Working together to advance chemical safety - Blanca Serrano, ECETOC
In this episode I speak with Dr. Blanca Serrano Ramón, Secretary General of the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC).
ECETOC is a scientific organisation that brings together experts from industry, academia and regulatory bodies to tackle challenges and deliver solutions for chemical safety.
Through its range of task forces, events and coordination activities, ECETOC is working across the full spectrum of chemical hazard and risk assessment topics, including endocrine disruption, new approach methodologies (NAMs), biodiversity, microplastics, persistence, and mobility (to name a few). They also develop and maintain a number of advanced risk assessment tools.
Our conversation covers
What is ECETOC? What do they do?
Why it's important to have dialogue between industry, academia and regulatory bodies
Face-to-face vs online interactions
Blanca’s background and journey to ECETOC
Reflections on working at ECETOC
ECETOC’s work on polymers
The need to improve awareness and education in regulatory science
Risk perception, trust in science, and science communication
Two years on: the debate on conflicts of interest
ECETOC associate membership
Prefer to read? Here is a transcript:
Chris: Hello, everyone, and welcome to the Chemical Journeys Podcast. Today I'm speaking with Dr Blanca Serrano Ramón, who is the Secretary General of ECETOC. Blanca, thanks for joining me.
Blanca: Thanks for having me.
Chris: No problem at all, Blanca. I think the first thing we should probably address on this podcast is: what is ECETOC? What does ECETOC do, and what's the overall mission? Please talk us through it.
Blanca: That's a very good question. ECETOC is a scientific organisation. The acronym stands for European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals. But to put it in a simple sentence, what we do is connect scientists from industry, academia, and regulatory bodies to work towards advancing regulatory chemical safety assessment. We have a team of scientific experts that decides what the main or current topics are that we need to work on, and then we find the experts and invite them to work together on that topic.
Chris: Yeah, there's a real emphasis on collaboration in that process, right? As you mentioned, it's scientists from all different affiliations. And the organisation goes back quite a long way, right?
Blanca: Right. It started in 1978, actually.
Chris: Wow.
Blanca: Getting closer now to the 50th anniversary in three years.
Chris: Oh wow. That is a long time. And so I understand that ECETOC brings these people together, but how does it turn that brainpower into progress, into solutions? What's the kind of organisational structure and processes that ECETOC uses for that?
Blanca: As I said, we invite the experts to work together. What we offer is basically the logistics — we organise the meetings, we provide a secretariat that can assist with writing reports or articles. It's important to note that we don't do research per se. What we do is produce roadmaps, frameworks, or scientific articles that provide the starting points for the work regulators might carry out later on. So what we provide is logistics support and scientific knowledge to make sure that these projects come out with scientific, robust solutions.
Chris: Yes, yes. And you have a number of different ways to approach this as well, right?
Blanca: We have what we call task forces, and then we have longer projects called transformational programmes. And then we also do workshops — that's mainly when it's not clear what we need to do, when topics are very complicated, very new, or too broad, and a workshop is the best way to go. You can put together the right people, ask them questions, and by the end of the workshop you have a working plan you can follow afterwards. And then the other thing we do is support other organisations with their own projects — project follow-up, selection of researchers, and so on. Those are our main activities. We're always happy to hear from someone who has new ideas or new things we could do. So we are open.
Chris: Yeah. And when you talk about coordinating projects as well, you have a link to CEFIC LRI in that, right? So CEFIC LRI provides funding to address research topics, and then ECETOC guides it through.
Blanca: So we get the information on what projects they have in mind, then we provide support on drafting RFPs, selecting the researchers with a selection team we create per project, and then we follow up with the research team on whether things are progressing or not, and if things need to be redirected. So yes, that we do.
Chris: Yeah. ECETOC obviously has this really long history, and if you go on the website there are so many different reports across so many topics. So if you could just summarise in a few words — I do think ECETOC sits within a unique niche. What is that niche, and what need is ECETOC delivering?
Blanca: I can tell you what I think our main advantage is — what you call the niche we are covering. Again, it's this cooperation, this safe space — and safe spaces are very much in trend with the NAMs discussion — where scientists from different affiliations can work in an atmosphere where they know they're going to be heard, and the discussion is going to be kept in the scientific arena. It's not moving to policy, and that's very important for us. And it gives them the option to discuss with scientists who may not be in their normal network, or who are more difficult to contact in other organisations because of constraints — being competitors or stakeholders.
Blanca: So we overcome that hurdle by creating this safe space where they can meet and discuss.
Chris: Yeah. And that's really important, isn't it? Having an opportunity to mix with people from different backgrounds, different companies, different affiliations, in order to cross-pollinate ideas, right? And to have your own ideas tested — because that is one of the key tenets of science.
Blanca: Indeed. Coming from my previous job at a trade organisation, we always had the issue — the same with regulators and academia — of only talking to your peers, people who have a similar way of seeing the issues.
Chris: Mm-hmm.
Blanca: And you're missing the perspectives from others. You can call it pieces of the puzzle, but I always think of it as points of view — like in physics, when they tell you it depends on your point of view what you're perceiving, but the event is the same. So in this case it's exactly that. We have different perspectives, and if you don't figure out or understand the others well, what you produce might not be useful, might not be implementable, or might be too complicated. Someone once told us that one of our projects was too fluffy — it was so scientific that it was not possible to implement. So that's what we need to avoid: yes, it's scientific, but is it implementable? Is it practical? And is it addressing the needs that regulators or civil society are asking for?
Chris: The focus is really on solutions. And a solution is only a solution if it's good enough and implementable, right? Because we're very good as scientists at dreaming up things that could solve a problem but are not practical. And as you say, you need to have that dialogue in order to test those things.
Chris: I do think we really have a tendency to slip into group mindsets and groupthink, and we get very comfortable in those situations. And that's certainly something I noticed around COVID — when everybody went home and there were no conferences, there was a much bigger degree of separation and polarisation amongst people. And obviously with social media and all the algorithms that underpin it, I think that's putting extra fuel into those forces. So we have to work even harder to make sure that we keep talking to each other. Do you have any thoughts on — because we've clearly moved to a more virtual world, and there's a tendency to encourage people to do more things remotely so they don't travel — the value of these face-to-face interactions that ECETOC is promoting?
Blanca: Oh my goodness. It is a pity that we are doing so many things remotely. It's true that it does facilitate things in some ways. I remember before COVID that I was maybe travelling too much.
Chris: Mm.
Blanca: But face-to-face interactions are really, really valuable. The best ideas happen in the coffee break. The best discussions, the best comments — it's usually when you're in a relaxed situation after a meeting, networking, talking at a poster, something like that. And you miss that with virtual interaction. If we could only do face-to-face workshops, we would — but it's impossible given the travel restrictions that everybody is facing now. Academia also has limited budgets for travel. So we do hybrid for everything.
Chris: Hmm.
Blanca: It is what it is.
Chris: Yeah, it's definitely not the same. But I think we're done trying to sell it as being equivalent. On the industry side, that's something I've noticed — the industry generally is struggling a bit at the moment, and one of the things that has led to is difficulties getting people to travel to meetings. So, you know, perhaps overall that's not a good thing.
Blanca: It is not. I mean, we can still work — let's be honest. COVID and what followed showed that we can do things online and it's not that bad. But it's not ideal. I know some organisations have started doing fully face-to-face events again, like SETAC, for example — I think the last edition was only face-to-face. The two previous ones were hybrid, but it complicates things so much for the organising team, trust me, and everyone prefers face-to-face. And as I said, you miss the informal interaction.
Chris: Mm-hmm.
Blanca: Which actually has more value than I think we give it credit for.
Chris: Mm-hmm. Yeah. And you guys will be very experienced in organising these meetings and trying to accommodate virtual participants. I know that in the recent workshop on the OECD 309 test guideline in January, there were about 40 people in the room, but around 80 more online — and a lot of discussion and useful information was also provided by the participants online.
Blanca: Indeed, indeed. As I said, there is some added value. But I would prefer fully face-to-face events, for various reasons. That said, I'm not going to beat around the bush — hybrid works, and we don't want to miss the participation of those who can't travel but want to be there. So we'll continue doing that.
Chris: Yes. I imagine it's a nightmare trying to accommodate everyone's preferences for this sort of thing, Blanca — I don't envy you at all. But maybe we can move our conversation on and talk a bit more about you. You mentioned that you joined ECETOC a few years ago. Would you like to tell us a bit more about your background? What's your story and your journey to get to where you are today?
Blanca: My story — that's an ominous question! Well, I'm a chemist by background. I studied in my hometown at the University of Zaragoza, and I finished my degree in Germany. I then decided I wanted to continue studying abroad, so I moved to the Netherlands to do a PhD on nanotechnology — nothing to do with what I'm doing now or what I did afterwards. I think that was an important lesson from my PhD: you can study or do your work in whatever field, and then change and move to other fields, and it's possible. When I was younger, for me the only route was the academic route. Then while doing my PhD, I decided that maybe it wasn't my route, maybe it wasn't my path. I knew I wanted to continue doing something related to science, and I started applying to different things. I knew I didn't want to continue in academia, but I wasn't sure where I wanted to go.
Blanca: One of the places I applied to was FEIQUE, the Spanish Federation of the Chemical Industry. I went for an interview and told them: \”I have no idea what product stewardship is or what a regulation is, but I'll be happy to learn.\” Then I started there with REACH — I think it was 2009. REACH was just starting to be implemented, with the first registration deadline in 2010. So there was a lot of reading and understanding. My first day I Googled what a regulation and a directive were. And then on to Cefic, here in Brussels, which I really enjoyed — the trade association world and how policy-making works, how a trade organisation works, the OECD, the UN and GHS and so on. I found it really interesting. And then three years ago I got the opportunity to work here at ECETOC, to become Secretary General. That meant going back to, let's say, more the scientific side of things. And I wanted to take the chance and do it. And here I am, three years in.
Chris: Feels like three hours.
Blanca: It feels like it has gone by very fast.
Chris: Yes. I imagine it's a little bit less reactive than working at Cefic.
Blanca: There are different challenges and different arenas where you interact. But bear in mind, I talk about bringing together different perspectives — that has its own challenges as well. So indeed it comes from a different angle.
Chris: Yes. At some point you probably have to say: right, you've had enough time to speak, now it's time to make some decisions.
Blanca: Yeah, indeed. It's difficult sometimes to cut discussions short or to stop a group — because everybody wants to continue, and as scientists, you know, we always want to take things further and see what's next. We have limited resources and too many topics. Right now we have 25 task forces and transformational programmes combined.
Chris: Wow.
Blanca: So we do need to close some topics in order to open new ones.
Chris: Hmm. I imagine that being in a trade association role also taught you to be a bit decisive — to get things over the line when they needed to be.
Blanca: I think it's also my personality, somehow. If I'm at a group dinner with friends or whatever, I'll usually select what everybody's going to eat if we're sharing, without waiting for people to tell me what they want. Some people like it, some people don't. But yes, I would say that's part of it.
Chris: Yeah. Cut through the noise — what's the outcome? Yeah. No, that is useful, because I know that some people will pontificate forever if you allow them to. Is there anything in the last three years that you're especially proud of that you've done while you've been at ECETOC?
Blanca: Yes, but it might not be what you'd expect. I'm really proud of the team we have — how the people here at ECETOC interact with each other, how helpful and capable everybody is. People who are completely new to this pick up the activities quickly and are proactive. So that's one thing I'm really proud of. I guess I should also talk about the activities themselves. I think I'm really proud when we take an activity that might already exist somewhere but is a little bit stuck —
Chris: Hmm.
Blanca: — I think that shows that ECETOC has the right structure to unstick certain topics that might be difficult to move forward in other places. We can remove the obstacles and move things along.
Chris: That's definitely a great thing to be able to facilitate, in the role that you have and that ECETOC has. Is there a specific example?
Blanca: I'm really proud of the work we're doing on polymers — in two areas. The polymer analytics project had already been started, but it wasn't broad enough in the amount of stakeholders involved. We addressed that by making it more international, mainly. And then also the plastic additives work — a topic that had already been discussed in ICCA and was felt to be more suitable for us to carry forward, and then it moved here. But it's difficult to choose among the task forces, because everybody is doing such great work and dedicating their time. I should mention — people who agree to work with us, in most cases, do so without being remunerated. It's only when we look for an expert for scientific writing or things like that that we have a contract with those experts. But the industry representatives, academics, and regulators who work with us usually do it without being remunerated, which shows they believe in the added value of what we do.
Chris: Yes, definitely. And I can speak from experience, having worked in some of these task forces — I think people find it a great opportunity to expand their horizons and do something new and different compared to their everyday role. And I think people really value the opportunity to work with people they wouldn't normally work with. There's a task force ongoing now looking at the OECD 309 test guideline, and the representatives there from academia and the Environment Agency as well as industry include lots of really great scientists, all focused on adding value to this specific area. So that's been really nice to be part of as well. And I can also say — just acknowledging what you've said about the team — I've definitely noticed over the last few years how the atmosphere at ECETOC has changed and people are very happy to come to work and to collaborate. The more junior people you've brought in are also doing fantastically well. I'll highlight Megan in particular, because I've worked with her quite a bit. It is quite an intimidating environment to come into if you don't know much about the subject area, and then you've got to be amongst all these scientists who've been working on these problems for years — some of them for decades. I think you probably need to be working in this area for about 10 years before you feel really comfortable and can start to stand on a solid foundation of knowledge before venturing into other challenges and problems. So credit to the team and also to you for giving them the confidence to work in that environment and to feel comfortable learning and developing themselves.
Blanca: Thanks a lot. I have to say, I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I hear comments like “oh, the younger generation, they're not so motivated, they want but don't give,” and so on. And in my experience, that has not been the case at all. The younger generation — everyone who has started with us here has been so good, so motivated, so ready to jump on whatever project there is, even boring ones, like cataloguing all our publications that our new trainee Andrea has been doing. So I cannot agree with those sentiments. I think the new generation is full of really highly motivated people.
Chris: Yeah. I think it's about creating an environment that also makes them feel valued. And I think this one in particular, like I said, could be pretty intimidating — a lot of the time people are judging others based on what they know and their credentials. I can remember when I first started out in my career, it was quite intimidating. So I think the fact that you are seeing that reflected back at you is also a product of the environment and the atmosphere that you've created.
Chris: You mentioned polymers, and for me that has to be a highlight of what ECETOC has done, because the amount of work already done towards developing the concepts around risk assessment of polymers — for both human health and the environment — is quite remarkable, because there wasn't much there before. This is something that is now very much in focus because of the REACH revision and the aspiration to bring polymers into scope for registration under REACH. I don't think anybody fully appreciated the amount of work that aspiration would create, in terms of how we actually process polymers through the REACH regulatory machinery. Because first of all you've got to identify them, characterise them, look at their bioavailability, look at how they transform in the environment. You have structural polymers, solid polymers, and then you also have hydrophilic polymers and gels. And the estimate of 200,000 different polymers on the market — because unlike small molecules, this is more like playing with Lego in building things, giving something a new property. So yes, it is a huge new frontier. And really relevant because, as I said, the REACH revision is coming, and it sounds like polymer registration or some form of new requirements around polymers is going to be there, right?
Blanca: Once you put a foot inside the topic, you don't need 10 years to realise it's really complicated. And everybody who is working on this, from any side, is aware this is not going to be easy, and if it's rushed, it's not going to be good. We will see how it happens. We know it's coming; we don't know exactly in which shape or form. But it doesn't matter — we know there are areas we need to cover, and I think we realise the first thing we need to understand is what we actually have. That's why the polymer analytics comes first. We had already done work on polymers before, on the grouping and risk assessment — there is already a document covering that — but then the question was: can we have a strategy that's simple but accurate enough to understand what you have and where your polymer should sit within a grouping? That's what we are working on now, and then we will continue from there.
Blanca: There were some questions about whether we should wait until we have a clearer idea of what's coming. But to be honest, every time we wait, we end up late. So we should keep working, and then when whatever comes — notification, registration — we would already have some basis to work with.
Chris: Hmm. Yeah, I think that's a very smart stance to have, because it seems to happen time and time again that by the time something becomes a big scientific question or regulatory challenge, the industry is on the back foot. Quite often there's a focus on the immediate — what's happening now in terms of regulatory compliance — and resources are constrained. I hear about reorganisations within industry, groups being restructured. If a group was once a collection of scientists with some freedom and a formal structure that enabled them to collaborate, you then see them broken off and assigned to different business units and atomised in a way. So yeah, I don't feel the forces at work really promote this kind of proactive foresight, unfortunately.
Blanca: Well, if I may let, let's deviate the discussion a little bit.
Chris: Yeah.
Blanca: What you're saying is making me think. As I said, no one has the full picture, and I think we should reconsider a little bit of the concept in general. When I started in trade organisations, there was no education in product stewardship. I think it would be very useful for any scientist or student to have at least some idea of what we're talking about. It often surprises people who are new to the regulatory science area — they're taken aback by what's going on: \”Wait, what — am I supposed to tell you what we can do to regulate this chemical?\” And I think if people were more aware of regulatory science, everybody would benefit. You need academia to understand, as we said at the beginning, that some tests might be beautiful, amazing. It’s validated, it’s great, but its too complicated. So they would not be implementable for regulatory science and industry. I think, sometimes, they are too set in their ways as well.
Chris: Mm-hmm.
Blanca: You're talking to your peers, so you think \”there's no issue with this, so why is there a concern?\” You need to show that there is no issue. You can't just say “trust me.”
Chris: Yeah.
Blanca: And then regulators — again, no one has the knowledge of everything. So sometimes they need to acquire knowledge very fast, which is not easy, and to find the right people to move policy forward. So again, it's a matter of putting everyone together and moving it. But also, again — I'm going to say it so many times — regulatory science is not given enough attention at university. And it would be so helpful.
Chris: Yeah, no, I definitely agree with that. And the more I've been having these conversations and exploring this topic more holistically, the more I've thought about the practicalities and implications of everything. And the more I think about it, the more I'm moving away from thinking that we can do this from a pure science point of view, because a lot of what we're doing now is about thinking about the future society that we want to build, and also reacting to new knowledge coming through — for example, as analytical techniques improve and we start to be able to measure ever lower levels of chemicals in the environment. We have issues like PFAS and microplastic pollution that are switching on global policy discussions about chemicals. It almost seems to me that there's a need for everyone to sit down and say: this is where we are, this is the knowledge we have — does everybody know that? And then: what do we want to do now? The way it's going at the moment, you have messages coming through the media and incentives within academia to hype up issues and scare the public, while industry is somewhat on the back foot and defensive because of the challenges they face from critics on the other side. But anyway, maybe that's a good point for us to move on. You recently held a symposium on risk perception and trust in science — maybe you could tell us a bit about that.
Blanca: I found it really interesting. Every year we hold a symposium on a topic that we wouldn't normally be discussing — something outside our usual remit. This year it was trust in science and risk perception. We see this resistance to trusting science, and in my opinion there's this polarisation where if you are a scientist from industry who has a project with a company, you are considered biased — not truly scientific. And I think that's such a big mistake, and it's a pity, because these are scientists who are dedicated to these topics. As in everything, there might be differences of opinion and interpretation, but science is science. And I find it troubling to see this reactivity at some conferences — we've seen it at SETAC. In the past, articles have been written about scientists who cooperate with industry, and we've been talking about this for 40 minutes, but you need all the facts. So we wanted to better understand what the issue is — what are we, or they, doing wrong to not convey the message that this is science, and the evidence is there for you to read, agree or disagree. And if you disagree, come to us and we can discuss it and perhaps arrive at a different conclusion. But to reject it simply because it comes from X, Y, or Z — I find that's a mistake.
Blanca: So, long story short, there were three speakers. We had Andrew Turley from ChemicalWatch, and we had Angela Bearth from ETH Zurich, who now has her own company, and we had Dave Hemingway from Tactix. And I found it really interesting to see that sometimes it doesn't matter how right you are or how much evidence you have — if someone doesn't want to believe, emotions are not swayed by arguments or science. It takes 30 seconds to scare someone, and then you need five minutes to address all the concerns raised in those 30 seconds. So you can end up on the losing side. Among many other topics — it was a whole-day symposium — the conclusion was that we will keep doing what we're doing, working in the best way we know and can, and moving science forward. But we can perhaps improve in how we communicate. We tend to overcomplicate the way we put things — some of our task forces or workshops don't have the most straightforward names. There was one example given: a workshop to address exposure to low molecular weight components in polymer matrices, when if you say “plastic additives” you might not be entirely precise, but people understand it. So we do need to look at ourselves and improve, because we tend to be precise, and by doing that we end up only reaching a small number of people.
Chris: Yes. That highlights perfectly what I was saying before. Another element of this is the human condition — in the end, we're highly evolved primates with all the brain machinery of something from 100,000 years ago. Whether we like it or not, that doesn't always make us perfectly rational. We have emotional responses and biases and blind spots. And every scientist, because we place rationality as the highest ideal, needs to be more mindful of that particular blind spot.
Blanca: As well as communicating our message to the wider audience, and making sure it's understood scientifically. There's also the communicating with the public — adapting the message to communicate with people who aren't scientists.
Chris: So actually, I did get a question sent in from one of the listeners — not specifically for this conversation, but they were asking whether any of my guests had thoughts or recommendations on methods or resources for communicating science to the general public. The general public is sometimes sceptical. Is there anything from this discussion that you could offer there?
Blanca: Well, I think a good exercise is to explain it to someone in your family who is not in the field.
Chris: Yeah.
Blanca: If they don't get it, no one is going to. We tend to be too deep in our topics, so even when we think we are simplifying, we're not.
Chris: It's like: simplify it, and then simplify it again a bit more.
Blanca: I have the same issues — I try to improve how we communicate our outcomes and make them clearer. But again, you need some external perspective.
Chris: Mm-hmm.
Chris: No, thank you for that — and that was a question from Mike. So Mike, if you're listening, I did eventually ask your question, and sorry it took so long.
Chris: Yeah. Going back to the point around the noise that was made about conflicts of interest — I've been reflecting on that more recently. I remember when it was raised a couple of years ago, and the reaction, including my own, was quite a shock. It was quite shocking to read and digest, because it forced people to think about colleagues they work with and really respect, and I thought: this is clearly going to be quite hurtful, especially where things were more targeted at individuals than at the broader community. But then, you know, the human reaction is to get angry and defensive. I hope that in time, as the pain has receded, it also did force some self-reflection and made people look in the mirror. And maybe it has shifted behaviour slightly — I think there is more of a lean towards transparency now. Where before someone might have said “I have no conflicts of interest” without much thought, people are now doing a double take and saying: “Oh, maybe there is that bit of funding, or that role I had at one point.“ It's making people reflect. And it is difficult — it's like people in glass houses, right? Everybody has their own incentives, which we all need to acknowledge and be humble about. But I also think it has aired the room a little bit, and in a strange way perhaps allowed people to talk a bit more together. Maybe that's just my impression.
Blanca: I think it created the need to address the issue, because it seemed there was resentment — these articles, as you said, address individuals. And you think: why would you target specific people who are so scientifically driven and dedicated? But anyway, it showed there was something to be addressed. Everybody has biases, regardless of which side of the table they're on. It's not only professional biases from where you are employed, but also personal biases from your own values, your own opinions.
Chris: Mm-hmm.
Blanca: It's not the same for everyone, but in general I would say everybody wants to create a better world for the next generation.
Chris: Mm-hmm.
Blanca: And working towards improving the safety assessment of chemicals — at least at ECETOC, that's our goal. So I think dialogue is necessary. We need to reach even further. And I think it's important to talk to those who disagree with you even more than to those who agree, because you get better insights and a more complete solution if you include everybody. And by the way, we would also be very happy to have scientists from organisations that aren't industry, academia, or regulators — scientific NGOs, or whoever. We are open for that.
Chris: Yes. I noticed, when I was looking at the website ahead of this conversation, that you have an associate membership option, right?
Blanca: Yes. We always had the associate membership, but it wasn't clear what it was. So let me explain: the full members are the paying members — these are typically companies from industry that manufacture or use chemicals, including CROs. But any scientific organisations, individuals with a scientific background, regulatory bodies, scientific NGOs, or other scientific organisations can become associate members. Associate members don't need to pay. They can participate in all our task forces and transformational programmes and get more information on what we're doing and how they can get involved. It's simply a matter of reaching out and expressing interest. We do of course ask for a brief CV to see whether you're suited for the task forces you'd like to join, because — as you know — we want contributors. But that said, I don't want to exclude young scientists. I would like to also have a couple of places in each task force for young scientists who have recently finished their degree and want to join. Fresh minds and fresh ideas are also important.
Chris: Yeah. So anybody who's listening and has a scientific background and would like to join as an associate member — you can go to the website and find out how to apply. I would highly recommend it if you have the opportunity to join one of these task forces, because you'll have really great opportunities to collaborate with brilliant scientists and contribute towards some really important challenges. There are still many challenges to solve with chemicals, for both human health and the environment, as we continue to move forward to develop a safe and sustainable society.
Chris: So Blanca, just before we wrap up — what does the outlook look like? Where do you see things going, and how is ECETOC going to contribute?
Blanca: Where are things going? We'll be continuing our work on many different topics, including EDs (endocrine disruptors), probably starting something on the mixture assessment factor, biodiversity, safe and sustainable by design, new approach methodologies, non-animal methodologies as well, polymers, persistency and mobility. There's quite a lot to do. So being bored is not something we're going to experience in the future. In particular, at ECETOC we are now working to change our website and improve it, to make it easier to navigate and find our materials. Hopefully we can reach out to more people like this and be better known. I think that's it from my side.
Chris: Well, that's really great. And yeah, I just want to thank you for all the work you are doing at the helm of ECETOC. The group is making really great strides, and as you said, you're building a great team that's helping to ensure that the science moves forward and that we are productive and focused in addressing some of the big challenges that new science and new regulation is constantly bringing up. So with that, yeah, I just want to say thanks very much, Blanca, and thanks to everyone who's been listening. Your time is really precious, and I'm so grateful that you've spent it with us. If you've enjoyed this conversation, please tell your friends and colleagues about the Chemical Journeys Podcast — and we'll have more conversations like this coming up in the future. Thank you very much, Blanca.
Blanca: Thank you. Thank you for having me. It was really interesting. Thank you, Chris.
