Saturday, November 04, 2017

This is a story about success, and what it can do with you

If things go better than expected, plans might have to be changed. In this particular case it was my idea of a relaxed and productive summer time.

As long as the kids are not in school we spend our holidays outside the main summer season. This makes me one of the few lonely workers in the institute during summer break. It is a very relaxed and productive time, since daily disturbances and ad-hoc issues to deal with are reduced to an absolute minimum. The promise is an empty or at least significantly shortened todo list.

In the past years, summer time was always my opportunity to catch up with the fast-paced year and get well prepared for the second half. And so I expected it to be also in 2017. However, it came differently.

End of July, just after having finished our four-weeks master‘s practical, we were contacted by the coordinator of the project Dream Resource, where we are participating for Green Toxicology. Other than expected the project partners already successfully synthesised a set of promising substances. And they planned to disseminate their results at a conference mid October. However, the concept behind this synthesis is unique and very innovative. It should be patented, and the application had to be filed before the idea got shared with the community. What they were lacking, however, was proof of ready biodegradability. Deadline 28 September.

It was our task to do these experiments, and we knew this of course. But we weren't prepared to start the investigation in that very moment or even the next two weeks. We first had to buy the equipment and material. Now, for this scale of a biodegradability study we required purchase of equipment worth several thousands of Euros. And here the difficulties started.

As a university scientist you cannot just go to a retail store or on amazon and get whatever you like. There are certain rules attached to procurement. And in Germany they are especially strict if the amount of money to be spend exceeds EUR 5000. But procurement is not a fast process, it involves asking for competing quotes and ordering via central procurement of the university. These guys have way more to handle than that one application you are handing in. It ends up in a pile with the other applications, which is processed in order of receipt. Also, it doesn't help to label your application "urgent", since literally all of them are.

Now, the only way around this was to find a device for biodegradability studies that came at a price below this threshold. We luckily did so: two Hach BOD direct plus. And we could order them much faster than if going via central procurement. But then the supplier didn't have the devices on stock. So they organised that the next two units coming freshly out of manufacturing will immediately be delivered to them. They then processed our order with highest priority (in business this can be a working concept) and we received them just one day before we had to start the experiment to be able to run it for 28 days, as required by the OECD Guideline 301 Method F; which is one standardised procedure for such investigations.

The results we produced were what we hoped to see. Those novel substances are far better biodegradable than their conventional counterparts. The patent application got filed in time and the project partners could present their work at the conference without omitting central parts that might have otherwise harmed the patent.

So a full success! My summer time, however, was gone. Spent searching for suitable equipment, talking on the phone, comparing prices, writing emails, planning the experiment, and hoping that everything will work out in the one or the other way. It was an emotional rollercoaster, with one day good news, the other day bad news, one day hope and the other day resignation...and then hope again.

But we helped innovation, and since biodegradability of chemicals is an important aspect for the environment, we might have contributed to quality of life - if these substance are eventually substituting the conventional compounds. That's a good feeling, despite the lost summer time.

Friday, October 13, 2017

To be or not to be...a scientist

Studying at a university has a lot to do with acquiring knowledge. In numerous lectures, seminars, practicals, tutorials, excursions, and of courses oral and written exams students fill their brains with all kind of details on their study field and topics of interest. When finished, they know so much about all subjects they were studying that they can rightfully call themselves academics.

But does this make them into experts? And even more important, does this make them into scientists? What many students actually do not learn (so much) during their time at the university - or at least not through academic teaching - is what „science“ means in terms of a concept for doing research, what it means if something is labelled „scientific“, and how they can use not only their acquired knowledge but also their gained skills and experience to become a good scientist.

Already since summer 2008 we are offering an interactive seminar called „Students going scientific“. It features lecture elements with large room for questions and answers, student presentations with time for feedback and discsussion, group works, metaplan parts, computer exercises, career talk with my boss Prof. Hollert. Topics include statistics, experiment planning, the publishing process, presentation design according presentationzen, scientific bias with a focus on priming, literature search and management (with Endnote).

We tackle the key question: What is your vision of science? Every student is invited to develop their own idea of scientifically sound research. The course only provides them different perspectives to aid in this process. Also, students get a chance to decide for themselves, if they actually want to pursue a career in scientific research.

The course is a success since nearly 10 years now. Evaluations are always fantastic, and many students gave the feedback that it really helped them in their studies and career building. But although I spoke with many colleagues from different parts of the world about the course and the necessity to support students to become good scientists, I still hear very rarely that something like this is included in a curriculum. I can only hope that this will change in future.

In 2017 we then started with an advanced course, called "Students running scientific", which will be introduced in a separate blog post.

Friday, September 22, 2017

Green Toxicology for a clean environmental - challenging biosurfactants

Ever heard of rhamnolipids? Well, we didn't so much until we were approached by our colleagues from the Institute for Applied Microbiology (iAMB) at RWTH Aachen University. They were interested in an ecotoxicological assessment of those compounds, which they see as future candidate biosurfactants.

Of course, so were we, since this gave us a very nice opportunity to contribute to ensuring that novel compounds are tested well before they get introduced into the market and hence the aquatic environment by using the concept of Green Toxicology. This is the idea that chemicals should and could be thoroughly investigated by means of a set of different methods regarding their environmental impact already during development.

We tested the acute toxicity to the invertebrate Daphnia magna, and to zebrafish embryos (Danio rerio). Microbial and fungicidal effectiveness was also investigated. Furthermore, we determined a potential mutagenicity by means of the Ames fluctuation assay.

We found that mono-rhamnolipids exhibit toxicity to daphnids and zebrafish embryos comparable to or even lower than chemical surfactants. They showed very low toxicity to the germination of Aspergillus niger spores and the growth of Candida albicans. No mutagenicity was observed using the Ames fluctuation assay. Model simulations confirmed our findings regarding no mutagenic potential, and they also indicated that rhamnolipids have no estrogenicity.

Read the whole story about mono-rhamnolipids as an environmentally friendly alternative to chemical surfactants, from an ecotoxicological point of view. (fulltext only with a subscription to the journal, sorry...)

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Hopefully back for good

It's been a while since my last post. I probably have lost some of my readership. For the success of a blog, trust of the readers that a new article will appear on a regular basis is vital. Intervals between the updates can differ from blog to blog, but for each blog they should stay roughly the same. Otherwise, the blog might look like being abandoned and people rapidly lose interest. My blog started with the intention to publish new content once a week. Hence, from a communication-through-social-media point of view, I failed.

Here, I'll have a look at the reasons, and use this opportunity to give some insights into the work of a university-based environmental scientist. My case is certainly as unique as any other, but the general work load coming from different areas of activity should pertain to the majority of scientists in a similar position. What I describe in the following should therefore be sufficient as a principle example to understand the circumstances under which scientists at universities do their work.
To put it short: It is much more than just education and research.

For people outside my group or even outside scientific research at a university, it might appear rather feasible to write a half-pager every seven days. But when taking a closer look at a normal day at the office, and taking into account all my tasks and duties, it becomes very clear that 24 hours a day are simply not enough. Besides teaching and research, there are a whole lot of other activities that need regular attention and are also of high importance.

But before coming to these: teaching not only means giving lectures, holding seminars, leading practicals. It starts with the preparation of the material, which should always be up-to-date. Concepts and contents might need to be revised and improved based on the evaluation from last time. Moreover, some formats like practicals also need attention afterwards, when study reports or seminar papers have to be reviewed. And teaching also involves answering questions that appeared after a lecture or the like, either by email or personally during office hours.

Research starts with an idea, which first needs to be validated against the current knowledge. For this, scientists have to review the available literature, which means, they have to read loads of publications and text book content. Reading is one of the main requirements for scientific research, since we always should be up-to-date with the current state of background for a certain topic. Next comes, in the vast majority of cases, the proposal writing. Only a small part of scientific research is done completely independent of third-party funding. Most projects are based on a successful research proposal to a funding body, such as EU or national research foundations of ministries. Once the project is granted and the work started, PhD theses require supervision, including review of paper drafts, regular meetings, and also procurement - the latter of which can take up a lot of time. Finally, networking is crucial for successful research. As a consequence, scientists not only sit a significant amount on the phone of in online conference calls, but also travel a lot; and they have many conversations with colleagues all over the world.

This alone - teaching and research - consumes nearly all time in a typical week. But there is much more to do. I am for instance assistant coordinator for Erasmus and student mobility of the Aachen Biology and Biotechnology (ABBt) at RWTH Aachen University (the School of Biology, so to say). This means I am advising students regarding their opportunities to go abroad, and I am organising the Erasmus process for the ABBt. I am also co-leading the institute's IT team, thus regularly dealing with computer and network issues. Further on, I am managing our Students Lab "Fascinating Environment". This is a very successful academia-industry partnership and requires continuous maintenance, care and development. Since I am very interested in science communication I am also in charge of our public relations activities: website, news, press releases. There's a reason why we are still not active on facebook and twitter - limited time. Last not least, I am controlling most of our project finances. Did I forget something? Yes, I am also a work safety commissioner of the institute.

In addition to all those institute-related activities, I have large a number of tasks and duties outside my primary job description. During the last years I became increasingly involved in SETAC Europe, sitting on several committees and working in a couple of interest groups. This means, regular meetings, most of them online, and specific actions to fulfil. In particular the Science and Risk Communication Interest Group (SCIRIC) requires my continuous attention. As the SCIRIC chair a significant amount of time is dedicated to this interest group, especially in the current state, where we still grow and need to develop in a well-functioning group.
While the institute-related activities are primarily happening during the day, all the tasks more dependent on reading and writing I take on in my free time after kids are in bed. The Friday evening is a particularly productive period, since I can work until late at night. Unfortunately, this was originally meant to be the moment when I write for my blog.

Now, the core question that should come to one's mind is whether all this is necessary and worth it? Not an easy one. Teaching and research are not at issue. So how about the "side activities"?

  1. I could quit the mobility thing, but this is among the nicest parts of my job. I am at the university to educate students and help them develop.
  2. The simple reason why my colleague and I lead the IT team is because we are the two persons at the institute best suited for this. Someone has to do it, otherwise the institute as whole would not function properly - which would also impact my work.
  3. Our Students Lab needs managing. In my position, this is my job. We could of course end the partnership, but this would heavily impact our education and research.
  4. With public relations, things are clear: I wouldn't promote outreach through SCIRIC and many other activities if I didn't think it is absolutely worth it. Every single bit of more attention by the different target audiences can help us to improve environmental quality.
  5. Project finances have to be taken care of. This is a typical task for someone in my position. Larger institutes might have specific personnel for this, but we do not. And this would require additional resources, which would need to be acquired through more fundraising also from my side. So either way, the task eats up time.
  6. And the SETAC activities? Yes, this doesn't seem necessary in the first place. But our scientific community relies on personal involvement. We are environmental scientists, because we believe that our research can improve or at least maintain environmental quality and thus quality of life. From this idealistic point of view, being active in SETAC helps our mission and so is worth it.

Before one wonders: No, workload didn't significantly decrease. Rather the opposite. My to-do lists grow bigger and bigger; my high-priority tasks become more and more; deadlines haunt me all the time. But a key principle of time management is to take the time when you need it, instead of waiting to find it. And so I did for this post. Hopefully, it will also bring my blog back to life. Then it was definitely worth it.

Sunday, March 05, 2017

The Sisyphus topic once again - but little strokes fell big oaks!

It feels like the SETAC Europe annual meeting 2017 in Brussels, Belgium, is just around the corner. Well, definitely it is not far away anymore, and hence worth to have a look at we are goind to do there in terms of science communication.

Together with Jan Brant of CEFAS and me as co-chairs, colleague Leonie Nüßer from our institute organises another communication session at the Brussels meeting, being the 6th in a row at SETAC Europe AMs since 2012. This shows of course the interest in and the relevance of the topic, but despite always loads of people are attending our sessions, still only few are willing to contribute.

And so it is also this time. At least we got the five platforms that are necessary for the session to occupy one full slot. Besides, a couple of posters will be presented. But it is kind of a Sisyphus thing, and we feel we have to have staying power to keep organising such sessions.

That said, here's what we plan. It is once again the trial to gather expertise and experience from the SETAC membership regarding best practice and lessons learned in communicating our science, and this time also including citizen science.

Science communication and citizen science – strategies for successful stakeholder engagements

Nowadays, science communication and interactions with non-scientists is widely recognized as an important responsibility of scientists. When successful, these interactions can be a powerful tool and have the potential to provide a better understanding of your field of research and its relevance to society – which is beneficial for all participating sides. Within environmental and ecotoxicological science and research this is of particular interest since our field is linked to many levels of everyday life. We should not rely on science journalism or the initiatives of a distinguished group of scientists to be solely responsible for the understanding of our research.

However, acknowledging the importance of communication does not make us good communicators. So how do we learn skills and how do we choose the right communication strategy depending on our audience and the information we want to disseminate? How do we avoid misunderstanding and raising wrong concerns? Together with you we want to develop and demonstrate concepts of good communication for our community.

Today, non-scientists may collaborate on establishing hypotheses, project design, interpreting data, and disseminating results.  Citizen science has the potential to provide a wide range of benefits, not least of which is uniting and leveraging the expertise of multiple disciplines to further scientific investigations.

This session will collect experiences and expertise on different strategies for the engagement with specific stakeholders, how to tackle risk and uncertainty communication and the inclusion of non-scientists in sampling campaigns and decision finding processes. The presentations include different case studies where the dissemination of scientific information was implemented via conceptual strategies. 

We seek to initiate a lively discussion between the presenters and the audience. Listeners are encouraged to report their own cases, issues or experiences.

Friday, February 24, 2017

Making things smaller to make them bigger

One of our main research directions is the development and optimisation of bioanalytical tools. In terms of optimisation, among others we seek to make the bioassays more versatile, meaning to include several different effect meaurements and integrate results; to allow for a higher throughput of samples, thus reducing required work force and other resources; and to miniaturise the bioassays where possible, especially with regard to saving sample.

The latter one was the focus of a study we conducted on an assay that detects androgen receptor binding, thus indicating potential for hormon-like activity and disturbance of the endocrine system. Samples containing such substances are often available in only very small amounts, for instance as extracts from water samples. And especially in terms of drinking water the presence of androgen-like chemicals is a great concern.

We succeeded in reducing the medium volume to dilute the sample to one third of what is recommended by the standard protocol, thus also significantly reducing the required amount of sample. Results obtained for standard substances were compared to data obtained using the conventional procedures and found to be similar. This proved that the optimised method can be applied as an alternative to the standard protocol, if limitations by small sample amounts would otherwise prohibit scientifically meaningful investigations, and thus compromise proper risk assessment.

Take a closer look at the "Downscaling procedures reduce chemical use in androgen receptor reporter gene assay". (fulltext only with a subscription to the journal, sorry...)

Saturday, February 11, 2017

This is a boring headline about zebrafish embryos exposed to heavy metals

Today I report on a study that was published already a while ago, but tells a nice story about the challenge and necessity to design meaningful experiments. Also, this one deals with heavy metals, which is not common in our research; we mainly focus on organic contaminants.

In this particular study we investgated whether heavy metals spiked into sediments are bioavailable to unhatched zebrafish embryos, and whether it makes a difference if the sediment was a natural one - just taken from, e.g., a riverbed out there - or a formulated, meaning components that typically make up a sediment mixed together. Besides the single heavy metals we also spiked mixtures.

We investigated mortality, several heavy metal-specific proteins and the regulation of a couple of genes that are known to react to heavy metal exposure. What we found was actually not very surprising: the heavy metals in the formulated sediment were better bioavailable than those in the natural one. An artificial mixture of sediment components can never resemble a real "grown" sediment. The matrix in the natural sediment is just much more complex and provides a multitude of possibilities for heavy metals to be trapped, bound, blocked, and thus not able to enter the test organism. Nevertheless, this had to be proven first. Science does not rely on hypotheses. We  have to challenge them to be sure.

However, formulated sediments are widely used in research. And our study shows that using such matrices could largely overestimate bioavailability and thus risk of heavy metal contaminations in sediments. Furthermore, the study revealed that the accumulation of the individual heavy metals from a mixture is relatively lower compared to that in the single metal exposure experiments. Since not all metals show the same toxicity for the embryos this has to be taken into account when doing risk assessment of heavy metal burden.

Last not least we identified some promising biomarkers for low-dose detection of heavy metal exposure. Read the full story on "Bioaccumulation and molecular effects of sediment-bound metals in zebrafish embryos". (fulltext only with a subscription to the journal, sorry...)