Environmental exposure : trends, priorities and collaboration – A UK-Canada perspective

The British High Commission (in Canada)`s Science and Innovation Network, together with the Canadian Institute of Health Research for Human Development, Child and Health (CIHR-IHDCYH) under the aegis of the scientific director Michael Kramer, hosted a workshop on Measuring Environmental Exposure. Our goal was to better understand the research gaps that still need to be addressed in order to understand the links between human health and environment, and more specifically: the measurement of contaminants. The event took place in Montreal, from November 28^th to the 30^th, where sixty participants discussed and reflected on new avenues of sampling, measuring and modelling environmental contaminants and their exposure to humans.

Martin Williams, our keynote speaker from King’s College London, informed us on methods to measure atmospheric pollution on London streets. From this discussion, I identified three key points: 1) People move around while monitor stations don’t, thereby making exposure measurement complex; 2) The concentration of any pollutant is meaningless without the exposure time! 3) Lots of time is spent on measuring outside air, but we need to keep in mind that 90% of our time is spent indoors…

Karen Dodds, Assistant Deputy Minister at Environment Canada, honoured us with her presence, and shared various federal governmental strategies for environmental protection.  Experts showed their interest in the exposure measurement programs in the Arctic where high levels of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) trapped in water, ice and snow, are now being re-released into the environment due to climate change.

Jean Lebel, Director of Agriculture and Environment at Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC ), presented case studies which illustrated how an ecosystem approach could not only help identify sources of contamination, but also how to use this model to engage the local population and policy makers. Applying this model has proven useful to change public policy and reduce impact on health.

Michael Dellarco of the US National Children’s Study, National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD) was our last keynote lecturer. The title of his speech is quite revealing: ‘Making Tough Choices in Longitudinal Studies: Deciding What to Measure and When, Lessons Learned from the National Children’s Study’. This ambitious 100,000 people cohort study so far has reached out to 6000 people. Such extensive studies present concerns in sample preservation (frozen versus dry samples), as well as in sampling methodology (at home versus in clinic sampling, auto-sampling). One of the biggest challenges is probably how to take into account data that is either not currently useful, or that is not recognized today, but that may be essential in 5 or 50 years time.

These presentations, and later panel discussions, provided us with a good perspective on the actual research issues. The measurement of the population or individual exposure to pollutants presents a very different task. It is expected that the new mobile technologies will give us more precise and flexible tools to measure individual exposure. Intelligent phone applications are already able to measure temperature and noise.  An innovative electrochemical sensor for measuring carbon monoxide and NOX in concentrations as low as a few parts per billion was a highlight of this conference! Biomarker analysis was at the forefront of numerous discussions. Not only is it useful in detecting and measuring exposure to certain contaminants, but it has proven useful for developing various strategies for intervention.  For example, biomarker analysis allows tracking of DDT exposure since its prohibition in the eighties. Biomarkers represent an endless source of contamination footprint in the human body and this research sector is in constant evolution.

In our concluding session, everyone was asked to identify one highlight which they would remember from the conference – or an ‘ah ha moment’.  Someone asked ‘How much research needs to be hypothesis driven rather than propelled by random – or agnostic – search of indicators?’  Another participant highlighted that ‘The epigenetic impacts of contaminants should be an incentive to reduce contaminant exposure’.  A good surprise was also the noted participation of seven of the thirteen CIHR Institutes, showing their strong interest for the transversal thematic of environmental impact on health. Another attendee also talked about the importance of engaging other social experts like sociologists and psychologists, as well as policy makers in this type of research and discussion.

We then discussed priorities for measuring environmental exposure. At least fifty ideas were shared by the four groups. Our very last session was about next steps and potential collaboration. Ideas were numerous and were clearly indicative of the British and Canadian experts’ enthusiasm in working more closely together.

In parallel to the workshop, we organised an informal lunch where the UK’s Science and Innovation Network in Canada and a dozen of CIHR and UK Medical Research Council (MRC) participants discussed their mutual interest in supporting joint projects. The interest to follow up was clear and CIHR and other experts participated in an MRC workshop in February 2012 on a similar theme. Another occasion to examine how our organisations work together to concretize this enthusiasm for UK-Canada collaboration!