http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/8612 Sat, 13 Jun 2026 12:32:53 GMT 2026-06-13T12:32:53Z http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33419 Title: The Role of ES&T in Advancing Environmental Toxicology and Chemical Risk Assessment: Past, Present, and Future Authors: Escher, BI; Hermens, JLM; Sumpter, JP; Ankley, GT Abstract: Environmental contamination poses risks to all components of the ecosystem─humans and wildlife─yet toxicological research and regulatory assessment remain largely compartmentalized by discipline and organismal focus. We look back on 60 years of toxicological research published in Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T) and analyze how the field has evolved, what role ES&T has played in this evolution, and suggest a path forward for the future. Chemicals, complex mixtures, and their transformation products act across interconnected biological taxa, including humans, that share conserved molecular and physiological pathways. Integrating ecotoxicology, human toxicology, exposomics, and data-driven new approach methodologies can shift hazard and risk assessment from single-chemical, single-species paradigms toward a mechanism-based, systemic understanding of toxicity across the entire ecosystem. We discuss advances in the characterization of adverse outcome pathways and key biological targets, mixture-oriented testing strategies with effect-based bioassays, and advanced computational approaches. Understanding shared and specific toxicity pathways enables earlier and more reliable detection of potential chemical hazards, strengthens cross-species extrapolation, and supports the development of more predictive and sustainable chemical design and management strategies in the context of the One Health paradigm. Description: Supporting information is available online at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.6c03315/suppl_file/es6c03315_si_001.pdf (62.57 kb) - Text S1: Analysis of publications in ES&T on Environmental Toxicology; Figure S1: Number of publications in ES&T from 1967 to 2025 (PDF). Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33419 2026-06-01T00:00:00Z http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33418 Title: Ecotoxicology in the Context of Biodiversity Loss: Lessons from Seven Decades of Chemical Impacts and Paths Forward Authors: Sumpter, JP; Margiotta-Casaluci, L Abstract: Chemical pollution is a major anthropogenic driver of biodiversity loss, yet its relative contribution compared to other stressors remains difficult to quantify. Ecotoxicology emerged as a discipline in response to evidence that chemicals in the environment can harm wildlife, but anticipating and preventing ecological damage remains challenging. This Review examines how ecotoxicology research has informed environmental protection, drawing on case studies spanning over 70 years, including pesticides and birds, tributyltin and mollusks, diclofenac and vultures, and 6PPD-quinone and salmon. These examples highlight recurring challenges─such as unpredicted species-specific sensitivities, unanticipated exposure pathways, and modes of action overlooked by standard testing frameworks─that have typically resulted in reactive rather than preventive regulatory responses. In light of the thousands of chemicals in use and widespread environmental mixtures, the Review evaluates strengths and limitations of current ecotoxicological testing and regulatory practices. It proposes pragmatic principles for enhanced protection, emphasizing prevention, prioritization under uncertainty, improved predictive capacity, and cross-sector collaboration, while acknowledging inevitable trade-offs between environmental safeguards and essential societal uses of chemicals. The Review argues that ecotoxicology must evolve rapidly by embracing predictive non-animal and data-driven approaches to more effectively reduce the risk of severe, widespread, or irreversible ecological harm. Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33418 2026-05-29T00:00:00Z http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33395 Title: Corrected By Collegial Commentators: My Beliefs about Beliefs about Disbelief Authors: Gervais, WM Abstract: It’s a rare privilege to have seven esteemed scholars devote their attention and expertise to my book Disbelief, and I’m grateful for their exciting and productive commentaries on it. Writing a book (Gervais, 2024) is a strange experience. You’ve got some ideas that you’ve been pondering for more than a decade, and keener minds have been gnawing on for much, much longer. But you’re going to commit your ideas to dead trees for others to think about. Some of the folks will encounter these ideas for the first time, so you have to make everything broadly digestible. Other folks, however, will be encountering your book from the perspective of deep specialist knowledge—in reality, deeper specialist knowledge than you’ve got on a great many facets of the book you’ve written. This latter audience is the one I was most nervous about: how would the real experts react? Description: Reply. Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33395 2025-09-23T00:00:00Z http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33394 Title: Faithless Found: Replication and Extension of Gervais (2011) Authors: Mackey, C; Gallihugh, B; Rios, K; Gervais, W Abstract: Little research examining anti-atheist prejudice reduction interventions has been replicated. The current manuscript aimed to replicate and extend previous anti-atheist prejudice research We proposed three conceptual replications of Will Gervais’ “Finding the faithless” (Study 3). Participants in all three studies were presented with information suggesting that atheists are either common (33% of the population) or rare (3% of the population). Study 1 replicated “Finding the faithless” Study 3 in an undergraduate sample. In Study 2, a sample of Americans on Prolific read that either 33% (common) or 3% (rare) of Americans are atheist. Study 3 had a sample of Americans on Prolific view a graphic showing that Americans overestimated (vs. underestimated) the prevalence of atheists. Across all studies, perceived prevalence did not reduce anti-atheist prejudice. Perceived contact with atheists was associated with more positive feelings toward atheists, replicating past research. We discuss this lack of replication and suggest future avenues for research. Description: Open scholarship: This article has earned the Center for Open Science badges for Open Data, Open Materials and Preregistered. The data and materials are openly accessible at https://osf.io/tczqd .; Registered Report.; Supplemental material is available online at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10508619.2025.2491901# . Sun, 20 Apr 2025 00:00:00 GMT http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33394 2025-04-20T00:00:00Z