ABSTRACT

Worthy studies designed to bring about improved ERA can take on many forms. To the extent that this compendium’s offerings are rightly grounded, the multitude of topics presented attest to the numerous areas where misinformation or altogether lacking information abound. Critically, the reader should not think that the locations where the strides need to be made for advancing ERA science are limited to the laboratory bench and the field setting. Thus, an over-emphasis placed on securing (what we think to be) more accurate TRVs, or a bettered understanding of the percentage of an animal’s diet that is incidentally ingested soil, will not get us there. Studies that seek to get at the types of information we routinely work with, but where it is of a more refined nature, could be external trappings that are best avoided. Perchance, our basic thinking on ERA is questionable and because we don’t bother to investigate certain possibilities (e.g., that, truly speaking, site animals couldn’t possibly be at risk from chemical exposure), we instead proceed with trying to make the design that the ERA field has for all intents and purposes settled in on work better.