Ethics guidelines for environmental epidemiologists

Recognition of the importance to environmental epidemiology of ethical and philosophical deliberation led, in 1996, to the establishment of Ethics Guidelines for the profession. In 1999, these guidelines were adopted by the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology. The guidelines were revised in 2012 and again in 2023 to ensure continued relevance to the major issues facing the field. Comprising normative standards of professional conduct, the guidelines are structured into four subsections: (1) obligations to individuals and communities who participate in research; (2) obligations to society; (3) obligations regarding funders/ sponsors and employers; and (4) obligations to colleagues. Through the 2023 revision of the Ethics Guidelines, the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology seeks to ensure the highest possible standards of transparency and accountability for the ethical conduct of environmental epidemiologists engaged in research and public health practice

Suppression of environmental health scientists: real-world examples as a basis for action

Pressures on epidemiologists, toxicologists, and on public health scientists to suppress their work are known to occur worldwide. In this article, we share six stories from environmental health scientists about the pressures they faced in their jobs after bringing public health problems to light. The method used to document each of the stories was to invite scientists who attended meetings of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology to tell their own stories of having experienced research suppression. We then extracted the salient features of each experience into a coherent story, providing references as corroboration where possible. The specific purpose in going public with the six stories presented in this article is to open a conversation to better equip colleagues to stand up to pressures to suppress their work. By publicly sharing the pressures experienced by these scientists in attempts to suppress their scientific work, including intimidation, harassment, threats and/or bullying, other scientists may be better able to withstand such pressures. In the absence of a larger collection of stories, we are unable to identify common approaches taken against suppression. It appears that a focus on scientific excellence and tenacity are two major factors likely to have contributed to the ability to withstand pressure. We encourage others to tell their stories. Bringing examples of these instances to attention will make them familiar enough to be less intimidating should others experience anything similar. Additional documented experiences will expand the base of stories and thus help colleagues to withstand the pressures wielded by special interests. Shining a light on these pressures will remove barriers, not only to advancing the science, but also to protecting the public interest

The International Society for Children's Health and the Environment Commits to Reduce Its Carbon Footprint to Safeguard Children's Health.

The Lancet Countdown and the 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared that the worst impacts of climate change are and will continue to be felt disproportionately by children. Children are uniquely vulnerable to the consequences of climate change, including heat stress, food scarcity, increases in pollution and vector-borne diseases, lost family income, displacement, and the trauma of living through a climate-related disaster. These stressors can result in long-lasting physical and mental health sequelae. Based upon these concerns associated with climate change, the International Society for Children's Health and the Environment developed a statement about ways in which the Society could take action to reduce its contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. The objective of this article is to report our Society's plans in hopes that we may stimulate other scientific societies to take action. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6578

On the importance of primary and community healthcare in relation to global health and environmental threats:Lessons from the COVID-19 crisis

In the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become clear that primary healthcare systems play a critical role in clinical care, such as patient screening, triage, physical and psychological support and also in promoting good community advice and awareness in coordination with secondary healthcare and preventive care. Because of the role of social and environmental factors in COVID-19 transmission and burden of disease, it is essential to ensure that there is adequate coordination of population-based health services and public health interventions. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the primary and community healthcare (PCHC) system's weaknesses worldwide. In many instances, PCHC played only a minor role, the emphasis being on hospital and intensive care beds. This was compounded by political failures, in supporting local community resilience. Placing community building, social cohesion and resilience at the forefront of dealing with the COVID-19 crisis can help align solutions that provide a vision of a € planetary health'. This can be achieved by involving local well-being and participation in the face of any pervasive health and environmental crisis, including other epidemics and large-scale ecological crises. This paper proposes that PCHC should take on two critical roles: first, to support local problem-solving efforts and to serve as a partner in innovative approaches to safeguarding community well-being; and second, to understand the local environment and health risks in the context of the global health perspective. We see this as an opportunity of immediate value and broad consequence beyond the control of the COVID-19 pandemic.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe