BackgroundWe report on the challenges of obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) coverage for a community-based participatory research (CBPR) environmental justice project, which involved reporting biomonitoring and household exposure results to participants, and included lay participation in research.MethodsWe draw on our experiences guiding a multi-partner CBPR project through university and state Institutional Review Board reviews, and other CBPR colleagues' written accounts and conference presentations and discussions. We also interviewed academics involved in CBPR to learn of their challenges with Institutional Review Boards.ResultsWe found that Institutional Review Boards are generally unfamiliar with CBPR, reluctant to oversee community partners, and resistant to ongoing researcher-participant interaction. Institutional Review Boards sometimes unintentionally violate the very principles of beneficence and justice which they are supposed to uphold. For example, some Institutional Review Boards refuse to allow report-back of individual data to participants, which contradicts the CBPR principles that guide a growing number of projects. This causes significant delays and may divert research and dissemination efforts. Our extensive education of our university Institutional Review Board convinced them to provide human subjects protection coverage for two community-based organizations in our partnership.ConclusionsIRBs and funders should develop clear, routine review guidelines that respect the unique qualities of CBPR, while researchers and community partners can educate IRB staff and board members about the objectives, ethical frameworks, and research methods of CBPR. These strategies can better protect research participants from the harm of unnecessary delays and exclusion from the research process, while facilitating the ethical communication of study results to participants and communities.

We propose the socio-exposome as a conceptual framework for integrative environmental health research. Environmental scientists coined the term “exposome” with the goal of inventorying and quantifying environmental exposures as precisely as scientists measure genes and gene expression. To date, the exposome’s proponents have not thoroughly engaged social scientific theoretical and methodological expertise, although the exclusion of sociological expertise risks molecularizing complex social phenomena and limiting the possibility of collective action to improve environmental conditions. As a corrective, and to demonstrate how “omic” technologies could be made more relevant to public health, our socio-exposome framework blends insights from sociological and public health research with insights from environmental justice scholarship and activism. We argue that environmental health science requires more comprehensive data on more and different kinds of environmental exposures, but also must consider the socio-political conditions and inequalities that allow hazards to continue unchecked. We propose a multidimensional framework oriented around three axes: individual, local, and global, and suggest some sociomarkers and data sources that could identify exposures at each level. This framework could also guide policy, by creating a predictive framework that helps communities understand the repercussions of corporate and regulatory practices for public health and social justice.

Federal funding agencies increasingly require research investigators to ensure that federally-sponsored research demonstrates broader societal impact. Specifically, the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Superfund Research Program (SRP) requires research centers to include research translation and community engagement cores to achieve broader impacts, with special emphasis on improving environmental health policies through better scientific understanding. This paper draws on theoretical insights from the social sciences to show how incorporating knowledge brokers in research centers can facilitate translation of scientific expertise to influence regulatory processes and thus promote public health. Knowledge brokers connect academic researchers with decision-makers, to facilitate the translation of research findings into policies and programs. In this article, we describe the stages of the regulatory process and highlight the role of the knowledge broker and scientific expert at each stage. We illustrate the cooperation of knowledge brokers, scientific experts and policymakers using a case from the Brown University (Brown) SRP. We show how the Brown SRP incorporated knowledge brokers to engage scientific experts with regulatory officials around the emerging public health problem of vapor intrusion. In the Brown SRP, the knowledge broker brought regulatory officials into the research process, to help scientific experts understand the critical nature of this emerging public health threat, and helped scientific experts develop a research agenda that would inform the development of timely measures to protect public health. Our experience shows that knowledge brokers can enhance the impact of environmental research on public health by connecting policy decision-makers with scientific experts at critical points throughout the regulatory process.

The NIEHS funds several basic and applied research programs, many of which also require research translation or outreach. This paper reports on a project by the Brown University Superfund Basic Research Program (SBRP), in which outreach and research translation teams collaborated with state regulatory agency personnel and community activists on a legislative initiative to mitigate the financial impacts of living in a contaminated community. The Environmentally Compromised Home Ownership (ECHO) program makes home equity loans of up to $25,000 available to qualified applicants. This collaboration provides a case study in community engagement and demonstrates how research translation and outreach activities that are clearly differentiated yet well-integrated can improve a suite of basic and applied research. Although engaging diverse constituencies can be difficult, community-engaged translation and outreach have the potential to make research findings more useful to communities, address some of the social impacts of contamination, and empower stakeholders to pursue their individual and collectively held goals for remediation. The NIEHS has recently renewed its commitment to communityengaged research and advocacy, making this an optimal time to reflect on how basic research programs that engage stakeholders through research translation and outreach can add value to the overall research enterprise.

No abstract