We are very pleased to announce an impressive interview with Dr. Ian Mudway, who has just published an outstanding article in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH, ISSN: 1660-4601). In this interview, we delve into the latest advancements, challenges, and future directions of his research.

Name: Dr. Ian Mudway
Affiliations:
1. Wolfson Institute for Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AB, UK;
2. MRC Centre for Environment and Health, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK;
3. NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Environmental Exposures, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK.
Research interests: environmental exposures and health and chemical and radiation threats and hazards

Published Paper:
“Assessing the Impact of Non-Exhaust Emissions on the Asthmatic Airway (IONA) Protocol for a Randomised Three-Exposure Crossover Study”
by James Scales, Hajar Hajmohammadi, Max Priestman, Luke C. McIlvenna, Ingrid E. de Boer, Haneen Hassan, Anja H. Tremper, Gang Chen, Helen E. Wood, David C. Green, Klea Katsouyanni, Ian S. Mudway and Christopher Griffiths
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21(7), 895; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21070895
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/7/895

The following is an interview with Prof. Robert J. Gregory:

1. Could you give us a brief introduction about yourself to our readers?
I am a Senior Lecturer in Environmental Toxicology at the School of Public Health at Imperial College London. I also serve as a Co-Investigator on the Impact of Non-Exhaust Emissions on the Asthmatic Airway (IONA) study.

2. Can you tell us about any research you are currently undertaking that is related to the paper?
We recently published our protocol paper for the study, known as the IONA Study, in your journal (https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/7/895). The study’s primary focus is to understand the impact of non-exhaust emissions from traffic on asthma. As regulations on tailpipe emissions from diesel and gasoline vehicles become stricter, there is a common perception that air quality will improve, potentially resolving health issues like the exacerbation of asthma symptoms related to air pollution.
However, what is less widely recognized is that a significant portion of urban air pollution actually comes from tire wear, the resuspension of road dust, and brake wear—all of which remain even as we transition to electric vehicles. Simply replacing combustion engines with electric vehicles does not eliminate pollution; it just changes its nature. The IONA Study aims to explore this issue in depth by determining whether this new form of pollution is as harmful to asthma as combustion-derived particles, or if it is safer. The study is designed specifically to address this critical question.

3. Are there any recent hot topics in your field of study?
There are two main areas of focus in this discussion. First, much of the attention is on achieving net-zero emissions and mitigating climate change. Reducing the use of combustion engines and transitioning to an electrified vehicle fleet are key targets for net zero, along with urban regeneration and city design. However, it is crucial to anticipate and avoid unintended consequences of these changes.
As we shift toward battery-powered vehicles, we must consider the entire lifecycle of these batteries and the pollutants that remain, or even increase, due to the shift in transportation methods. This study is really about looking ahead and asking whether, as we tackle the challenges of net zero and reduce CO₂ and greenhouse gas emissions, we are also being mindful of the broader impacts on public health. Specifically, the focus on non-exhaust emissions (NEEs) is a hot topic in air pollution right now. As the vehicle fleet becomes more electrified, the number of vehicles will likely remain the same or even increase, but the types of particles they emit will change.
Additionally, climate change itself is altering the chemistry of our atmosphere. As we introduce more solar energy into the air due to a warming planet, secondary chemical reactions occur, producing new pollutants and changing the types we will be exposed to in the future. So, this discussion is really about what comes next. We already know diesel and exhaust emissions are harmful—that is settled. We are now entering a phase where these emissions are being phased out, which should lead to health benefits, unless the alternatives we are introducing are equally harmful. It is essential to ensure that this is not the case.

4. What do you hope that readers will gain from reading your paper?
It is a protocol paper. The purpose of a protocol paper is to clearly outline what we are going to do, explain the motivation behind the work, and explicitly state our hypothesis and what we intend to test. Essentially, it is a pre-publication of the study's intentions, which is incredibly important in my field.
In drug trials, for instance, it is mandatory to publish the aims, objectives, and hypothesis beforehand, so that when the data is analyzed later, it is clear that the study stayed true to its original intentions. Unfortunately, in my field, there has been a history of post hoc re-evaluation, where data are generated and then papers are written to fit a hypothesis to the results. By specifying and publishing a protocol upfront in environmental health studies, we adhere more closely to the principles of clinical trials.
Our goal is to ensure that environmental health studies are as robust as drug studies. This is especially important when the data eventually reaches the public domain, which can become contentious, particularly in areas like air pollution, car ownership, and potential restrictions on driving. These are politically sensitive topics, and it is crucial to demonstrate that the scientific process has been rigorous.
This is why protocol papers matter. As subsequent papers are published, reviewers can refer back to the protocol paper to ensure that the study adhered to its original plan. This is key to maintaining robust, evidence-based science.
The IONA study, for example, is funded by the United States Health Effects Institute, which has an interesting funding model—half of their funding comes from industry, and the other half from the U.S. government. This positions them as an independent arbiter between these potentially conflicting interests, especially in areas with significant economic impact. In studies like this, there is an added layer of due diligence to ensure that everyone knows the study's objectives and that we remain true to them.

5. What advice would you give to young investigators who aspire to be where you are now?
Do not be afraid of being wrong. In fact, any scientist should expect to be wrong about 95% of the time. If you are not wrong that often, it might be a sign that something needs closer examination. No one can always be universally right. Be wary of someone who has never had a hypothesis disproved—that likely means they either knew the outcome before they started or they are not asking sufficiently challenging questions.
Science is about pushing the boundaries of knowledge, and that means accepting that you will make mistakes. Often, it is those unexpected outcomes and the mistakes you make that lead to the most valuable discoveries in your field.

6. What is your impression of the publishing experience with IJERPH?
The submission process itself was painless—or as painless as submitting to a journal can ever be. Publishing is a strange business model if you think about it. We, as researchers, need the publishers, and they need our content, so it is a symbiotic relationship.
I imagine we can be frustrating at times because we do not always meet deadlines, but we are often juggling multiple demands. Conversely, I do not think many people in the scientific community fully grasp the pressures and workload that journal editors face. This can lead to mutual frustration.
That said, I found the process of publishing with your journal to be quite straightforward. Once we passed the review stage, the editorial process, manuscript preparation, and the advice we received were all clear and easy to follow—something that is not always the case.

7. We are an open access journal. How do you think open access impacts authors?
Firstly, most of our research councils require that our publications appear in open access journals. For papers funded by the latest Horizon 2020 European funding mechanism, not only must they be published in open access journals, but the data also have to be released simultaneously under FAIR data principles. This has caused a lot of concern, as everyone is trying to navigate what that actually entails, but it is absolutely essential.
Additionally, because I work in public health, where studies often become quite relevant very quickly, the days of quietly publishing and moving on are over. Once a paper goes to press, it can become a significant issue almost immediately. As I mentioned earlier, transparency in the research process is crucial. However, transparency is meaningless if people do not have access to the research. Open access publication is therefore essential to maintain public trust in science. When research is hidden behind a paywall, it creates opportunities for misinformation and mistrust, with people claiming that information is being concealed or that the system is rigged.
In my field, it is absolutely essential. You simply cannot conduct public health research if the public cannot access your findings.