Partner Q&A: Jamie DeWitt
Science is at the heart of all we do at OEC – and when it comes to PFAS, Dr. Jamie DeWitt’s research is making a lasting impact. Jamie – a first-generation college student – has been studying PFAS for 20 years. OEC is currently collaborating with her department at Oregon State University to study PFAS exposure in everyday products.
Tell me about your academic background? What led you to the work you do today?
Growing up in Southwest Michigan, I took every single science class that I could take in high school. But living in a small town, you don’t really have that many ideas of the vastness of the field. So when I got to college, I learned about all these other new areas of science and couldn’t decide what I wanted to focus on. But after my undergraduate studies, I started learning about toxicology – how it’s this blend of science, policy, law and communication. I was hooked.
So I got a degree in environmental science with a concentration in toxicology, and then an additional degree in neuroscience. I got involved with PFAS research during my postdoc at the EPA in about 2005. So I’ve been doing PFAS work for 20 years now. Most of what I do is PFAS, but I still do some sort of basic immunotoxicology work and have worked with other contaminants as well.
What was it about PFAS that drew you to studying them?
Kind of by accident! In my postdoc, we did some of the early work on the ability of PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic Acid, a PFAS checmical) to modulate the response to a vaccine. When I started my faculty position at East Carolina University, I kept my toe in the PFAS world. And then as things started to heat up about the discovery of PFAS, my research broadened a little bit, because I had opportunities to collaborate and get some additional funding.
I now feel very connected to the PFAS research community, as well as to the community of people who have been exposed to PFAS. I’ve formed close ties with some of the organizations working on PFAS, and advised them on the science. Working with the people who are concerned about PFAS in their environments, in their households, and their bodies has kept my interest in PFAS high. It’s important work because we still don’t fully understand how they affect our health.
What are some of the ways you’ve seen PFAS exposure impact individuals and communities?
I think there’s fear because there are a lot of unknowns. You see studies coming out saying, “PFAS are linked with cancer” and “PFAS are impacting kids’ health.” So people are very worried about their own exposure. But I also think there’s frustration, on two fronts: 1) There’s a lack of activity on the part of regulatory agencies to step up and really take action, and 2) people are also sometimes frustrated by scientists because we have to say “I don’t know” an awful lot. I’ve had sick people ask me, “Has my exposure led to my disease?” And I can’t answer that question.
I collaborate with epidemiologists, but epidemiologists don’t look at individuals – they look at populations. So you might be able to prove there’s a risk at the population level, but I can’t tell you that your kidney cancer came from PFAS exposure. I don’t know how to solve that problem other than assuring people that we’re trying to understand things at a population level so that we can move forward with protection, restriction, and reduction to reduce PFAS exposure and minimize the risk.
How has the landscape of PFAS research changed since you started studying it 20 years ago?What have been some of the impacts of your research?
It’s growing! There’s been a huge increase in the number of individual scientists who are directing efforts towards understanding PFAS toxicity and health risks. It’s weird the way funding works for emerging contaminants: sometimes it’s hard to get funding to study them because you can’t link them to a specific health problem. You can show that they’re in the environment, and that people are getting exposed, but you can’t necessarily show the risks until you start studying them.
Still, there are a lot more people active in the PFAS research arena. So we’re going to start to see an even greater uptick in the number of publications related to different health effects, different populations, and different types of PFAS. That’s very promising. And as more funding becomes available, that will help build the knowledge base, and enable decision makers to understand the impacts. It’s not just noise; it’s something that’s really happening with respect to health effects.
What have been some of the impacts of your research?
I’ve been able to make a difference with respect to policy. I see some of our papers being cited in EPA documents that evaluate the toxicity of PFAS. Some of our work has been cited in European Food Safety Authority documents, and now they have established “tolerable weekly intakes” for PFAS based on immunotoxicity. It’s been heartening to see that the science we do is having a real and notable impact on policy directed towards health protection.
It’s also been nice to see the back and forth among scientists – between scientists like me who do lab work, and epidemiologists who study larger populations. So I’ve seen a lot of collaboration grow around PFAS research. The more scientists working together to solve problems, the better!
You delivered testimony for the big PFAS phase-out bill last session. Can you elaborate on the intersection of science and advocacy, and why you feel it’s important?
So in addition to here in Oregon, I’ve also testified before three different subcommittees of the United States House of Representatives. I’ve also provided testimony to the European Union on the PFAS phase-out bill they’re considering.
I absolutely think that scientists should be helping inform policy makers. We’re the ones who know our data best, and we can provide our interpretation of the data to decision makers. To clarify, I don’t lobby; I provide information so the decision makers have the useful data, straight from me. Sure, they can read a scientific publication, but what representative or senator has time to digest a scientific publication? Staffers do a really great job of distilling publications down into sound bites, but I’d rather they hear from me about my opinions on the science, so they can use that to make decisions.
I think it’s an important role that scientists shouldn’t be afraid to play. It’s not activism or advocacy. It’s just providing information, and scientific support for a particular scientific question.
What would be your pitch to fellow scientists to get involved in these types of ways?
I would say don’t be afraid to speak to your science. I know that there are some scientists who don’t enjoy speaking to journalists, or don’t enjoy speaking in public venues like that because they’re worried about being criticized. But we get criticized all the time. Anytime you submit a manuscript to a peer reviewed journal, you’re gonna get criticized by your peers. So if you are comfortable with your science, and confident in your science, you should be able to speak about your science to any particular audience – whether it’s a community organization, a journalist, legislative body, or your neighbor at the coffee shop.
What are the biggest things that give you hope for the future right now, and keep you moving forward with your research despite federal attempts to roll back protections from toxics like PFAS?
I work with an amazing community of scientists. Many of the people who I collaborate with on various projects are scientists like me, who do interact with journalists and the public in many different ways. So I’m hopeful that, at least with respect to toxicological science, we’re going to continue to talk to the public and answer questions and help people who might not be scientists understand the scientific method.
I also see a lot of really great students coming into environmental health science research who are passionate about communicating and helping the public. For example, I have a doctoral student in my lab. She moved from North Carolina all the way out here to Oregon to finish her degree with me, and has a background in clinical laboratory science. She was interested in toxicology because she wanted to understand how contaminants affect health. But since she’s been in my lab, she’s become much more interested in the intersection of policy and science, and learning to be a science communicator. She sees that being a scientist isn’t just about huddling away in a lab: it’s about telling people about your work so that they’re empowered to make decisions that are best for their health. Our bright students bring me a lot of hope.
OEC & Partners Advocate to Strengthen the Climate Protection Program
9
OEC and partners call on ODOT to consider climate and equity
9
Sustainable Fashion and OEC’s Newest Impact Partner
9
OEC Partners With Hacienda CDC to Expand Access To Eco-Healthy Home Kit
9
9
Rural & Equitable Partnerships
9