In this episode I speak with Professor Thomas Hartung.

Prof Hartung is Doerenkamp-Zbinden Chair of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Konstanz. He also holds the positions of Director of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) and Field Chief Editor of the academic journal Frontiers in AI, and was the 2025 recipient of the prestigious Peter Singer Prize.

We have a fascinating discussion about the breathtaking developments in AI and animal-free toxicology, and what this means for areas like drug development, chemical regulation, public health, animal testing, research ethics, the exposome, and the future of our society.

Our conversation covers:

• New Approach Methodologies (NAMs): the new automobile?
• Technological advances in microphysiological systems (MPS) and artificial intelligence (AI)
• The problems with animal models
• Challenges with validation and regulatory acceptance of NAMs
• The importance of education for uptake of NAMs
• Recent developments on US animal testing policy
• What is happening in the EU? Differences between regions and regulatory systems
• How AI is transforming research, and using it in day-to-day work
• Implications of AI for quality of scientific publications and risk of bias
• The Human Exposome Project: what is it, and how can AI help deliver it?
• Environmental persistence, the exposome, and the public discourse on chemicals

NAMazing: Déjà Vu at the lab bench - Why animal-free science is the new automobile - ScienceDirect

NIH stops funding new projects which focus only on animal testing | Cruelty Free International

The turning point: April 2025 marks historic shift in US animal testing policy | ALTEX - Alternatives to animal experimentation

REACH out-numbered! The future of REACH and animal numbers | ALTEX - Alternatives to animal experimentation

A systematic analysis of read-across adaptations in testing proposal evaluations by the European Chemicals Agency | ALTEX - Alternatives to animal experimentation

Guidance for Good In Vitro Reporting Standards (GIVReSt) – A draft for stakeholder discussion and background documentation | ALTEX - Alternatives to animal experimentation

Assessing risk of bias in toxicological studies in the era of artificial intelligence | Archives of Toxicology

Is regulatory science ready for artificial intelligence? | npj Digital Medicine

How AI can deliver the Human Exposome Project | Nature Medicine

Stockholm Declaration on Chemistry for the Future

Visit my website for more content and insights www.embarkchemical.com

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

Home - ECETOC

ECETOC Workshop Report Highlights Advances and Challenges in Biodegradation Testing Guidelines - ECETOC

ECETOC task force proposes three-tiered approach to targeted information requirements for polymers - ECETOC

Visit my website for more content and insights www.embarkchemical.com

In this episode I speak with Andrew Johnson, Environmental Research Scientist at the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and Visiting Professor at Brunel University.

Andrew and I have a fascinating discussion about the current state of scientific research and public discourse on chemicals, and how a different approach might ultimately lead to better outcomes for wildlife.

Our conversation covers:

• Andrew's background and research interests
• What's wrong with the way we do research on chemicals?
• Endocrine disruption and uncovering population-relevant effects
• Insights from 30 years of monitoring data on macroinvertebrate diversity in English rivers
• The issue of combined sewer overflows
• Why monitoring data is so valuable, and so underappreciated
• Problems with the Water Framework Directive
• Risk assessment of chemicals and the mixture assessment factor (MAF)
• Are we prioritising the wrong things?
• Perverse incentives in research
• Science in the media and improving public discourse
• Advice for early career scientists

Zinc and Copper Have the Greatest Relative Importance for River Macroinvertebrate Richness at a National Scale | Environmental Science & Technology

Review of the Classification Framework for Ecological Status/Potential under the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) England and Wales Regulations - WT15168

Are we going about chemical risk assessment for the aquatic environment the wrong way? | Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry | Oxford Academic

How to be a Better Scientist | Andrew Johnson, John Sumpter | Taylor & Francis

Visit my website for more content and insights www.embarkchemical.com