicities, based on the toxicological or ecotoxicological properties of the mixture components (often termed the mode of action or MOA approach), with the aim to e.g. set environmental quality standards. All presenters kindly agreed to make copies of their presentations available from SETAC’s website at http://sesss03.setac.eu/.
Obviously, the different risk assessment areas have different protection goals. However, common ground was identified in several aspects:

  1. Concentration Addition seems to be suitable for providing a scientific frame of reference and as a slightly conservative, first tier approach for mixture hazard and risk assessment in human toxicology as well as ecotoxicology. Results from such a tier might be especially useful for informing the need for additional, more in-depth study of a particular mixture.
  2. Surprisingly little is known on the actual exposure to mixtures. Hence it is currently unclear by how much the current compound-per-compound assessment, incorporating assessment factors derived for these individual substances, might (or might not) underestimate actual environmental risks.
  3. Chemical mixtures in the environmental are a special challenge for environmental risk assessment and regulation, particularly because of its organization in highly specialized silos. A clear need for overarching approaches was identified.

Last but certainly not least, we would like to take the opportunity to thank all the presenters for their time and their engaging talks! It was certainly rewarding to be around…


Anybody interested in working with us?

We just announced a permanent position as ”Forskningsingenjör” (senior research engineer). Please find here the english announcement, and here the Swedish one.

Deadline for applications is the 22 of November 2010.

Just drop me a mail if you have any questions.

Thomas


From Office 2007 to Office 2010

Ok, I didn’t go for a new laptop (still like the screen dimensions of my T500 better than the “viewing slits” of more recent computers).

However, I finally managed to update from Office 2007 to Office 2010. Mainly for the new ability to sync Onenote Notebooks via Windows Live. The Update went quite alright, with the exception of some nice, little tools that didn’t survive the transition :( and some keyboard shortcuts that were completely unnecessarily changed. Grrr… – but sort of expected. I could fix most of it with some new authotkey scripts.

But what really I found it rather frustrating: that the Reference Manager (my bibliographic software that I use for keeping track of my literature and for handling the references in my manuscripts) is still not compatible with Office 2010. I really didn’t see that coming… I mean, the software is produced by Thomson Reuters, who produce Web of Science (Web of Knowledge) and label themselves “the world’s leading source of intelligent information for businesses and professionals”. Bla, bla, bla. And if a support guy says in the forum that “We hope to have a free update available by the end of the year.” (see here), then I’m certainly not holding my breath.

Maybe it’s time to explore Mendeley and Zotero a bit more.

On a different note: No major changes seem to have happened in Outlook. But that the option for viewing and answering emails in plain text is located in File->Options (Hm..)->Trust Center (!!)->Email Security (WTF??) was, shall we say…slightly surprising. And MS owes me another 30 minutes of my life.

Thomas


Buying a new laptop. Easy…? Nope.

That should be simple, given the ample range of different brands and models: I need a new laptop. However, after a couple of minutes and suddenly becoming somewhat frustrated: nobody is producing a decent professional laptop any more. Full stop, end of story.

Sure, you get them with 1 TB hard drives, dolby surround audio system, 4-core processors, 8 GByte memory, and an interface to your coffee machine. No problem. But you can’t get any with a decent screen.

What I mean: all models, from all the brands now have 16:9 screens, an extremly lenghty format that is perfect for watching movies and stuff. But for working (and for me that has a lot to do with writing, either texts or source code, or digging around databases) that format is absolute crap. There is a reason why you use an ordinary piece of paper in portrait orientation (shorter side horizontal) and not in landscape (longer side horizontal). Landscape orientiation simply makes the lines of a text too long to read, and/or you don’t get enough lines on the screen (while the right half of the screen simply goes empty). So much for the professionalism of the “professional models”.

When talking to the technical support of our main IT-supplier, he could see my point – and he even had a great solution: “just buy a docking station and a big stationary screen”. Perfect – that’s why I’m trying to buy a laptop (aka “mobile computer”). I wonder what the flight crew on my next flight might say if I try to bring a docking station and a big screen on board and start looking for the power outlets…

Thomas

PS.: Not that it would help, but interestingly enough the IPad seems to have the old 4:3 format.


The oil spill.. and update on the recent developments (sort of)

I guess, most has really been said, discussed and denied concerning the oil spill. But, as a European, I still find it highly interesting to follow the actions and reactions in the US. And who could put an overview of the current developments together better than Patrik Stewart? So, here are two recent clips from The Daily Show. Laugh’ or Cry? Your choice…

Thomas

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Day 59 – Judgment Day – The Strife Aquatic
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party


The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Day 62 – The Strife Aquatic
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

The internet, multitasking and actual learning

I just came across a highly interesting – and slightly worrying – article from Nicolas Carr in Wired. In short, the article analyses the impact that modern information technologies have on our learning behaviour and our perception of information. It discusses the impact of typical information retrieval strategies on our abilities to actually think, reflect and develop ideas – in short, to actually make use of all the information that is available to us.

And unfortunately, it looks as if the net  actually does a very good job in distracting us from the real thing, as it seems to encourage the superfical skimming of a multitude of information, while at the same time hampering a deeper engagement with what we’ve read / perceived.

Some of the thoughts are not really new, they remind me a lot on Neil Postmans texts (“Amusing ourselves to death”, still very much recommended!). However, a major difference seems to be that now, even when we try to be productive, modern information technology seems to be yet another distraction that tempts us to loose focus.

Food for thought… I have to admit, that some of the behavioral patterns described the text sound awfully familar. Maybe we should be a bit more carefully evaluating the role of electronic, web-based tools, media and information sources in science and teaching?

Thomas