PROJECTS

Contact: Gunilla Öberg

Chemicals management is growing in importance. There are over 100 thousand chemicals currently in use around the globe and the sector is expected to double by 2030 [1, 2]. Human-made chemicals bring significant benefits to society; however, they also create risks to human health and the environment that are challenging to control and evaluate [3]. The broader aim of this project is to open up current regulatory frameworks and explore in what ways Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) can be effectively woven in to enable the creation of more robust and equitable chemicals management.

Current practices surrounding chemical management rely heavily on Western/dominant science, e.g., as carried out under the Canadian Chemicals Management Plan (CMP), EU Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), and the USA Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Even though several jurisdictions have started to require Indigenous expertise to be included in environmental decision-making [4, 5], Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) are not considered in the formalized evaluation of chemical risk under of any of the three plans/Acts just mentioned. This needs urgent remediation, not least because Indigenous Peoples experience disproportionately high exposure to chemicals and potential for adverse health effects.

This project, which is co-led by Susan Chiblow, Anishnabe kwe, assistant professor at the University of Guelph, Michelle Murphy, Métis, professor at UofT and Gunilla Öberg, recent settler from Sweden, professor at UBC, is setting out to find ways to place Indigenous expertise at the front-end of chemical risk evaluation practices throughout the life cycle of chemicals to build a more responsive and robust chemicals management system. Ultimately, our goal is to weave together our own knowledges for the protection of Indigenous Peoples, cultures and knowledge and the inclusion of IKS in environmental leadership and chemical management today.

The project is developed and conducted in close collaboration with partners in Aotearoa-New Zealand (NZ), a former British colony which is the most developed jurisdiction when it comes to weaving Indigenous knowledge into governance structures. Also involved in the project are experts from Health Canada’s Bureau for Existing Substances and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC).

Publications

Ataria, James; Parata, Te Kaurinui; Moores, Audrey; Iti, Huia; Hill, Christopher; Chiblow, Susan; Murphy, M.; Hikuroa, Daniel; McGregor, Deborah; Moggridge, Bradley; Tremblay, Louis; Oberg, Gunilla; Demers, Marc; Brooks, Bryan. (2024) Towards the sustainable management of chemicals and waste: Weaving Indigenous knowledge with green and sustainable chemistry. Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 

Ataria, James; Murphy, M.; McGregor, Deborah; Chiblow, Susan; Moggridge, Bradley; Hikuroa, Daniel; Tremblay, Louis; Oberg, Gunilla; Baker, Virginia; Brooks, Bryan. (2023) Orienting the sustainable management of chemicals and waste towards Indigenous knowledge Environmental Science & Technology 57(30): 10901–10903

Öberg, G., Eronen, E., Chiblow, S., Smiles, D. (2024). Considerations for supporting Indigenous Data Justice and Data Sovereignty in Chemical Risk Assessment. Report to the Existing Substances Risk Assessment Bureau (ESRAB), Health Canada.

References

1. United Nations Environment Programme, Global Chemicals Outlook II. From legacies to innovative solutions: Implementing the 2030 agenda for sustainable development—Synthesis Report. 2019.

2. Gee, D., et al., Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation. Summary. 2013, EEA: Copenhagen.

3. Johnson, A.C., et al., Learning from the past and considering the future of chemicals in the environment. Science, 2020. 367(6476): p. 384-387.

4. Koivurova, T. and L. Heinämäki, The participation of indigenous peoples in international norm-making in the Arctic. Polar Record, 2006. 42(2): p. 101-109.

5. Geddis, A. and J. Ruru, Places as Persons: Creating a New Framework for Māori-Crown Relations. The Frontiers of Public Law”(Hart Publishing, 2019), 2019.

6. Bullard, R.D., Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. 2018: Routledge.

7. Carroll, S.R., D. Rodriguez-Lonebear, and A. Martinez, Indigenous Data Governance: Strategies from United States Native Nations. 2019.

8. IAPHS – Interdisciplinary Association for Population Health Science. Indigenous Data Sovereignty Network: Filling an Important Research Gap. 2021; Available from: https://iaphs.org/indigenous-data-sovereignty-network-filling-important-research-gap/.

9. Rainie, S.C., D. Rodriguez-Onebear, and A. Martinez, Indigenous Data Sovereignty in the United States. 2017, Native Nations Institute US Indigenous Data Sovereignty Network.

10. Barnard-Chumik, H., N. Cappe, and A. Giang, Knowledge Hierarchy and Mechanisms of Power in Environmental Impact Assessment: Insights from the Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric Project. The Canadian Geographer, 2022. Accepted.

11. Hoover, E., “We’re not going to be guinea pigs;” Citizen Science and Environmental Health in a Native American Community. Journal of Science Communication, 2016. 15(1): p. A05.

12. WEA Women’s Earth Alliance, Violence on the land, violence on our bodies. 2016.

13. Caron-Beaudoin, É., et al., Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in indoor air and tap water samples in residences of pregnant women living in an area of unconventional natural gas operations: Findings from the EXPERIVA study. Science of The Total Environment, 2022. 805: p. 150242.

14. Lewis, D., et al., Governmental Fiduciary Failure in Indigenous Environmental Health Justice: The Case of Pictou Landing First Nation. International Journal of Indigenous Health, 2020. 15(1): p. 61-72.

15. Waldron, I., et al., There’s something in the water. 2019, Black Point: Fernwood Publishing.

16. Wiebe, S.M., Everyday exposure: Indigenous mobilization and environmental justice in Canada’s chemical valley. 2016: UBC Press.

17. Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Hfx. No 498489. 2020.

18. Jarvis, C. and A. Russell, Ford government slammed for withholding vital air pollution data from Aamjiwnaang First Nation, in Global News. 2021: https://globalnews.ca/news/8378312/ford-government-slammed-vital-air-pollution-data-aamjiwnaang-first-nation/.

Contact: Anaïs Pronovost-Morgan

The connection between emotions, UNDRIP, and chemicals management might seem far-fetched at first blush. In fact, this project addresses two central research gaps: The petro-chemical industry is a major contributor to the climate crisis and several other environmental challenges, with major direct and indirect impacts on Indigenous populations. Even so, the chemical industry is rarely mentioned in discussions on UNDRIP. The other piece of the puzzle addressed in this project is that it is well-documented that government employees commonly react defensively when faced with questions related to Indigenous people, but it’s poorly understood why.  These two serious research gaps are explored through the use of a mixed-methods approach while drawing on a third field: research on climate anxiety and the ways in which people’s emotions impact how one thinks and acts. 

Contact: Salma Taqi Ghulam

Contact: Gunilla Öberg

Society is increasingly dependent on advanced mathematics, with major ethical implications. Even so, mathematicians and scientists using mathematics are rarely trained to address ethical questions related to the production and use of mathematics. Easily accessible and engaging literature that deals with the Ethics of mathematics is urgently needed, as there is a dearth of literature on the topic that is written for students. This book presents a series of thoughtful, personal and accessible essays written by doctoral students in mathematics and science, taking a mandatory course dealing with ethical issues of relevance to them and their field. Notably, many students comment that before grappling with the topic in the course, they felt Ethics was irrelevant to mathematics. The essays invite reflection and discussion on questions of relevance to anyone who uses, studies or conducts research in mathematics.

The book will be published by WorldScientific, and the book release is scheduled for the fall of 2025

Editors

Dr. Gunilla Öberg, professor at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability (IRES) at UBC, Vancouver, Canada, is inspired by her experience as a leader of complex interdisciplinary sustainability projects, drawing on her deep knowledge in chlorine biogeochemistry. In 2012, she closed her chlorine lab to focus on the production of science for policy in complex areas of contemporary concern. Dr. Öberg’s present research includes the perception of expertise, the context dependence of knowledge, the limits of science, and how to teach scientists about science for policy. During her 30+ years career, she has developed and taught student-centred courses designed to enhance students' critical thinking skills. Dr. Öberg is the author of the widely used Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies – a Primer (2011, Wiley & Blackwell).  2020-2023, she was appointed as Professor II at the Center for the Studies of the Sciences and the Humanities at the University of Bergen (UiB), Norway. Her service to UiB included revising and teaching MNF990, Theory of Science and Ethics, which is mandatory for all Ph.D. students in the Faculty of Science and Technology (before 2024: Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences). 

Ingrid Kristine Jacobsen is a PhD candidate at the Department of Mathematics at the Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Bergen. She earned her master's degree in applied and computational mathematics after graduating from the integrated teacher's program in science and mathematics, also at the University of Bergen. During her master's, she developed an interest in the modelling of coupled processes such as the interactions between fluid flow and temperature in porous media, as well as the relationship between fluid flow and rock deformation. This led her to pursue a PhD in the field, and she is currently part of the project Mathematical and Numerical Modelling of Process-Structure Interaction in Fractured Geothermal Systems (MaPSI). Her work in the project is focused on mathematical modelling and simulation of rock deformation in the subsurface.

Anita Stene Løtvedt is a PhD candidate at the Department of Biological Sciences at the Faculty of Science and Technology of the University of Bergen in Norway, working with the Theoretical Ecology Group (TEG), which gives her the opportunity to build on her knowledge of mathematical modelling and numerical analysis and gain valuable perspective on the use of models in natural sciences. She has a master’s degree in applied and computational mathematics from the Department of Mathematics, also at the University of Bergen. Presently, Anita is a part of the interdisciplinary project How can future fisheries contribute to a more sustainable future? making use of her mathematical background in the further development of an idealized model of the marine microbial food web and in the analysis of its applications in her PhD project.

Francesco Saltalamacchia is a PhD candidate in the Department of Biological Sciences at the Faculty of Science and Technology of the University of Bergen, in Norway. After receiving a master’s degree in marine ecology at Sapienza University of Rome (Italy), Francesco acquired a background in fishery science by working for the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. His PhD project focuses on assessing the impact of climate-induced water deoxygenation on the life histories and physiological traits of mesopelagic fish, using Norwegian fjords as model environments. Francesco’s primary interest is to generate knowledge that contributes to the conservation and sustainable management of fish populations.

Contact: Diana Bedolla López

Background

In recent years, a growing amount of science communication training is on offer and the focus of these courses is mainly on developing technical skills to ‘get the message across’. This training often relies on the deficit model, in which the main assumption is that the public is undereducated. This assumption is problematic because it ignores the fact that the different targeted audiences have different types and levels of knowledge and ways of interpreting information that depends on values, beliefs, and concerns. My pilot study suggests that science communication training still to a large extent relies on the deficit model, focusing mainly on teaching communication skills to convey key facts. Improving science communication training requires an assessment of current practices. However, the only assessment that is done, if any, is a self-report assessment which has been demonstrated to be misleading and does not show the real effect of training initiatives.

Objective

The overarching objective of this study is to address the lack of approaches to assess the effectiveness of risk communication training. It also aims to increase the awareness among scientists of the problems related to one-way communication and the knowledge deficit model. The intention is to improve science and risk communication training programs and strengthen scientists’ ability to communicate with their audiences, with the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) as the primary stakeholder. The three overarching research questions are: (1) In what ways does the deficit model persist in science communication training? (2) How does traditional risk communication training impact scientist’s development of dialogue skills? (3) How can science communication training effectiveness be assessed by trainers?

Methodology

This research is community-based action research, combining qualitative approaches leading to the development of a tool through close interaction between the researchers and the practitioners. The study will be unfolded through an iterative research cycle. The planning phase includes an analysis of current training offerings in science and risk communication and a review of strategies that assess the effectiveness of communication training. A beta version of the tool will be developed in dialogue with the Science and Risk Communication Interest Group (SCIRIC) of SETAC. The acting phase involves testing the tool in an actual science communication workshop. During the reflection phase, the outcome will be discussed with SCIRIC, leading to further development of the tool, which then is presented for the organizers of another workshop, until the development of the final version of the tool.

Anticipated outcomes and significance

As of late, there are only a few efforts to assess the effectiveness of this type of training. This study will provide a valuable tool to assess training in risk communication for SETAC members. Beyond SETAC, this tool will help other scientists and trainers in science communication to improve science and risk communication efforts. Training assessment initiatives are the first step in enhancing science communication, and this tool will help scientists challenge the things they have taken for granted when communicating with others who are not their peers.

Contact: Georgia Green

Project overview
Chemicals management relies heavily on expert advice, but experts are divided on how to best assess the risk posed by chemicals to humans and the environment. Recent studies suggest that this is in part due to that different experts view certain types of evidence as more important than others and disagree on what methods should be used to investigate the impacts of chemical pollutant exposure (Clahsen et al., 2019, 2020; McIlroy‐Young et al., 2021a; Mcllroy-Young et al., 2021b). These diverging views on what experts consider valid evidence are termed epistemic perspectives for this study.

There is currently no systematic method that allows the identification of epistemic perspectives of relevance for chemicals management. This study aims to develop a method that identifies and characterizes epistemic perspectives relevant to the evaluation of potentially harmful chemicals. The broader goal is to support the development of a chemical risk evaluation process that is more transparent and accountable and to pave the way for more holistic and transparent chemicals management that considers a plurality of relevant scientific perspectives.

Reference 

Clahsen, S. C. S., van Kamp, I., Hakkert, B. C., Vermeire, T. G., Piersma, A. H., & Lebret, E. (2019). Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective: Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? Risk Analysis, 39(2), 439–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13165

McIlroy‐Young, B., Leopold, A., & Öberg, G. (2021a). SCIENCE, CONSENSUS, AND ENDOCRINE‐DISRUPTING CHEMICALS: RETHINKING DISAGREEMENT IN EXPERT DELIBERATIONS. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 17(2), 480–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4385

Mcllroy-Young, B., Oberg, G., & Leopold, A. (2021b). The manufacturing of consensus: A struggle for epistemic authority in chemical risk evaluation.

Contact: Jerry Achar

As we go about our daily lives, we are ubiquitously exposed to a wide range of chemicals derived from industrial and consumer products such as plastics, foam, electronic equipment, as well as pharmaceuticals, and pesticides. Exposure to these chemical toxicants via the air we breathe, our food, and our drinking water is associated with adverse health risks like cancer, endocrine disruption, and reproductive disorders. Chemicals of emerging concern (CEC) are toxicants that are potentially threatening human health, but there is a lack of sufficient evidence whether or not this is the case. This makes uncertainty an integral part of the human risk evaluation process. A challenge is that scientists have diverging views on how much weight to give to different types of uncertainty when evaluating the risk, meaning that the type of uncertainty that is deemed relevant to include or exclude in the risk evaluation and communication processes depends on which scientist one asks.

The overarching aim of this research project is to develop a comprehensive model that can be used to identify and characterize types of uncertainty included and excluded in the CEC risk evaluation process. The project focuses on epistemic uncertainty and uses perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) as the cases for CEC.

The overall goal of this research project is to increase transparency on how scientific knowledge in the risk of CEC is produced and utilized to inform regulatory decisions and policies on chemical management.

Contact: Bronwyn McIlroy-Young

This research explores how different groups of scientists perceive and assess the risk posed by endocrine-disruptors (EDs). The global scientific community is deeply divided about ED-risk. This scientific controversy is impeding the development of regulatory frameworks for EDs in many jurisdictions. We are interested in better characterizing the debate within the scientific community and in unpacking the divergent socio-political values held by scientists on each side of the controversy.

Contact: Brianne Della Savia

Research Aims

Endocrine disruptors  (EDs) represent a major challenge for policy-makers. As in many other countries, the Canadian government is debating how to best manage these potentially harmful substances that interact with the hormonal system. Exposure is linked to health and environmental risks posed by their complex chemical and toxicological properties, but data is lacking and the uncertainties are large.

There are indications of a federal decree being introduced and it is unclear how regulatory changes would impact local governments. The aim of the present study is to describe the capacity and resource gaps within current practices to help local governments compare and contrast management options.

Using a case-study approach, this research investigates current chemicals management strategies in a local Canadian context focusing on pollution prevention and end-of-pipe wastewater treatment. Qualitative semi-structured interviews will be conducted with experienced staff members and decision-makers. Lessons will be drawn from analyzing the interviewees’ perceptions of the community’s preparedness and capacity to reduce citizens’ exposure to EDs.

Background

Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the hormonal system. This type of chemicals are commonly present in pharmaceutical, personal care products, industrial products, pesticides etc. Some EDs are of increasing concern as they are suspected to pose risks to human health as exposure can bind or block hormone receptors threatening irregular cognitive development and reproductive growth. Globally, jurisdictions are in the process of revising policies and negotiating alternative risk management approaches to reduce or eliminate potentially adverse impacts caused by ED exposure. In Canada, the production and use of chemicals are federally regulated by the Health Canada and the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. In response to emerging concerns and developing knowledge these federal agencies have committed to addressing existing policy gaps by adapting new EC guidelines and regulations post 2020. Once guidelines and regulations are announced, municipal utilities and industry professionals must be equipped with the capacity, technologies and knowledge to meet the policy requirements.

The result of this research will contribute theoretical understanding of successful implementation of federal policies, and ultimately lead to best-practice recommendations for effective  strategies, and position Canadian municipalities to meet the upcoming federal guidelines.

Contact: Dr. Gunilla Oberg

Project Goal

We are examining the relationship between the values held by scientific experts, their disciplinary identities and the evidence-based policies they recommend and exploring how embracing the diversity of values among experts can be used to strengthen the democratic process, focusing on controversies surrounding wastewater management.

Background and Motivation

Controversies surrounding wastewater planning often become highly contentious, commonly leading to a polarization of positions across experts and an impasse from the point of view of policy development. These situations are not unique in that wastewater policy leans heavily on judgments made by scientific and technical experts. Yet, an evidence-based consensus is seldom reached as experts disagree about what solution poses the smallest risk to humans and the environment while maximizing benefits. We suggest that this in part is due to practitioners of a scientific discipline do not merely study a specific domain of phenomena, but often care deeply, in a strongly value-laden way, about the particular phenomena they study. These values enter into the evidence-based policies they recommend. Even so, in wastewater policymaking, it is assumed that a science-based consensus is possible and desirable, and when scientific controversies erupt, governments generally respond by advocating for more research. We propose that when a decision is made, it is not because a science-based consensus has been reached but because certain perspectives have been excluded through a power-play among expert groups, as has been observed in other contexts. Framing wastewater as a technical problem hides social aspects such as the fact that all solutions have unequal distribution of risks and benefits.

The impacts of value perspectives on expert judgment are likely unavoidable, in which case the question is not how to eliminate them but how to effectively manage values to promote better science and policy decisions.

Case Study

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

The Capital Regional District (CRD) in Victoria, British Columbia (BC) is situated at the south-west tip of Vancouver Island and discharges its sewage untreated at a depth of 60m. The conflict started in the 1960s with prominent academics on both sides of the debate. On July 2, 2006, the Minister of the Environment, BC Barry Penner, mandated the CRD to “submit to me for approval no later than June 30, 2007 … a fixed schedule for the provision of sewage treatment” (BC Ministry of Environment (MOE) 2006). While the pro-discharge contingency has continued to fight the Minister’s 2006 decision to treat the sewage, the post-2006 controversy has also included questions of how the sewage should be treated and handled (e.g. recover or not, apply on land or not, incinerate or not), and of geographical siting. While the sewage remains discharged without treatment, on September 14, 2016, the CRD board (once again) approved the siting and design of one central sewage treatment plant and it is presently under construction.

Contact: Dr. Robin Harder

Background

Healthy soils are crucial for the provision of food. Soil degradation is a serious threat to long-term agricultural productivity. Sustaining agricultural productivity also requires that the nutrients taken up by crops are replenished. Currently, global food production largely relies on nutrients mined from finite reserves or produced with fossil fuels. Recovering nutrients contained in human excreta can make important contributions to more circular nutrient flows and improved food security. In recent years, a broad variety of technological options have become available to this end. Soil regeneration, however, has generally not been a primary objective in these developments. There is a need to identify opportunities and best practices to better align the management of human excreta with the needs of long-term soil fertility and health.

Purpose

This research asks: how can the recycling of nutrients contained in human excreta to food production best support farming systems and practices that regenerate rather than impoverish agricultural soil and landscapes? Is a focus on phosphorus and possibly nitrogen and potassium sufficient, or do we also need to address micronutrients and organic matter in order to enable long-term soil fertility and health? The aim is to help key actors shaping the future management of human excreta to better leverage the knowledge base and debates surrounding both nutrient recycling and soil regeneration.

Approach

This research does not attempt to provide a single definitive answer or best solution. Rather, it aims to expose the often implicit preferences and assumptions associated with different options to recycle nutrients contained in human excreta to food production and regenerate soil, as well as with different assessment tools used to find the best option in a given context. Different perspectives and aspects will be explored using a mixed methods approach guided by a range of questions at the intersection between nutrient recycling and soil regeneration. Specific methodological choices will be made as the research project proceeds.

Outcomes

There is currently a window of opportunity to incorporate the needs of soils into the design of infrastructure for managing human excreta. Bringing forth different perspectives should allow for a more nuanced understanding of potential leverage points, discrepancies, and blind spots in the knowledge base and debates surrounding nutrient recycling and soil regeneration. Hopefully, this will promote infrastructure that is designed to facilitate both nutrient recycling and soil regeneration, assessment tools that adequately capture aspects of both nutrient recycling and soil regeneration, and an awareness that this is important.

This research project has received funding from the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas) through a mobility starting grant for young researchers for the period 2017 to 2020 (grant agreement 2016-00859). The research is conducted at Chalmers University of Technology (Environmental Systems Analysis, hosted by Dr. Sverker Molander), the University of British Columbia (Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, under the supervision of Dr. Gunilla Öberg; and Sustainable Agricultural Landscapes Laboratory, under the supervision of Dr. Sean Smukler), and the Swiss Federal Institute for Aquatic Science and Technology (Environmental Social Sciences, hosted by Dr. Bernhard Truffer).

Funding

This research project has received funding from the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas) through a mobility starting grant for young researchers for the period 2017 to 2020 (grant agreement 2016-00859).

Contact: Dr. Gunilla Oberg

This interdisciplinary project is currently ongoing in collaboration with a team of biologists at Thompson Rivers University. This is a mixed-methodological study conducted in the BC Southern Interior (Kamloops, Merritt and Princeton, BC) examining residents’ attitudes and risk perceptions surrounding the resource recovery and land application of biosolids in their community for the purposes of mining land reclamation, food crop production, ranchland fertilization or nutrient feedstock in landscape soils. Biosolid opposition is no longer considered merely a product of public misunderstanding, but a result of differing values, expectations and responses to issues of regional waste management, resource recycling and broader conservation and sustainability goals and this research seeks to better understand this.