Research Highlight: Are Chinese Factory Workers at Risk from Exposure to Nanoparticles on the Job?

© 2013, JupiterImages

---
UW DEOHS PhD candidate Ling Cui defended her dissertation, entitled Exposure Assessments and Inflammatory Responses Among Workers Producing Calcium Carbonation Nanomaterials, on May 15. Her dissertation committee included Center members Harvey Checkoway and Michael Yost (Co-Chairs), Sverre Vedal, and Noah Seixas.

The goal of Ms. Cui's research was to find out whether exposure to nanomaterials during manufacturing results in any adverse health effects. The research took place at the Calcium Carbonate Nanoparticle Factory in Shanxi, China. The nanoparticles manufactured there are used in plastics, ink, and adhesives.

Ling Cui
A nanoparticle is any particle that has at least one dimension equal to or smaller than 100 nanometers. One billion nanometers equals one meter, which puts these particles on the scale of atoms, molecules, and, in living organisms, of DNA and proteins. Their small size allows them to be inhaled deep into the tiny air sacs, or alveoli, of the lungs. Possible health effects of exposure to calcium carbonate nanoparticles include oxidative stress, fibrosis, and inflammation. Ms. Cui stated that workers, consumers and the environment are all at potential risk.

Ms. Cui studied workers who had various roles in the manufacturing of the calcium carbonate nanoparticles. She collected personal samples from workers and area samples from inside and outside the factory. She found that the job with the highest exposure to individual nanoparticles in terms of number and surface area was the modification job in which workers modify the surface of the particles. There was also high exposure in workers who bag the nanoparticles in terms of mass concentration. She observed during her study that some portion of the tiny particles don't settle out of the air and disperse evenly throughout the factory. As a result, many workers might share similar exposure, despite the fact that their jobs are different.

Four biological measurements were used to measure response to nanoparticle exposure: FEV1 (amount of air exhaled in 1 second); Blood Pressure; Exhaled Nitrous Oxide (a marker of inflammation); and sputum biomarkers (proinflammatory cytokines circulated in the lungs). She discovered some of these cytokines were significantly elevated in the high exposure group compared to the low exposure group.

Wearing personal protective equipment was not mandatory for the workers, but some workers wore them voluntarily. Ms. Cui observed that a few workers wore medical masks. Workers in the bagging area, the dustiest area of the factory all wore dual-cartridge half-mask respirators offered by the factory, but they were not replaced frequently enough.

Ms. Cui reported that the factory workers are mostly content with their jobs and turnover at the factory tends to be relatively low. Older workers have lower job turnover than younger workers. Workers in the study had been in their jobs for an average of 6 years.

Ling Cui's research was supported in part by a pilot project grant from the Center for Ecogenetics and Environmental Health. We congratulate her on a job well done!



Event Highlight: CEEH Co-Hosts Educational Workshop on the Duwamish River Superfund Cleanup Proposal

EPA Representative Allison Hiltner answers questions during the Q&A following the presentations, © 2013, J Sharpe

The CEEH and the UW Superfund Research Program (UW SRP) filled the Allen Library Research Commons on April 29th; attendees included UW students and staff, a Duwamish tribal member, staff from EPA, Ecology, the City of Seattle (representing the Lower Duwamish Waterway LDW Group), and the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition (DRCC). 70 people listened to EPA, Ecology, the LDW Group, and DRCC representatives give their perspectives on EPA's Duwamish River Superfund Cleanup Proposal. Each presenter was given 5 minutes. To assure that each group had equal time, the audience applauded them off the podium when their 5 minutes was up.

You can view videoclips of the presentations on the UW SRP web sitePhotos from the event are also available on Flickr.

Participants listen to panel presentations.
In 2001, a 5.5 mile long stretch of the lower Duwamish River was declared a federal Superfund Site. It is one of the most toxic hazardous waste sites in the United States. 41 different toxicants contaminate the river; the contaminants of highest concern are polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins and furans, carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs), and arsenic. The contamination is in the river bottom sediment.

Six of the most contaminated areas were designated as Early Action Cleanup Areas. These include Slip 4 near the former Boeing Plant 2; Terminal 117, site of former businesses Duwamish Manufacturing and Malarkey Asphalt Company; Boeing Plant 2 where B-17 bombers were manufactured during World War II; Jorgensen Forge; Duwamish Diagonal, upstream from Harbor Island; and Norfolk Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) near the south end of Boeing Field.

Cleanups at Slip 4, Duwamish Diagonal, and Norfolk CSO have been completed.

EPA considered active cleanup options ranging from cleaning up from 32 to 302 acres of contaminated sediment. The estimated cost ranged from $210-$810 million. On Feb 28, 2013 EPA released their recommended plan, proposing to:
  • Actively clean up 156 acres of contaminated sediment, including:
  • Dredging 84 acres (54%) to remove contaminated sediment
  • Capping 24 acres (15%) of contaminated sediment with clean material such as sand
  • Pursuing enhanced natural recovery on 48 acres (31%) of contaminated sediment by covering it with 6-9"of clean material, and possibly add activated carbon 
  • Monitoring the natural recovery of 256 additional acres, watching to see whether cleaner sediments are deposited from upriver to sequester contaminated sediment 
Including the Monitored Natural Recovery brings the the total cleanup area to 412 acres. The estimated cost of the Proposed Cleanup Plan is $305 million. Active cleanup would take 7 years. Monitored Natural Recovery would take an additional 10 years.
Dredging is the most thorough and most expensive cleanup method, and monitored natural recovery is the least thorough, least expensive, and least certain method. EPA estimates this cleanup plan will reduce the risk associated with eating contaminated fish and shellfish by 90%.

The Washington State Department of Ecology is responsible for source control and has developed a strategy to mitigate and prevent pollution from upstream roads, residences, farms, forests, and industry from entering the Duwamish River. Upstream source control must be completed before the Superfund Cleanup begins, to prevent new pollution from recontaminating the river.

Kelly Edwards moderated the event.
At the meeting, the representatives had different perspectives on the cleanup. EPA feels they have done a thorough study and that their cleanup proposal will bring about a good cleanup in a reasonable time frame. Ecology stressed the complexity and the importance of preventing upstream pollution from recontaminating the river. The LDW Group feels the EPA goals for how clean the river can be are unachievable since industry will continue on the river, pollution will enter from upstream no matter how good the source control, and Puget Sound itself has pollution. The Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition, on the other hand, feels the cleanup proposal doesn't go far enough to assure a thorough cleanup that is certain to last. They feel strongly that the cleanup should be done right so it doesn't have to be done again down the road.

All the presenters encouraged everybody to make a public comment by June 13th. The comment period is already half over, and this is the only chance for the public to speak up and influence the EPA's Cleanup Plan. EPA must answer all the comments in a public document.

The Duwamish is Seattle's only river, home to 2 historic neighborhoods, South Park and Georgetown, and fishing grounds of the Duwamish, Suquamish, and Muckleshoot Tribes. Seattle and King County residents will help pay for the cleanup through our tax dollars. Now is the time to tell EPA what you think about the Proposed Cleanup.

Event Highlight: 2013 NIEHS EHS Core Centers Meeting

Steve Curwood, Host of PRI's Living on Earth, speaks at the Public Forum, © 2013 M. Levin

The CEEH was privileged to host the annual meeting of the NIEHS-Funded Environmental Health Sciences Core Centers in Seattle, April 17-19. The program included Scientific Symposia and sessions for Center Directors, Administrators, and Community Outreach and Engagement Cores (COECs). Howard Frumkin, Dean of the UW School of Public Health welcomed participants to Seattle with a lively presentation about the environmental health of the Seattle area and Washington State. NIEHS Director Linda Birnbaum also welcomed participants to the meeting, provided an update of NIEHS programs and priorities, and participated in a Public Forum held in conjunction with the meeting. 

The topic of Science Symposium #1 was The Implications of the ENCODE Project for the Future of Genetic-Environment Interactions Research. Keynote speaker and CEEH Member John Stammatoyannopoulos spoke eloquently on "Genes, Chromatin, and Common Disease". The ENCODE Project aims to identify the functional elements encoded in the human genome and has the potential to uncover genetic-environment interactions and epigenetic regulation in human responses to toxicants and disease susceptibility. 


Science Symposium #2, Emerging Issues in Global Environmental Health, featured  a key note from Theo Vos on "Global Burden of Disease 2010: Focus on the Environment." Dr. Vos wowed the audience with his realtime demonstrations of GHDx, an interactive online resource for demographic and health data created by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). The GHDx directly supports IHME’s mission to improve the health of the world’s populations by providing the best information on population health. 


Breakout sessions addressed the topics of hydraulic fracturing, preparing the next generation of environmental health scientists, and strategies to build bi-directional communication. Ten young investigators from Environmental Health Centers across the country presented their research on topics ranging from bioinformatics to electronic waste recycling to phthalates.


The COECs worked together to create a "History Wall," pasting photographs and other memorabilia onto a timeline spanning the 50-year history of the EHS Core Center program. The History Wall introduced those relatively new to the Centers to the important work of the COECs and provided valuable information to those wishing to create new collaborations between COECs.

Sessions for the Directors focused on scientific presentations, long-range evaluation, strategic planning, and future steps for the EHS Core Center program. Administrators and COECs met separately in dedicated sessions to discuss topics of interest and value to them. 


Dr. Birnbaum at the Public Forum
Each year, in conjunction with the meeting, the host institution is encouraged to hold a public forum addressing a local environmental health issue. This year's forum was focused on the Duwamish River Superfund Site Cleanup. Stakeholders from EPA, Ecology, The Boeing Company, the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition, CEEH, Public Radio International's Living on Earth, and the Muckleshoot Tribe gave brief "Lightning Talk" presentations about the Duwamish River and the proposed Cleanup Plan currently open for public comment.

The EHS Core Centers meeting concluded Friday night with an educational boat tour of Elliott Bay. Participants had a chance to see the north end of the 5.5 mile Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site; Lockheed West in West Seattle; and the former Wyckoff Co. wood treatment facility at Eagle Harbor, the main port of Bainbridge Island. CEEH scientists Evan Gallagher and Chase Williams spoke about current CEEH research projects related to the pollution in the Duwamish River and provided information about the other Superfund sites we passed on the tour. James Rasmussen, the Director of the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition and a member of the Duwamish Tribe, spoke eloquently about the impacts of pollution on those living near the river and on Tribal members whose well-being is inextricably tied to the health of the river. 

A complete program for the meeting is available on the CEEH website

Photos from the Public Forum are available for viewing on our Ecogenetics Flickr page

Next spring’s EHSCC meeting will be held at the Southern California Environmental Health Sciences Center at the University of Southern California.



Upcoming Event: Duwamish River Cleanup Educational Forum


© 2013, Jon Sharpe

The CEEH is pleased to be co-hosting an educational forum about the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) $305 million Duwamish River Superfund Cleanup proposal. The event will include time to prepare and submit written comments about the proposed cleanup plan as part of the Public Comment Period.


Duwamish River Superfund Cleanup Educational Forum
Monday, April 29th,  5:30 to 7:00 pm
Allen Library Research Commons, UW Campus 
(Search "Allen Library" on the UW Map Page)


Light refreshments will be provided

The forum will begin with a panel discussion with representatives from the EPA, Dept of Ecology, Lower Duwamish Waterway Group (Port of Seattle, City of Seattle/King County, Boeing Company), and the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition (DRCC). Each representative will give a brief presentation and take questions about EPA's proposed cleanup plan. CEEH Outreach Director Kelly Edwards will moderate.

Seattle's lower Duwamish River was designated a federal Superfund site in 2001, which means it is one of the nation's most toxic hazardous waste sites. Over the last 12 years, the EPA has studied pollution in the river, its effect on people's health and the environment, and possible alternatives for cleanup. EPA  released its Proposed Cleanup Plan in late February and is holding public meetings and requesting comments on the proposed plan. The comment period closes June 13th.

The DRCC is sponsoring this educational meeting. DRCC is the Community Advisory Group for the Superfund site, representing community, environmental, tribal and small business groups in the Georgetown and South Park neighborhoods along the Duwamish River. The Educational Workshop at UW is one of a series of community meetings DRCC is sponsoring to inform the public about EPA's proposed cleanup plan.

The Duwamish, Seattle's working river, is also Seattle's only river. Cleaning it up will improve the habitat in and around the river, improve the area for wildlife, make fish and shellfish safer to eat, and provide access to a cleaner river for neighborhood residents and all Seattlites. Come and learn about this timely environmental health issue. Take this opportunity to tell EPA what you think by submitting a public comment.

No need to RSVP. We hope you can attend.

Upcoming Event: Public Forum on The Duwamish River Cleanup


Looking down the Duwamish to Elliott Bay, © 2013 Jon Sharpe

When: Thurs, April 18 5:30-7:30pm
Where: Portage Bay Café391 Terry Ave N, South Lake Union

The Public Forum is free and open to the public. Light refreshments will be served.

Space is limited and only those who RSVP can be guaranteed admittance. CLICK HERE TO RESERVE A SPACE

What does the cleanliness and health of Seattle's "invisible river," the Duwamish, have to do with the health and well-being of residents of Seattle and the Puget Sound? Come learn about the on-going cleanup of this waterway that runs through the heavily industrialized areas south of Elliott Bay. 

The Public Forum is being held in conjunction with the Annual Meeting of NIEHS-sponsored Environmental Health Sciences Core Centers. Dr. Linda Birnbaum, NIEHS Director, will attend the event and provide introductory remarks. This will be followed by seven "lightning talks" - five minutes each with 20 slides that advance automatically every 15 seconds. This makes for a high-energy, fast-paced, and fun event - this won't be your typical panel presentation! The presentations will be followed by time for informal table discussions and a Q&A with the presenters. 

Our own Kelly Edwards will moderate the session. The presenters include:


Some background: The Duwamish River has been Seattle's working river for 100 years. Heavy industrial use has left the waterway contaminated with toxic chemicals from industries along its banks, stormwater pipes, and runoff from streets, roads, and upland activities. Pollution in the river sediments includes polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins/furans, carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs), and arsenic. The most common pollutant is petroleum. The Duwamish Superfund Site is one of the most polluted places in the US. Many of these chemicals stay in the environment and have built to unsafe levels in resident fish and shellfish. The Washington State Dept of Health has issued a Fish Advisory warning against eating resident fish and shellfish from the Duwamish River.

The Georgetown and South Park neighborhoods surrounding the Duwamish are home to a disproportionate number of low-income and recent immigrant residents. The river is also part of the traditional fishing grounds of three Northwest Tribes. Health officials know that many people still fish on the Duwamish and eat the contaminated seafood.

In 2001, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared the lower 5 miles of the river, where the Duwamish flows into Puget Sound, a Superfund site. On February 28th, EPA released a proposed cleanup plan for the Lower Duwamish Waterway. The agency will consider public comments about the plan until June 13th.

Newsflash: Dietary Study Has Unexpected Results

© 2013, JupiterImages

Center member Dr. Sheela Sathyanarayana and her colleagues have published the results of an intervention trial that attempted to reduce exposure to endocrine-disrupting phthalates and Bisphenol A (BPA) in the diet. The article was released today in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology.

Phthalates and BPA are found in a wide variety of plastic products and contaminants in food. They can harm pregnant women and young children. The researchers wanted to find out if asking families to follow written instructions would lead to reduced exposure to these chemicals, compared to providing a catered diet specially prepared without plastics.

The study took place in summer, 2011 in Seattle. Eligible participants were 2-parent families with at least two 4-8 year-old children. Ten families with a total of 40 individuals were enrolled. The families were randomly assigned, half to the dietary replacement group and half to the written materials  group. The study lasted for 16 days.

Days 1-5 were Baseline Days during which the study was explained, instructions and materials such as glass food storage contains were provided, and detailed dietary questionnaires were completed for each family member every day. The written materials group was given written guidelines to reduce phthalate and BPA exposure, including descriptions of phthalates and BPA, sources of exposure with a focus on plastics, and suggestions for how to reduce exposure in daily activities. Urine samples were collected from all family members on Day 5.

Days 6-10 were Intervention Days. The dietary replacement group was provided with catered food from a local caterer who used fresh, local and, whenever possible, organic ingredients. The food was prepared, stored and transported without using plastics. Both groups were instructed to use filtered water, consume beverages from non-plastic containers when possible, use non-plastic utensils and dishware, and store foods in the glass storage containers provided. Dietary surveys were completed every day. A urine sample was collected for each family member on Days 9 and 10.

Days 11-16 were Post-Intervention Days. Dietary surveys were completed every day and urine was collected on Day 16.

Here's what they found:  There was a significant increase in phthalate metabolites during the intervention period compared to the baseline period for the group that ate a catered diet. The average phthalate level in the dietary replacement group when they ate the catered diet (Days 9 and 10) was 25 times the level at baseline (Day 5). This was a complete surprise! In contract, they found no change in urinary phthalate metabolites in the written materials intervention group between baseline and intervention.

Since the increase in urinary phthalate concentration in the dietary replacement group was unexpected, the researchers tested the food ingredients in the dietary replacement group to see if there was phthalate contamination. They found that the dairy products milk and cream had phthalate concentrates above 440 ng/g, and that the spice mix had very high concentrations, 700 ng/g in ground cinnamon and cayenne pepper and the astounding level of 21,400 ng/g in ground coriander. All other ingredients had phthalate concentrations in the range reported in the literature.


The researchers had hoped to see reductions in urinary phthalate metabolites in both groups, but expected that providing written materials would be less effective than providing catered organic food prepared without exposure to plastics. But that was not what they found. Instead, they concluded that accepted methods to reduce dietary exposure to phthalates and BPA (e.g. minimize contact with plastics) may not actually reduce urinary concentrations of these chemicals. This study highlights how contaminated foods can contribute to excessive phthalate exposure. However, it is not known whether this was a isolated and rare contamination event or whether the food supply is systematically contaminated with high phthalate concentrations.

With no change in phthalate and BPA levels between baseline and intervention days in the group who received written materials, the trial supported the team's hypothesis that providing written recommendations to reduce dietary exposure to plastics is insufficient. This is corroborated in primary practice where it has been shown that written guidelines are ineffective to change health-related behaviors.

Families can focus on buying fresh, low-fat foods and avoiding plastic packaging and dishware. But this study demonstrates that it may take federal regulation to eliminate phthalates from the food supply.



Event Highlight: Public Health Café - Pesticides & Health

Cynthia Curl speaks at the PH Café.





















Forty consumers and scientists joined us for the Public Health Cafe at West Seattle's Chaco Canyon Cafe to hear Cynthia Curl, PhD Candidate in the Departmentt of Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences, talk about pesticides in food. The most important message of the night was this: Eat your fruits and vegetables. The health benefits of eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables are greater than the risks of pesticide exposure. The second message was this: We can protect ourselves and our children from being exposed to pesticides by eating an organic diet.

Cynnie told us that the main route of exposure to pesticides for the general public is through diet. She worked on a study that compared pesticide exposure in workers who applied pesticides, in other farmworkers, in children of pesticide applicators, in children of farmworkers, and in children in Seattle.  Pesticide exposure was measured by looking at pesticide metabolites in urine. The researchers expected exposure levels to be in the order above: highest in adults working in agriculture, then children of pesticide applicators, then children of farmworkers, and lowest in children living in Seattle. All was as expected, except that kids in Seattle had higher exposures than kids of farmworkers. The researchers hypothesized that differences in diets might be driving this result, as the children in Seattle ate more fruits and vegetables (foods to which pesticides are commonly applied) than did the children of farmworkers. This led Cynnie and other researchers to focus more on understanding exposures through diet in non-agricultural communities. In another study she worked on, they compared pesticide exposures in children with and without organic diets. They found that kids who ate organic food had 10-fold lower levels of pesticide metabolites in their urine than kids who ate conventionally.

In the US, it is common for the dangers of chemicals to become clear only after they are in widespread use.  If a chemical is found to be harmful, it is taken off the market and replaced with another chemical.  Often, the replacement chemical itself has not been thoroughly evaluated. Organochloride pesticides like DDT were found to thin bird eggs, as described in Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring. They were taken off the market and replaced with organophosphate (OP) pesticides, which have been found to be harmful to human health. OP pesticides are no longer allowed to be sold for residential use but are widely used in agriculture. The most recent pesticides are chemicals like permethrin, deltamethrin and pyrethroid, words ending in -thrin or -throid. These are synthetic versions of pyrethrin, a natural pesticide found in chrysanthemums. But even though this pesticide is natural, it can still be harmful to humans.

You can avoid being exposed to pesticides by eating an organic diet. Avoiding pesticides is especially important for women of childbearing age and for children, because they are more vulnerable to adverse health effects from pesticide exposure. Children are smaller and eat more for their size, which means they get a bigger dose. Also, their brains are still developing. Fetal brains are also developing, and pesticides pass from mother to fetus. The health effects of pesticide exposure are neurological. For example, ADHD has been associated with high urinary pesticide metabolite levels. Now think about this: Eating an organic diet not only prevents you from being exposed, it prevents farmworkers and their families from being exposed to pesticides.

More suggestions: Buy produce in season, and buy local. Other countries have different regulations and may use pesticides that are banned in the US. Buy from the Farmer's Market and the farmer, and have a conversation about how the produce was grown. Cynnie shared a little-known fact about the PLU code on the stickers found on produce. If the sticker has a four number code, the produce is conventionally grown. If there are 5 numbers and the first number is 9, it's organic. If there are 5 numbers and the first number is 8, it's genetically modified.

Here are some helpful resources about pesticides, pesticides in produce, and gardening:

Find information about pesticides, including chemicals, labels, regulations, and more at Washington Toxics Coalition. Enter "pesticides"in the search window.

The Environmental Working Group's Shoppers Guide to Pesticides in Produce lists the fruits and vegetables that contain the most pesticide residues. You can lower your exposure  by avoiding the "Dirty Dozen" most contaminated fruits and vegetables. They are: Apples, celery, sweet bell peppers, peaches, strawberries, nectarines (imported), grapes, spinach, lettuce, cucumbers, blueberries (domestic), potatoes, green beans and kale (Yes, there are 14). Produce lowest in pesticides, making it safer to eat conventional versions, include onions, sweet corn, pineapple, avocado, cabbage, sweet peas, asparagus, mangoes, eggplant, kiwi, cantaloupe (domestic), sweet potatoes, grapefruit, watermelon and mushrooms.

Solid Ground's program Lettuce Link is an innovative food and gardening program that helps create access to fresh, nutritious, organic, and affordable produce, seeds, and gardening information for Seattle families with lower incomes. See their blog and Facebook page.

Other Seattle non-profits that have garden and healthy food projects include P-Patch Community GardensSeattle Tilth and its program Community Kitchens NorthwestFEESTGroundUP Organics,  
Just Garden Project, and Green Plate Special.


Event Highlight: Genetics and Epigenetics - Beyond Nature vs. Nurture

© 2012, Jupiterimages













a
On Tuesday, December 11th, the Sustainable Path Foundation hosted a lively forum about epigenetics at Town Hall Seattle. The speakers were Dr. Michael Skinner and CEEH Investigator Dr. Kelly Edwards

Dr. Skinner directs a lab at Washington State University's Center for Reproductive Biology. His research is focused on investigating how different cell types communicate to regulate gonadal growth and differentiation. Work in his lab with rats has demonstrated that endocrine disrupting chemicals promote transgenerational epigenetic disease phenotypes through abnormal germ line programming during development of the gonads. 

Dr. Kelly Edwards is Associate Professor in the UW Dept of Bioethics and Humanities and core faculty in the Institute for Public Health Genetics. She is Co-Director of the Regulatory Support and Bioethics Core for the Institute for Translational Health Sciences and Director of this Center's Community Outreach and Ethics Core (COEC). Her research interests include integrating ethics into training programs, public conversations about science and public policy, ethics in research practice, and environmental justice. 

Dr. Skinner explained that DNA methylation and histone modification regulate gene expression. The methylation doesn't change the sequence of base pairs, but it does control how the genes work. The surprise is that methylation patterns are inherited. You inherited yours from your great-grandparents. Your maternal grandmother's dietary and chemical exposures when she was pregnant with your mother also exposed your mother and your mother's germ cells. Now here's the inheritance bit - you will pass the effect of what your grandmother was exposed to, to your children. Your grandmother's exposures influenced the methylation pattern of your DNA, and you pass that to the next generation. Dr. Skinner said something I had not heard before, that our epigenetics are determined from birth.

Dr. Edwards discussed the ethical challenges of epigenetics. She voiced concern that mothers and grandmothers will be blamed for exposures over which they had little or no control. Should women be held responsible for breathing the polluted air in their neighborhood, or using everyday plastics made with endocrine-disrupting BPA and phthalates? Dr. Edwards also suggested epigenetic research in humans will be challenging because it will require generous information sharing, lots of time from participants, and trust between participants and scientists.

The audience had lots of questions. If our epigenetics are determined from birth, is there anything we can do about the health risks we inherited? Or are epigenetics just another reason to give up on taking care of ourselves? Dr. Skinner emphasized that the epigenome - and the genome - we're born with only predisposes us to certain diseases. When the information in individual genomes and epigenomes can be analyzed and understood, medicine will have a powerful new tool for prevention. For example, those who are predisposed to certain diseases could be given preventive drugs and be advised to eat or to avoid certain foods.

Dr. Skinner commented that when he talks to audiences of geneticists, they always try to find a way for  genetics rather than epigenetics to explain his research findings.

On the bus ride home, I picked up the UW Alumni Magazine, Columns. I was surprised to find an article on DNA regulation - "Smart Junk. 'Stam Lab' Leads the Way in Solving DNA Puzzle." Center member Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos, a researcher in Genome Sciences, is working with colleagues around the country on the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), a federally-funded project to identify all the functional elements in the human genome. The article stated that what used to be called "junk DNA" contains DNA switches, instructions that switch genes on and off. The ENCODE project will help decipher gene-control pathways involved in disease. Someday soon doctors will be able to diagnose and treat cancer patients based on the cancer's genome.

So is DNA regulated by genetics or epigenetics? What if it's regulated by both? Something else was put forth at the forum: Science is a process of discovery. Scientists have to be open to making discoveries they didn't expect, discoveries that don't fit with their world view. To find the truth, we have to be open to new paradigms.