Fostering advances in chemical safety research - Katherine Santizo, Cefic-LRI
In this episode I speak with Dr Katherine Santizo, Programme Manager of Cefic's Long-range Research Initiative (LRI).
Since 1999, Cefic-LRI has funded over 250 projects (totaling approximately €90 million) to advance the scientific assessment of the safety of chemicals, and to improve understanding of potential health and environmental risks.
Tune in to hear first-hand from Katherine about the exciting work that Cefic-LRI does, and how this is helping to deliver progress in chemicals assessment science.
Our conversation covers:
What is Cefic-LRI? The LRI mission, and what makes it different
How it works - the LRI process from ideation to publications
Tools and solutions to address key regulatory challenges
Katherine's background and career journey
Working across disciplines - integrating environmental science with human health
Reflecting on the 25 year anniversary of Cefic-LRI
Upcoming research projects: new approach methodologies (NAMs), mobility and biodegradation
Other hot topics in chemicals safety research
Cefic-LRI's contribution to persistence assessment science
Cefic-Lri – Long-Range Research Initiative
Determining the water solubility of difficult-to-test substances: A tutorial review - ScienceDirect
LRI Marks 25 Years of Advancing Chemical Safety Assessments – Cefic-Lri
Cefic-LRI 25th Anniversary Commemorative Book
Prefer to read? Here’s a transcript:
Chris: Hello everyone and welcome to the Chemical Journeys Podcast. Today I’m speaking with Dr Katherine Santizo, who is Programme Manager for the CEFIC Long Range Research Initiative, or CEFIC LRI for short. Katherine, thanks for joining me.
Katherine: Hi, Chris. Thank you for inviting me. Happy to be here.
Chris: It’s great to have you on the podcast. Having worked with you over the last couple of years, and having also had the opportunity to be involved in some CEFIC LRI activities myself, I’m really excited to be able to speak with you on this podcast and share some information about CEFIC LRI with the listeners. So, let’s get started. Perhaps the best place to start is CEFIC LRI — perhaps you could tell us a bit about the programme.
Katherine: Yeah, thank you, Chris, and thank you for spelling out the acronym — I was actually going to start with that. For those who don’t know CEFIC, it’s the European Chemical Industry Council, and we have this research initiative under that, which was started in 1999.
It was started as a global effort to demonstrate our commitment to responsible care, but also to address the needs of research for decision making. The core of LRI is really to link research to practice and policy, to advance our approaches to scientific assessments for the safety of chemicals.
And, to some extent more importantly, to improve our understanding of the potential health and environmental risks. So it’s fully research focused, and we fund research projects to help build that bridge between science and practice and policy, but also to build scientific networks that produce high-quality science to inform decision making.
And since it’s a global effort, there are actually research programmes also in Japan under the Japan Chemical Industry Association, and in the US under the American Chemistry Council. So all three regional programmes coordinate and align on the challenges and needs of the chemical industry.
Chris: Oh, that’s great. That’s a really nice overview, and I think it speaks to the fact that we use a lot of chemicals in day-to-day life and they deliver a lot of benefits for society. But there’s also the concern — or the question — around the safety of the chemicals that we’re using, for both health and the environment.
So it’s not a simple challenge to address that question. And the nature of science is such that it’s always throwing up new questions and new challenges, and policy continues to evolve.
Katherine: Yeah, I mean, as technology has advanced and changed, there are always going to be new questions and maybe new concerns. As societal norms and expectations change, policy has to address that — and so does research and industry. So it’s really nice to have this programme that is able to add to those conversations, and to look at the scientific work and evolving methods and things like that.
So it’s been really interesting to see how all of that comes together under CEFIC.
Chris: Yeah, and perhaps you could reflect a bit on what’s special or different about CEFIC LRI compared with other research programmes that are going on around the world.
Katherine: Yeah, I mean, I guess that’s a tough question because I also don’t know all the research programmes in the world. It is industry funded, but one of the core values of the programme is that it is transparent and independent, and that we focus on really robust science to address industry needs.
A lot of it is that we’re addressing very specific questions that industry thinks — and agrees — we need answers to. But once a project has started, the research team really does have the freedom and independence to steer the project as they see fit. The results, obviously, are theirs — intellectual property stays with the research teams — and we are really just wanting to get answers to questions.
So I think it’s really nice that you have this industry-funded programme where, at the same time, it’s hands off. Let’s see what the research is going to show, what the team comes up with, and let them approach the question as they see fit.
Chris: Yes. And there’s a process around all of that, isn’t there? So there’s an annual cycle and monitoring teams as well. Perhaps you could talk us through that side of things.
Katherine: Yeah, so it’s an evolving cycle. I started about two years ago, and the cycles — we’ve thought about changing them a little bit to adapt a little bit faster. But in general, what happens is that the experts in the CEFIC LRI programme — industry experts — prioritise some questions or research needs. Not only that, but we also then have the scoping meeting that fits into this; they’re biennial, so every other year.
So we have the scoping meetings, and we have our continual research expert meetings to try and understand what some of the priorities are. After this, we have a drafting of the projects, and the drafting is coordinated by ECETOC. Part of the use of ECETOC is that we really, like I mentioned, want to make sure that it’s maintained as transparent and open. So we have experts convene to help draft the research projects.
Then the selection committees, or the project calls, go out once they’ve been approved. And then during the call process, we are forming selection committees that are also coordinated by ECETOC again, to maintain this transparency and independence. Then the selection committees make the recommendations, and we send out the award letters and try to get started with the project as soon as possible.
Chris: Yeah. And then during the course of the project as well, there’s oversight — there’s a monitoring team, which is made up of people from different backgrounds. Yeah.
Katherine: Yeah, I mean, part of having — trying to link that science to practice and policy — is that you want to have tripartite involvement. So in the selection process, we have experts who then join the monitoring team, but we also make calls to experts so that they can join the monitoring team, to have as much as possible the tripartite involvement in the process.
Part of the reason to do that is that we know that having involvement early on really builds trust, engagement, and confidence in whatever the process or the results are.
Chris: Mm-hmm. Yeah, and certainly from where I’ve been standing, CEFIC LRI has been a really important programme for moving things forward in terms of developing tools and developing approaches that address this evolution of science and policy around chemical safety. I can remember my first engagement with CEFIC LRI when I was working at Shell, and I supported the development of an RFP for addressing water solubility testing for difficult-to-test chemicals.
I think that eventually became the ECO38 project. But the result of that was a really nice technical guidance publication, to enable people to carry out those tests and get more accurate data on water solubility, for instance — and water solubility is such a fundamental parameter for chemicals.
You wouldn’t think this would be a problem, but when you get to things that are very poorly soluble, or volatile, or oily, you can have all kinds of challenges. And we need good data even in those areas in order to extrapolate from that and understand how chemicals behave in the environment.
So that was a really nice experience to be involved with. And and there are other tools and things being developed as well.
Katherine: Yeah, glad to hear about that experience. I was trying to remember ECO38, but that was quite a bit before my time. Like I mentioned, we really try to focus on how to improve the safety assessment of chemicals — and that means a broad range of chemicals.
Obviously CEFIC LRI has the full value chain involved, so we also understand the difficulties that might come for very specific chemistries, and being able to improve tools for those chemistries overall helps and improves assessments.
So we have over 25 tools that have been developed over the course of the 25 years of the programme, and I think over a dozen OECD test guidelines, and countless guidance documents and frameworks that have been developed based on the research projects. We hope that all of these, at the end, are put together to really help inform decision making, or to help the assessment process at the end of the day.
Chris: Yeah, I think that really speaks to a need that CEFIC LRI is fulfilling. And from experience working in more academic areas, they don’t always have that regulatory framing on how they’re doing their research, and often they’re puzzled by some of the problems that we’re actually grappling with.
You know, like — why do you want to assess the biodegradation of a chemical that naturally volatilises from water? It’s like, well, we have to. We have to measure a half-life for a persistence assessment, for example. And yes, these are some of the things that the regulatory frameworks channel us into in the work we’re doing.
Katherine: Yeah, I mean, it’s been surprising to hear some of that as well from academia. Obviously we all kind of start there. But some of the things that I’ve heard, in meetings where I’ve been introducing myself as Programme Manager and asking for people’s experience on the programme — one of the things I’ve heard quite often is that it has served as a kind of training platform as well for academics to better understand the regulatory process and what questions need to be addressed. And that’s not always considered, or maybe part of the discussions, when you’re looking purely at the science.
So it’s been really nice to also hear the added experience, and added value, that academics have had in being part of the programme.
Chris: Yes. Yeah, that’s a really good point. I think the regulatory space can be quite technical and complex, and you’re very unlikely to learn about it or gain a great understanding of its nuances unless you immerse yourself in it. And most people don’t have the time to do that in their day-to-day work.
So, yeah, this seems like a great opportunity to upskill.
Katherine: Exactly.
Chris: Good. You mentioned that most of us start out in academia, and perhaps that’s a good prompt for us to talk a little bit more about your own background — what were your research interests, and what was your journey to becoming Programme Manager at CEFIC LRI?
Katherine: Yeah, it’s always an interesting question for me — how I ended up where I ended up. But it’s mostly a philosophy of taking opportunities wherever they come. I actually obtained my bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering, and not in Europe — I’m originally from Los Angeles, California. I did my bachelor’s at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Most of my time there, I’ve always been very interested in research: wanting to know how things work, how things are made, and things like that. I think that’s why I gravitated towards chemical engineering, because I was also really interested in the chemistry of things.
So while I was at UCSB, since the very beginning — actually before I’d even started — I joined a research team working on nanomaterials. Throughout most of my bachelor’s, I worked under the Centre for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, which is a UC centre focused on a broad range of topics dealing with nanomaterials and the environment. I dipped my toes in ecotoxicology there, but also had my traditional training in chemical engineering and the processes of chemicals.
I always had this interest in both worlds. After my bachelor’s, I worked as a materials analyst for a small company in Pasadena, California, called Material Inc. There it was really interesting because I learned a lot about the product development phase, but also how to analyse materials — not just for their physical properties, but also, you know, I was always interested in a bit more than that.
And so, after working there, I decided I should go back to school and get my PhD. I moved across the country, from California to Virginia, to attend Virginia Tech. There I was in the programme of Environmental and Water Resources Engineering, in the Department of Civil Engineering.
I really wanted to bring together my knowledge of chemistry and the processes by which chemicals and products are made, and the environment. I was looking at groundwater contaminants at the surface water–groundwater interface, also known as the hyporheic zone. I was very interested in understanding the conditions that led to chemical transformations in this unique environment. And so it really allowed me to use my understanding of chemistry, but also to learn about how those chemicals move in the environment — looking at the fate and transport of them.
And then, while I was doing my PhD, I got the opportunity through a grant to go to Germany. I was selected to work at BASF, and kind of went back to my beginnings in nanomaterials — we were looking at the release of nanomaterials in food contact materials, which then led to me getting a postdoc position at BASF, working on microplastics.
And actually, it was this work in microplastics that introduced me to LRI, because I was doing LRI projects, amongst other things, at BASF. So I was introduced to the programme.
And when I learned that they were looking for a new Programme Manager, I thought this could be an interesting opportunity to also have a better understanding — on the broader scale — of what questions we’re asking as an industry, what the needs are, but also how we can better communicate some of the science and strategise on the long-range part.
That’s a part that actually really intrigued me. Since it’s a Long Range Research Initiative, thinking about what is to come and how we can support and help address any of the challenges — that was really intriguing.
Chris: Yeah, it sounds like you’ve had a really varied journey, which I’m sure is standing you in good stead for the work you’re doing at CEFIC LRI — in particular the work around microplastics and also contaminant transport and transformation in the environment.
Katherine: Yeah, indeed. And, you know, we do quite a bit of human health work as well in the programme — it’s both human and environment. So I did do some human health toxicity work at BASF as well. This has really catapulted my learnings, which — I’m a strong believer — and I think some other guests on your podcast have mentioned the value of interdisciplinary work.
So I thought this was really a good opportunity to understand maybe some of the commonalities between the two disciplines, and how we can progress that more holistic understanding that we’re seeing a lot more questions around.
Chris: Yeah, absolutely. I think that is becoming more and more the big challenge of the day — integrating the environment with human health, especially when it comes to people’s exposures to chemicals via the environment. But also, when you get down to the deep biological level and explore some of the mechanisms of toxicity, there really isn’t a great deal of difference between organisms in the environment and humans in many instances.
Katherine: Yeah, exactly. I always say I’m not necessarily an expert at one thing because, as you rightly pointed out, my journey has been quite varied — and every time I’ve started to feel like I might be getting to expert level, I’ve decided to jump to another thing. But it’s been quite interesting, just the learning process.
But what you do hear a lot is that the mechanisms — at the molecular level, the mechanisms that lead to toxicity — can be quite similar, especially when you look at the genes. At the end of the day, humans are animals. And so there’s a lot of overlap, and trying to understand this overlap and how it then informs toxicity or health or effects can be quite crucial to integrating these two disciplines.
Chris: Yeah, and I imagine there’s a whole wealth of knowledge sitting within both disciplines, from decades of research, that it would be really useful to try to bring together to support our broader understanding of chemical safety. Is there any work you can highlight from LRI that’s sort of looking in that kind of space?
Katherine: I mean, we’re starting to think about that, and it actually ties in quite well to the workshop we recently had in June, where we had an interactive session on One Health and what One Health means in the context of chemical safety. We had a few presentations — from Amelie Ott from the International Collaboration for Cosmetic Safety, from Leonie at Altertox, and Paul Thomas, who I think has already joined you on the podcast. He presented something in a more practical sense, showing the tools that can be created to look at key initiating events leading to an adverse outcome.
It was really interesting to see some of his work on how — at the end of the day, we’re using different terms but kind of meaning the same thing. So if we set that aside for a moment and look at that one specific part, we can start learning about how to integrate it across both disciplines.
Some of the participants, when we had the discussions, were also talking about how, in the environmental space, we know a lot about the transport of chemicals. How can we use our understanding of this transport — especially, if you think about it, fluid dynamics? Our bodies are mostly water. So can we take some of these understandings on transport and bring them to the human side?
And vice versa — on the human health side, there’s been a lot of work on endocrine disruption. Can we learn something from this endocrine disruption work that has been done on the human health side, and bring it into the environment? So these were some of the initial discussions we had at the workshop, and I hope we can continue those discussions and maybe develop some nice projects from them.
Chris: Yeah, no, that sounds like a really rich vein of new scientific inquiry that I’m sure CEFIC LRI will be mining in the future, so that’s great. What about other recent activities? You had the workshop in 2025. There was also the 25-year anniversary, which was in November last year, which I was able to attend — and that was a really excellent event and a great celebration of the programme. Anything else you want to highlight?
Katherine: On events or activities — you mentioned the 25th anniversary. Quite honestly, it felt like such a privilege to be able to be the one to commemorate this milestone, since I had just started. And there is quite a bit of rich history in the programme.
We have such a wide, varied number of projects, and just trying to bring together the community that has contributed to the success of the programme was really nice. I think one of the things that was also really nice was that the celebration took place at the Solvay Mansion — so just the historical meaning of the venue we were in, and the commemoration of the programme. But I think more than anything, it was the people we were able to bring back together to commemorate this milestone, and to communicate what we’ve achieved.
I think sometimes, as scientists, we get so involved with our work that we forget we also need to tell the world what we’re doing, and what it means, and what it adds to our society. And so it was really nice to do that — because it wasn’t so technical; it was more really a celebration, which we don’t always get to do as scientists.
Chris: Absolutely. And there was a nice programme book produced as part of that, which really brought together all the accomplishments and the great science and the people who’d received awards over the many years as part of the programme. So yeah, we’ll be sure to put a link to that document in the show notes for this podcast, because it provides a really nice consolidated picture that’s easy for even a lay person to read and digest. And I think also, Marco Mensink, Secretary General of CEFIC, attended, as did Ilham Kadri, the CEO of Syensqo — which I think showed how important this programme is seen to be by the chemicals industry.
Katherine: Yeah, I mean, I think it was really nice to have both of them there. And their message was really on this communication piece — to show the world what we do.
And obviously, Syensqo being part of the Solvay family — such a long-standing company with much success — Ilham Kadri was able to delve into the longevity of things as well. And of course Marco, who knows the programme, with his — I guess plea to some extent — to communicate and to really showcase what it is that we’re doing.
And actually, he was really a big supporter of this book that you mentioned — the LRI anniversary book — which was, for me, an exercise in communication. Because usually we’re producing technical work, right? We have publications and reports. But the book — the intention was that anyone could pick it up and understand what the programme is, what the vision is, what the mission is, and what the outcomes have been.
I’ll have to shout out here to my communications colleague, because there was a lot of back and forth on — actually, people don’t know what this word is. We’re so used to it, but actually we need to find another way to describe this. So at the end, I think what was produced was a book that, hopefully, anyone can pick up and read, and which also has really nice illustrations of what it is we’re doing with the programme.
Chris: Yeah, no, it’s really great — I really recommend people take a look at that. And then of course you’ve got your project calls for this year, which have closed now, but will be announced soon, I presume.
Katherine: Yeah. So we had calls, as you pointed out, that closed in June. We had three project calls this cycle, looking at quantitative uncertainty of traditional versus next-generation risk assessment, on mobility of chemicals, and furthering the work on OECD TG 309 for difficult-to-test substances.
We are actually at the point, as we speak, of finishing the selection. The selection committees have been hard at work over the summer to try and come to an agreement and recommend one of the proposals from each project. And we hope we can send award letters soon — in September, hopefully — so that we can get started on those projects before the end of the year.
And maybe here I can point out that those ideas actually really stemmed from the scoping meeting I mentioned earlier, which we had in September 2024. We co-hosted that event with ECETOC, to get people to bring ideas to both ECETOC and CEFIC LRI. These three ideas actually came from that. And so it was really nice to see the full process — at least for me, for the first time — to see the ideation, the discussions, the final piece of the call, and now the applications. We received some really interesting applications and approaches, and I’m just looking forward to getting that work started.
Chris: Yeah. And it’s great to see that full process that led to the announcement of these calls and the launch of these projects. Certainly looking at the list, I think they’re all really important scientific topics to be diving into. On the NAMs case, there’s a lot of discussion now — and rightly there has been for many years — a drive to reduce animal testing. And a lot of that has been something of a log jam, not only for the development of these alternative methods, but also in understanding how they compare to animal-based methods.
And of course, all methods, all tests, have their domains of applicability and their uncertainties — and uncertainty is something we really grapple with all the time as scientists, especially when it comes to regulatory decision making, where there’s a lot of value judgement that goes into it.
And then in the case of mobility, I’ve seen that all of a sudden we’re all talking about the mobility of chemicals in the environment, and that’s created a huge challenge because, until recently, that wasn’t the biggest priority for industrial chemicals. It hasn’t been quite as much of a focus, chemical by chemical, as some of the other properties. And while you can get a reasonable judgement of a chemical’s mobility if it’s a neutral organic compound, you encounter huge challenges when it comes to chemicals that are charged or ionisable. A lot of the historical methods that we have available for screening these properties aren’t applicable to these kinds of chemicals.
So again, I think this is a really big need as well. Because to run the sort of higher-tier testing of these properties for all chemicals would be an enormous cost that would hit the industry at what is a really difficult time, and would take a very long time to actually run the tests — just by the nature of testing capacity across Europe. So all of these policy developments really do have consequences that ripple out through the industry.
Katherine: Yeah, and at the end of the day it’s also about thinking about the protection goal. So when you’re talking about uncertainty analysis or mobility assessments — if you’re testing an ionisable substance using a method that really isn’t suitable, are you really meeting that goal?
And so while it is — I think it’s two-pronged, right? You have the discussion of yes, these tests are time-consuming, cost-heavy, resource-intensive. And at the end of the day, the decisions have a lot of impact on the industry. But is it then really meeting the protection goal that we have as a society, or that regulators have? And so I think it’s about thinking about these questions both in the regulatory space, but also asking — at the end of the day, are we doing what we intended to do?
So I think with some of these projects — like the mobility one you mentioned — it’s really focused on ionisable substances, to try and better understand what parameters are really crucial for that assessment. And then on the uncertainty analysis, part of it is also the protection, but another part is the change aspect. We get very used to our methods, our assessments, our way of doing things. So it’s really about addressing all of that in some shape, way, or form.
Chris: So I really look forward to seeing how these projects play out and contribute to the overall discourse on chemical safety in the years ahead. I’d like to get your perspective on any other key research areas or needs that you want to highlight before we wrap up our conversation.
Katherine: Yeah, I think — like I mentioned — because I’m thinking about both the environmental and human health aspects, maybe if I split things a little bit on each one. The discussions and needs that we’re seeing — and I think part of my role is really also to understand what’s happening in the regulatory and policy landscape, but also what questions society has, and bringing all of this together to start to inform our work.
So we look at what the Commission is putting out, what research organisations and research institutes are working on, what ECHA’s key areas of regulatory challenge look like, to really start framing our discussions. But something that I think continues — and I don’t know if it will ever change — is the topic of persistency for the environment. And you are quite an expert on that topic.
But also, exposure science — so what opportunities are available to reconsider exposure, and thinking about next-generation risk assessment and how we can better integrate exposure into this. So those are some of the discussions we’re having.
Of course, when you’re looking at very specific chemistries or substances, we’re looking a lot at polymers — and the interest around polymers for REACH, of course microplastics, plastic-associated chemicals or additives, which obviously continue to be very important topics, especially for society.
PFAS, which I think falls under all of the buckets — persistency, mobility, exposure, et cetera. So it’s really going to be interesting to see where we can get ourselves involved.
In terms of human health, the NAMs discussion is quite important here too. So the next-generation risk assessment piece — how to develop the NAMs, but I think also how to build regulatory confidence and acceptance in the methods that are available. So what validation needs to happen? How can we improve the time for acceptance and uptake? That’s one of the big areas that a lot of experts always, maybe rightly, highlight.
But we’re also still seeing a lot of development in the endocrine space. So for non-EATS modalities — not your typical estrogen, androgen, thyroid, and steroidogenesis modalities — looking maybe further at some of those other pathways that can disrupt the endocrine system.
Linked to some of that non-EATS work is cardiotoxicity and immunotoxicity — how do some of these chemicals influence heart disease and also immune responses? So we’re seeing a lot of growing importance, but also attention, on these topics.
More broadly, we’re having a lot of discussions around circular economy, because this could have a big influence and impact on how we think about traditional risk assessment. If we’re thinking about circularity — you’re reintroducing chemicals into the system — how does that change how you assess them? Do you evaluate the recycled materials? Do you not? What technical challenges do you have? So I think this is going to be something of importance to industry, but really challenging to try and understand and know where to start.
Chris: Absolutely. That’s so many topic areas that need to be addressed. I think you’re definitely right in highlighting exposure — exposure connects so many of these big challenges.
You mentioned the circular economy. I recently had Thomas Hartung on the podcast, who has been pushing hard on the initiative to develop the Human Exposome Project, because he sees that as how we’re going to continue to make gains overall — ultimately, which is the goal: improving people’s health — by truly understanding exposures to a better degree, not only to chemicals, but also other factors such as lifestyle, geography, and demographics. And he really sees that artificial intelligence and machine learning, and the advent of these tools, will be a step change in helping to deliver some of the gains in that area.
I’m really glad you also brought up the topic of persistence. I’m certainly seeing how that issue is really exploding. If I think back ten years ago, you’d be amazed probably to think that there just wasn’t really a big issue — people weren’t really talking about persistence. It was hard to get them excited about it. I think there would be one small session at SETAC.
And then look at where we are now. I think that really shows how quickly things can develop and change, triggered by certain key issues — like PFAS, like microplastics — that have got people thinking about the long-term fate of chemicals in the environment. And this really connects to the issue of exposure ultimately, as well.
And I can highlight that CEFIC LRI has played a really important role in some of the developments in persistence. I was lucky to work on the ECO52 project, which sought to address a lot of the challenges that were being found in our standard persistence assessment frameworks — issues with substances that had challenging properties, substances that had a complex composition, but also issues around how to do the weight-of-evidence process, what role modelling has in understanding the persistence of chemicals in the environment, and also having a view to polymers, which were really coming down the tracks as a new challenge that will need to be addressed in terms of persistence.
And off the back of those projects, they led on to the development of a new tool — the Persistence Assessment Tool, or PAT — which was co-funded by Concawe and CEFIC LRI. So it was a really nice consolidation of the knowledge that’s been developed through the LRI programme.
And I’m pleased to say that the publication for that tool has been accepted in Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. So I’m hoping to be able to announce the publication of that paper very soon. But people can still access the tool and the preprint, and I’ll put those things in the show notes as well.
And those are just a couple of things that are linked to persistence. There are also projects related to the OECD TG 309 test guideline — which have led to the test guideline being added to the OECD programme for revision — and also a new project, ECO64, which is looking specifically at soluble polymers. How do we assess these soluble polymers? How do they behave in standard tests? And in particular, how do the results in screening tests compare with the results of simulation tests?
Because we’re faced with the challenge of assessing the persistence of these materials, which again weren’t in focus just a few years ago. And so we have to play catch-up — the science almost has to catch up with policy, in terms of determining whether the tools we have are really fit for purpose.
Katherine: Yeah, no, exactly. And I like that you mentioned the role with persistency, because part of the goal with the programme is that we can see — and we have that foresight — and start putting some funding into this type of work that we know has the likelihood to then come at us, the way persistency did.
And I think, outside of ECO52, ECO55, ECO64, and the PAT that you’ve already mentioned, there have been quite a few projects in the catalogue that have also tried to look at persistence, so it’s all kind of like a building portfolio of information and resource that can then hopefully be used to help inform that decision making.
And it’s not just persistency, but so many other topic areas. And I think, going back to what you mentioned with Thomas — I think the use of AI and machine learning, and just the advancements we’re having with these models, to some extent means that that timeframe is getting shorter. Because now we have all of these tools at our disposal that can get us information more effectively and efficiently, which means that what takes maybe a decade to reach critical attention might happen faster. And so it’s about how we also utilise these tools to help us with information gathering and evaluation of the data.
Chris: Mm. Yeah, no, exactly. So it’s a really, really exciting time, and I really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today, Katherin. And congratulations on what you’ve achieved so far and what you continue to do at the helm of this programme — because it really is important stuff.
So just before we finish, I generally ask my guests a couple of questions, if you don’t mind. First of all, what is one big goal that you’re working towards in the months ahead?
Katherine: Oh, in the months ahead — that’s a big one. Generally, I think one of the biggest aspects that we’re working on with the programme at a broader level is our communication of the programme, and also how to more effectively do that science communication. Like I mentioned, that’s quite important to me on a personal level.
And I think it really can hopefully contribute to the perception and trust of the public in the science that we’re doing and funding at LRI. So, yes, I’ll say that.
Chris: No, I mean, that’s a big goal and an important one as well. And the other one is — what is one piece of advice you’d give to somebody starting out in their career?
Katherine: I think my career demonstrates it to some extent — just take a chance. When an opportunity comes knocking, if it’s interesting, don’t be afraid to throw yourself in there. I don’t think I would be where I am without that.
Chris: Yeah. And that’s great advice. I noticed you said that earlier on in the podcast. And certainly I think your career sounds like one of those that has meandered through various areas — you could never have planned it, but you seem quite happy with how it’s evolved. And I think that more and more for young people, that is how their careers are going to evolve. Nobody has a kind of linear career any more. So yeah, that’s really great advice for people.
Alright, well, Katherin, thanks very much again. That’s been really fantastic, and thanks to everybody else who’s been listening — your time is really precious, and I’m really grateful that you’ve spent it with us.
If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please tell your friends and colleagues, like and subscribe if you can, and spread the word about Chemical Journeys. Thanks very much, Katherin.
Katherine: Thank you, Chris.
