In academia there is a final step toward earning an advanced degree: defending the data before a committee. In order to get a Ph.D. or MS, students must present their work and stand in front of a panel of faculty members who question every aspect of the work, from experimental design to conclusions. It can be daunting for the student, but it is important because it ensures that the student is confident and they learn to defend their conclusions.

This part of the process is necessary not only to defend their research, but also to navigate a career as a scientist. Even if the committee stands in complete agreement with the student, it is still important to question them to develop this skill. There is never a perfect thesis, and edits will be made before the work goes to final peer review and publication in the scientific literature. Questioning is good because it requires thinking to see things from a different perspective. Sometimes it is necessary to pivot and reevaluate to push the bar higher.

In the social climate of today, questioning that stems a different perspective is often viewed as a personal attack on an individual or group. Questioning is not bad. As a matter of fact, it is necessary for the greater good.

In January of 2020, a petition landed on my desk at the Whitten Building in Washington, D.C. It was addressed directly to me and most of this industry knows of it or about it. Generally, it requested that the FSIS classify a group of several Salmonella serotypes as adulterants. I will begin by stating, as a scientist, I do not agree with the absolute decision to declare these serotypes as adulterants, and I’ve spoken many times in great detail on the reasons. Briefly, I think we need to pivot to a risk-based approach to addressing Salmonella based on quantification and we must identify the most pathogenic Salmonella based on genetic markers, not simply serotypes. The petition was too limited in the overall approach and was lacking in hard science and data to support the request — but it was, and is, good as it brought Salmonella into view as a target.

I studied this petition in great detail, going through it line by line and formulating science-based and data-driven comments for and against each portion of the petition. Subsequently, I challenged every single group/office at FSIS to detail every activity in the agency to address Salmonella and we put it into one document. Following that, we formulated a plan to address Salmonella, following it up with a public meeting to gather comments on how to make the plan better and to impact public health by making changes in the agency. This happened in late 2020 — just before I left the position — and I have not heard of the “Roadmap to Addressing Salmonella” again publicly.

While I couldn’t discuss it at the time, I valued the chance to defend the position of the agency, but more importantly, I valued the opportunity for the scientists in the agency and myself to think differently to attack Salmonella. It was a wake-up call to stand up and fight Salmonella more deliberately and aggressively. It wasn’t about the bottom-line request of the petition; it was about the questioning to what was being done at the time and the opportunity to make things better.

I have great faith in the scientific team and leadership at FSIS; they are smart, thoughtful and deliberative. Even though the “roadmap” seems to have disappeared, I genuinely believe that the work behind the scenes that was started is still moving forward. The need to quantify Salmonella in samples collected by the agency establishing risk-based baselines, finding a way to share industry data to inform policy, and forging ahead to find the genetic markers that make certain Salmonella more pathogenic are all important considerations. These things were being considered before the petition was filed but they were ramped up after the petition was filed.

While we have yet to see a public response to the petition, it has made a change. It was happening at the agency when I left, it has informed much of the research that I am conducting now in pre-harvest food safety and Salmonella quantification and will continue to be a topic of discussion.

Embrace questions! They will move the bar higher to make our food supply safer.

Questions strengthen science

Join for free* to continue reading.