Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 493535794 series 3619302
Content provided by Chris Hughes. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Chris Hughes or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.

In this episode I speak with Andrew Johnson, Environmental Research Scientist at the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and Visiting Professor at Brunel University.

Andrew and I have a fascinating discussion about the current state of scientific research and public discourse on chemicals, and how a different approach might ultimately lead to better outcomes for wildlife.

Our conversation covers:

  • Andrew's background and research interests
  • What's wrong with the way we do research on chemicals?
  • Endocrine disruption and uncovering population-relevant effects
  • Insights from 30 years of monitoring data on macroinvertebrate diversity in English rivers
  • The issue of combined sewer overflows
  • Why monitoring data is so valuable, and so underappreciated
  • Problems with the Water Framework Directive
  • Risk assessment of chemicals and the mixture assessment factor (MAF)
  • Are we prioritising the wrong things?
  • Perverse incentives in research
  • Science in the media and improving public discourse
  • Advice for early career scientists

Zinc and Copper Have the Greatest Relative Importance for River Macroinvertebrate Richness at a National Scale | Environmental Science & Technology

Are we going about chemical risk assessment for the aquatic environment the wrong way? | Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry | Oxford Academic

How to be a Better Scientist | Andrew Johnson, John Sumpter | Taylor & Francis

Visit my website for more content and insights www.embarkchemical.com

  continue reading

15 episodes