Academy Day: Worlds Collide
By Benjamin Sipes and Carolyn Day
Groups of community organizers and UC Davis faculty surround Dr. Samuel Sandoval, an assistant professor at UC Davis, captivated by his presentation on groundwater movement and water pollution. The group is silent in observation as Dr. Sandoval adds water to his apparatus: a glass case modeled to represent different soil types, surface water formations and the groundwater aquifers. He explains how water moves through the ground to create rivers and refresh the water table, and hands rise to ask questions.
Dr. Sandoval’s demonstration encapsulates the heart of the UC Davis Environmental Health Science Center’s debut Academy Day: to facilitate collaboration between academics and community organization representatives and involve them in meaningful co-learning processes. This was a day of short seminars and interactive workshops for community members on topics related to a project funded by the UCD EHS Core Center. Its broad goal was to build the capacity of academics and nonprofit partners to actively and meaningfully inform and engage in research collaborations.
Dr. Sandoval’s demonstration was just one of many activities that took place at the first ever Academy Day. The participants represented both community organizations and researchers from various departments at UC Davis. They are all united by a shared goal: to use their expertise to advocate for the welfare of communities in Central Valley, California. Many of the participants represented organizations that are already collaborating on pilot projects with UC Davis researchers, but for others, this was the first time they had ever held that dialogue in person. Academy Day is the project of Dr. Karen Andrade and her team (Michelle Rodriguez and Mimi Pinna, interns for the Center of Regional Change and graduate student Krista Haapanen). Dr. Andrade is a postdoctoral scholar at UC Davis who works for the Environmental Health Sciences Core Center (EHSCC) and manages its Community Outreach and Engagement Core (COEC). The COEC is directed by Professor Jonathan London and Professor Michelle Ko. The COEC works closely with both the community organizations and scientists to facilitate their collaboration. The goal for this Academy Day was to create a space for mutual learning by deeply immersing participants in topics stemming from a community engaged project funded by the UCD EHS Core Center. This particular project dealt with topics related to water quality in the Central Valley. Given that this first Academy Day focused on issues of health and safety with respect to water pollution, key speakers included Dr. Samuel Sandoval; Dr. Kent Pinkerton, a professor of pulmonary pathology; Dr. Swee Teh, a professor of anatomy, physiology and cell biology in the School of Veterinary Medicine; Dr. Teh’s postdoctoral scholar, Dr. Wilson Ramirez-Duarte; and Dr. Tomo Kurobe, Dr. Teh’s project scientist. In particular, they were featuring the partnership between the Community Water Center (CWC) and Professor Swee Teh’s research group. Their project uses a fish animal model to assess the possible adverse health effects of groundwater contaminants on health. They hope that their findings can be used to advocate for adding owners of contaminated wells in the Central Valley to the municipal water system. |
The event began, as many morning conferences do, with bagels and coffee. People began trickling into the Putah Creek Lodge, bundled in coats and carrying dripping umbrellas. Academy Day came to an official beginning; the room of academics and community organizers took their seats to listen as Dr. Andrade introduced herself and the people that helped her make Academy Day possible. Following the morning introductions came the first activity of the day: “Generating Questions for an Environmental Health Scientist”. Taped onto the wall hung a paper with three circles within each other forming a bulls-eye. Dr. London instructed all participants to write responses to three different prompts. The first prompt asked them to generate a question solvable by both scientists and community organizers. The second asked them to identify support needed to solve that question, and the final asked them to pose a larger “big picture” question regarding environmental health.
At once the room of people began scribbling questions on sticky notes and pasting them on the bulls-eye. As the participants continued to add their questions, the white bulls-eye became a patchwork of brightly colored notes. This activity started a lively discussion between participants, as community organizer's questions were answered by academics and vice versa.
From one perspective, the community organizers have information concerning environmental contaminants that could be harming the communities they work with, yet they do not have the resources to go about testing these concerns. On the other, scientists have the means to test a variety of environmental concerns but do not always know which ones to prioritize.
One question, raised by Ryan Jensen from the CWC, involved wanting to understand the effects of 123 TCP, a carcinogen derived from fumigants manufactured by Shell and Dow Chemical Companies. This started the scientists thinking about approaches to answering the question. “How does one go about measuring the effects of one chemical on a population?” Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Director of the UCD EHS Core Center, expressed, considering the issue.
Jensen suggested a correlational study to evaluate its effects. Other attending scientists added to the discussion that a correlational study, even in an area known to have high concentrations of 123 TCP, would provide insufficient evidence due to all kinds of unknown factors and confounding variables influencing the correlation.
This dialogue is one of the many that ensued during the circle activity. Both perspectives offer an understanding of the problem, but rarely are both sides in the same room to discuss them. Additionally, the questions that the activity generated are not necessarily ones that community organizers and scientists articulate on a daily basis. “As I am writing these questions, these are questions I have been thinking about for a long time but never asked my community partners,” shared Skye Kelty, a graduate student actively working on environmental health issues.
At once the room of people began scribbling questions on sticky notes and pasting them on the bulls-eye. As the participants continued to add their questions, the white bulls-eye became a patchwork of brightly colored notes. This activity started a lively discussion between participants, as community organizer's questions were answered by academics and vice versa.
From one perspective, the community organizers have information concerning environmental contaminants that could be harming the communities they work with, yet they do not have the resources to go about testing these concerns. On the other, scientists have the means to test a variety of environmental concerns but do not always know which ones to prioritize.
One question, raised by Ryan Jensen from the CWC, involved wanting to understand the effects of 123 TCP, a carcinogen derived from fumigants manufactured by Shell and Dow Chemical Companies. This started the scientists thinking about approaches to answering the question. “How does one go about measuring the effects of one chemical on a population?” Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Director of the UCD EHS Core Center, expressed, considering the issue.
Jensen suggested a correlational study to evaluate its effects. Other attending scientists added to the discussion that a correlational study, even in an area known to have high concentrations of 123 TCP, would provide insufficient evidence due to all kinds of unknown factors and confounding variables influencing the correlation.
This dialogue is one of the many that ensued during the circle activity. Both perspectives offer an understanding of the problem, but rarely are both sides in the same room to discuss them. Additionally, the questions that the activity generated are not necessarily ones that community organizers and scientists articulate on a daily basis. “As I am writing these questions, these are questions I have been thinking about for a long time but never asked my community partners,” shared Skye Kelty, a graduate student actively working on environmental health issues.
Dr. Sandoval’s demonstration encapsulates the heart of the UC Davis Environmental Health Science Center’s debut Academy Day: to facilitate collaboration between academics and community organization representatives and involve them in meaningful co-learning processes." |
Following the initial activity, Dr. Swee Teh and Wilson Ramirez-Duarte gave presentations on their work, including the fundamentals of water quality and toxicology, and describing how and why they utilized animal models to assess water quality. Directly after their presentations was the next activity for the day: a tour of the lab where they kept the fish that they used for their animal models. This was especially useful to the representatives from the CWC, who hope that the findings from Dr. Teh’s study will help them advocate for change in water policy. The collaboration between the CWC and the Teh Lab enhances both groups’ efforts to conduct research that has an impact on communities in need – in this case, Central Valley communities whose only available water comes from contaminated wells. |
Dr. Teh led the group to his lab in a veterinary science building--about a five-minute walk. The rain had stopped, making the walk dry and full of small conversations. The group first arrived to a room of Dr. Teh's lab that had tables full of microscopes with prepared slides of fish embryos. The fish species used, Medaka (Oryzias latipes), as Dr. Teh describes, is particularly unique in that just two days after the egg is laid, they can determine its sex. That means that Dr. Teh can examine the differences in water toxicity on males vs. females from very early in development. Alight with curiosity, the groups of academics and community organizers alike rotated through each of the microscopes, observing the fish embryos underneath.
As attendees finished looking at the fish embryos, they were guided down to a room full of Medaka fish tanks. It was here that the conversations between community organizer and scientist continued. Mr. Jensen began asking Dr. Ramirez-Duarte about the water to which the fish are exposed.
“Why do you only expose the fish for four or seven days? Why not their whole life?” asked Mr. Jensen, reflecting that communities in Central Valley are exposed to the water significantly longer than just four or seven days.
“We don’t collect enough water to expose them for their whole life,” explained Dr. Ramirez-Duarte.
Among the purposes of Academy Day was to look behind the veil of science, and through conversations like these, we see that is exactly what happened. Academy Day works, in part, to expand the scope of science to reflect the scientific process while integrating community organizations into that understanding. This is particularly useful to organizations that partner with scientists because it develops their understanding of how science generates answers and helps them to gain awareness of its limitations.
When reflecting on the first Academy Day, Dr. Andrade expressed satisfaction with its reception. Upon studying the post event evaluations, she said, “I think honestly the evaluations make me feel we achieved more of the goal than I, as a non-participant, thought,” said Dr. Andrade. Especially when it comes to experiencing the backstage of science, Dr. Andrade was pleased that Academy Day activities sparked genuine interest in participants. “On a very basic level,” said Dr. Andrade, “I think there is something just innately cool when you see curiosity. I think we saw a lot of that in the fish lab.”
Krista Haapanen, Dr. Andrade’s graduate student researcher, added that many of the group reflections that occurred during Academy Day have been very helpful for her and Dr. Andrade as they evaluate the Academy Day’s outcomes. “We have been trying to delineate who our different audiences are,” said Ms. Haapanen, “we have the CSTAC, the lay public, researchers, students, [and] community organizers,” among others. Understanding these audiences and how to meet their diverse needs is a significant, yet rewarding, challenge.
Academy Day is just one of the events that the COEC has organized. “They all have different complementary purposes, they work together, but we want to make sure that each of them has value to the people that attend,” said Dr. Andrade.
The next Academy Day might not be in the immediate future because Dr. Andrade and her team will be thinking through how to improve upon the original. “We are going to take some time to digest what happened,” said Dr. Andrade, “and to make sure that the next time is even better.”
As attendees finished looking at the fish embryos, they were guided down to a room full of Medaka fish tanks. It was here that the conversations between community organizer and scientist continued. Mr. Jensen began asking Dr. Ramirez-Duarte about the water to which the fish are exposed.
“Why do you only expose the fish for four or seven days? Why not their whole life?” asked Mr. Jensen, reflecting that communities in Central Valley are exposed to the water significantly longer than just four or seven days.
“We don’t collect enough water to expose them for their whole life,” explained Dr. Ramirez-Duarte.
Among the purposes of Academy Day was to look behind the veil of science, and through conversations like these, we see that is exactly what happened. Academy Day works, in part, to expand the scope of science to reflect the scientific process while integrating community organizations into that understanding. This is particularly useful to organizations that partner with scientists because it develops their understanding of how science generates answers and helps them to gain awareness of its limitations.
When reflecting on the first Academy Day, Dr. Andrade expressed satisfaction with its reception. Upon studying the post event evaluations, she said, “I think honestly the evaluations make me feel we achieved more of the goal than I, as a non-participant, thought,” said Dr. Andrade. Especially when it comes to experiencing the backstage of science, Dr. Andrade was pleased that Academy Day activities sparked genuine interest in participants. “On a very basic level,” said Dr. Andrade, “I think there is something just innately cool when you see curiosity. I think we saw a lot of that in the fish lab.”
Krista Haapanen, Dr. Andrade’s graduate student researcher, added that many of the group reflections that occurred during Academy Day have been very helpful for her and Dr. Andrade as they evaluate the Academy Day’s outcomes. “We have been trying to delineate who our different audiences are,” said Ms. Haapanen, “we have the CSTAC, the lay public, researchers, students, [and] community organizers,” among others. Understanding these audiences and how to meet their diverse needs is a significant, yet rewarding, challenge.
Academy Day is just one of the events that the COEC has organized. “They all have different complementary purposes, they work together, but we want to make sure that each of them has value to the people that attend,” said Dr. Andrade.
The next Academy Day might not be in the immediate future because Dr. Andrade and her team will be thinking through how to improve upon the original. “We are going to take some time to digest what happened,” said Dr. Andrade, “and to make sure that the next time is even better.”