Ecology of Marine Infectious Diseases (EMID)
Workshop Report
Sponsored by the Ocean Sciences Division (OCE) at the National
Science Foundation
Coordinated by Rachel Noble (University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill) and James W. Porter (University of Georgia)
Sheraton Hotel, San Juan, Puerto Rico
February 12-13, 2011
Report of a Workshop on the Ecology of Marine Infectious Diseases
(EMID) to Explore the State of the Science and Develop
Recommendations for the National Science Foundation
February 12-13, 2011
Workshop Conveners
Rachel Noble
Associate Professor
Institute of Marine Sciences
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Email: rtnoble@email.unc.edu
James W. Porter
Associate Dean, Josiah Meigs Distinguished Professor
Odum School of Ecology
University of Georgia
Email: jporter@uga.edu
Cover photo: Water sample from Neuse River Estuary (mid estuary) in weeks following Tropical Storm Nicole in 2010.
Microscope photograph of Cryptomonas sp., Leptocylindrus minimum, single centric diatoms, and several small flagellates
from surface water sample (0.5 m depth); (Photo credit: Nathan S. Hall, UNC Chapel Hill Institute of Marine Sciences).
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 4
Overarching Recommendations from the Workshop ................................................................................. 5
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Novel Research Areas for EID in Marine Systems .................................................................................... 8
Challenges for Addressing Novel Research Areas ................................................................................... 10
Funding for Research on EMID ............................................................................................................ 10
Limitations in Sampling, Diagnostic Tools, and Long-term Monitoring Data..................................... 10
Limitations in Model Development ...................................................................................................... 11
Recommendations to Overcoming Challenges ......................................................................................... 11
Funding for Research on EMID ............................................................................................................ 11
Sharing Concepts to Advance the Field ................................................................................................ 12
Sharing Data to Advance the Field ....................................................................................................... 12
Establishing Partnerships to Bridge Interfaces and Developing Cross-Collaborative Work ............... 12
Fostering Collaboration and Building the Scientific Community ........................................................ 13
Disseminating Research Findings to Refine Management Strategies .................................................. 13
Tools and Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................ 13
Suggestions for Improvement of the EID Program .............................................................................. 14
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Acknowledgment ...................................................................................................................................... 14
References ................................................................................................................................................. 15
Appendix I: Workshop Agenda ................................................................................................................ 17
Appendix II: Participant List .................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix III: Breakout Session Summaries ............................................................................................. 22
3
Executive Summary
Our understanding of infectious disease dynamics in aquatic ecosystems (i.e., freshwater, estuarine, and
marine) lags behind that of terrestrial ecosystems. Despite the ever increasing recognition of its
importance (Harvell et al., 1999, 2004; Porter et al., 2001; McCallum et al., 2004; Ward and Lafferty,
2004; Stewart et al., 2008; Bienfang et al., 2011), research targeting the ecology of aquatic diseases has
received less funding compared to land-based studies. Yet, the concepts and models developed for the
terrestrial examples are not specifically transferable to aquatic ecosystems because of fundamental
differences in community structure, species diversity, life-history phenomena, and dispersal
mechanisms. Aquatic ecosystems consist of complex relationships among hosts and pathogens that
challenge traditional views of disease processes. As a result, research on aquatic diseases requires
innovative and interdisciplinary strategies to identify, monitor, and model them. Furthermore,
impending global climate changes such as rising temperatures, ocean acidification, eutrophication,
increased runoff, and inland intrusions of salt water will impact the ecology and distribution of aquatic
pathogens and consequently, all the populations of organisms they influence. Ultimately, without a
better understanding of aquatic disease dynamics, we will not be able to predict impacts of global
climate change or mitigate their effects. To address these topical issues, a 2-day workshop was
organized.
The Ecology of Marine Infectious Diseases (EMID) workshop was convened to review the state of
science regarding disease ecology in marine systems, identify novel research areas, ascertain challenges
and impediments to progress, and suggest recommendations for advancing this interdisciplinary field.
The EMID workshop was held (February 12-13, 2011) in conjunction with the 2011 American Society
for Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO) Aquatic Sciences meeting (San Juan, Puerto Rico) in order to
tightly interface with the Ecology of Infectious Diseases (EID) in Marine Systems Special Session
chaired by the NSF workshop conveners. The combination of the workshop, special session, and
meeting promoted synergism within the scientific community by stimulating EMID related discussions
among diverse scientists who regularly attend this internationally acclaimed meeting.
The EMID workshop included plenary talks on current EID research coupled with structured breakout
discussions. A poster session provided an additional opportunity for participants to discuss their work
and network with others. Overarching recommendations highlighted through rigorous discussion within
the breakout groups included a pressing need to: (1) quantify the importance of marine disease processes
to the health and survival of marine and human populations; (2) encourage investigations which
characterize EMID responses to climate change; (3) increase capacity building of marine researchers
through hands-on graduate training; and finally (4) increase collaboration between marine and terrestrial
disease researchers. In addition, participants recommended modifying the current EID evaluation
process by restructuring the review panels and including seed grants, rapid response research (RAPID)
grants, and more cross-disciplinary training opportunities. The workshop agenda, participant list, and
summaries from each breakout group are provided in the appendices. Insights gleaned from this
workshop are expected to increase the number and quality of competitive proposals submitted by the
marine/coastal scientific community to the existing EID Program. This Program is currently supported
by the Biological Sciences and Geosciences (Ocean Sciences Division) Directorates of the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
4
Overarching Recommendations from the Workshop
1) Quantify the importance of marine disease processes to health and survival of marine and
human populations:
 Integrate current knowledge of micro- and macro-scale processes to systematically connect
pathogenic strains with environmental sources and pathways that include both marine and
human populations (Figure 1);
 Minimize the deficits between hydrodynamic modeling inputs and disease ecology
monitoring data;
 Advance the design and deployment of biological sensors on the Ocean Observing Systems
for rapid detection of ecologically or economically important pathogens that are important in
coastal, estuarine, and marine systems;
 Support investigations of major disease outbreaks even when the etiological agent of the
disease has not yet been identified.
Figure 1. Linking micro and macro environmental scales to predict disease outbreak (Figure credit: Alan
Joyner, UNC Chapel Hill).
2) Encourage investigations which characterize EMID responses to climate change:
 Support long-term research on the basic biology and ecology of aquatic pathogens and hosts
to document and accrue baseline data;
 Elucidate mechanisms of dispersal and transmission because the predicted changes in climate
will influence chemical and physical properties of water, increase or decrease flooding and
run-off, and distress infrastructures due to sea-level rise;
 Consider ocean acidification’s differential effects on host and parasite relationships;
 Improve the usefulness of data collected by considering linkage across multiple scales and
spatial and temporal sampling frequencies necessary for developing useful models.
5
3) Capacity Building for Marine Infectious Disease Researchers:
 Develop an EMID website (e.g., https://extwiki.nsf.gov/signup.action);
 Develop graduate courses and networks to build diagnostic and modeling expertise in the
next generation;
 Develop a framework for model and data inter-comparisons (e.g., National Center for
Ecological Analysis and Synthesis);
 Coordinate bi-annual interdisciplinary workshops to bring together marine scientists and
others interested in infectious diseases (e.g.. oceanographers, ecologists, microbiologists,
physicians, veterinarians, epidemiologists, pathologists, public health officials, modelers,
and mathematicians);
 Further develop availability of funding for field, bench-top and in silico training of the
next generation of students, specifically incorporating plans for underrepresented
minorities.
4) Increase collaboration between marine and terrestrial disease researchers:
 Summarize commonalities among systems with the goal of developing broad theories and
general patterns that encapsulate the dynamics of different disease types, including
identifying important types of hosts, pathogens, and environmental factors;
 Support research in areas identified as unique to aquatic ecosystems such as polymicrobial disease ecology, diseases of colonial and sessile populations, and dispersed
infectious agents (i.e., transported by currents);
 Support more research for projects at the land-sea interface.
5) Modify the current EID evaluation process:
 Establish seed grants (i.e., one-year, modest-funding exploratory grants in order to generate
preliminary data) within the existing EID Program to enhance EMID proposals;
 Establish a rapid response grant system to respond to marine disease outbreaks;
 Expand training opportunities to support cross training of students, post-doctoral researchers,
and other specialists (e.g., training in modeling for microbiologists, training in pathology for
mathematicians) including cross agency support for similar efforts (e.g., NOAA’s training
consortia in oceans and human health or NSF/NIEHS Centers for Oceans and Human
Health);
 Require more review panel members with experience in marine systems, provide a tutorial
for panel members regarding conceptual differences of pathogen dynamics and transmission
between marine and terrestrial systems, and identify external review expertise to evaluate
EMID projects.
6
Introduction
Both anecdotal and quantitative studies have identified an increase in the prevalence and severity of
marine diseases (Lafferty et al., 2004; Ward and Lafferty, 2004). Yet, our understanding of these
diseases continues to lag behind that of terrestrial ones (Harvell et al., 1999; McCallum et al., 2004;
Bienfang et al., 2011). More research is needed in aquatic systems because most of our understanding
of disease processes was gained from the study of terrestrial organisms. The application of this
knowledge to marine systems is challenged by fundamental differences in aquatic community structure,
species diversity, life-history phenomena, and fluid dispersal mechanisms. For example, the stunning
complexity of host-parasite interactions that is commonly understood to occur in terrestrial systems has
not even begun to be revealed in marine systems where phyletic diversity is much greater. Of the 34
described animal phyla, 25 are exclusively aquatic, and 19 of these are exclusively marine whereas only
1 phylum is exclusively terrestrial. In addition, marine organisms appear to have more complex life
histories, and their pathogens have a greater number of intermediate host species than is typical for
terrestrial diseases (McCallum et al., 2004). Evaluating the appropriate level of complexity needed to
fully understand transmission and transport of infectious agents is essential to build predictive models.
Finally, some marine pathogens violate common assumptions and generalizations made in terrestrial
systems, such as the specificity of infection. For instance, the host range of marine viruses appears to be
much broader than for their terrestrial counterparts (McCallum et al., 2004). Consequently, major
differences should be expected in infectious disease dynamics between aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems.
All commonly accepted Global Climate Change models predict rising temperatures, elevated aqueous
CO2 concentrations, and increased storm intensities. All of these factors will impact aquatic pathogens,
and mostly to increase the prevalence, severity, and lethality of marine diseases. There are also expected
to be synergistic effects between elevated nutrients and rising temperatures on microbial growth and
survival (Harvell et al., 1999; Looney et al., 2010). For example, bleached corals subjected to stressful
temperatures suffered higher rates of disease even after recovery (Sutherland et al., 2004; Muller et al.,
2008), than corals that were not heat stressed. Neither maritime modeling nor coastal zone management
has addressed disease phenomena, and as our waters continue to warm, diseases will take increasing
tolls on marine ecosystems. Lastly, the magnitude and duration of several marine epizootics has
demonstrated that disease phenomena have basin-wide effects which may actually be substantially
greater and longer lasting than physical disturbances such as hurricanes (e.g., the massive die-off of the
grazing sea urchin, Diadema, in the Caribbean).
The EID is being effectively studied in some marine, coastal and estuarine systems. Excellent examples
of cross collaborative work are beginning to emerge and include innovative research and modeling on
diseases of scleractinian corals (e.g., elkhorn coral, Figure 2; Porter et al., 2008), sea fans (Harvell et al.,
2004; Bruno et al., 2011), crustaceans (e.g., spiny lobsters; Behringer et al. 2006), mollusks (e.g., oysters
and clams; Ford et al., 1999; Lyons et al., 2005), fish (e.g., salmonids; Wargo and Kurath, 2011),
marine mammals (sea otters, Figure 3; Conrad et al., 2005), and humans (e.g., Vibrio) along with overall
estuarine health risk research being conducted by Noble and others (Lafferty, 2008; Stewart et al., 2008;
Wetz et al. 2008). The EMID workshop was designed to create a platform for future development of the
ecology of diseases in the marine environment by providing salient background information on our
current state of knowledge regarding EMID research. Case studies were presented to highlight
successful projects and identify newly emerging paradigms. Inclusion of ecological studies from
terrestrial disease projects provided insight into potential challenges facing the EMID community.
7
Ultimately the workshop proposed new structural and scientific approaches to the development of this
interdisciplinary field, identified novel questions and research areas, and recommended strategies for
overcoming the challenges.
Figure 3. Sea otter mother and pup (Photo credit:
Bryant Austin).
Figure 2. White-pox disease on a frond of the
endangered elkhorn coral on Carysfort Reef, Florida
Keys (Photo credit: James W. Porter, University of
Georgia).
Novel Research Areas for EID in Marine Systems
•
Understand and categorize marine disease systems by identifying commonalities with the goal of
developing broad theories that encapsulate the general dynamics of different disease types. This
includes recognition of what types of host, pathogen, and environmental factors are common to
specific disease complexes.
•
Understand how marine systems are fundamentally different from terrestrial systems in terms of
their ability to incubate and convey pathogens, including the identification of reservoirs, vectors,
and cascading effects of diseases on other organisms within a system (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Marine aggregate with fecal pellets, detritus and living organisms. Recent studies on
aggregates demonstrate they can serve as both reservoirs and vectors of microorganisms that cause
diseases of marine organisms (Photo credit: Maille Lyons and Evan Ward, University of Connecticut).
8
•
Understand how disease propagates through the environment by identifying transport
mechanisms of both hosts and pathogens and developing predictive models to anticipate timing
and rate of disease outbreaks and declines.
•
Investigate pathogen biology, ecology, and evolution with a focus on viability, virulence, and
persistence in varying environments because transmission probabilities ultimately depend on
time, environmental characteristics, and the micro-distribution of pathogen populations.
•
Explore polymicrobial disease ecology (i.e., community ecology of disease consortia) and the
mechanisms associated with pathogen-to-pathogen interactions.
•
Understand the role of host surface microbial associates in both resistance to disease and
transition to disease.
•
Investigate the synergistic effects of a changing climate on invertebrate surface microbial
associates, particularly the effects of increasing temperature and acidification through both small
scale experimental studies and large geographical scale studies interfaced with remotely sensed
temperature and ocean color.
•
Investigate complex life histories of marine hosts (all life stages) including sessile animals (e.g.,
oysters and corals, Figures 5 and 6) compared t mobile social animals (e.g., lobsters) and
singular life forms compared to colonial life forms (uncommon in terrestrial ecosystems). Target
host biology including genetics and immunological responses along with host population
dynamics and evolutionary responses to disease pressure.
•
Explore globalization effects on marine diseases including how the effects of transporting
potential pathogens to naïve hosts through aquaculture, ballast water, cruise ships, and the
aquarium trade impacts marine populations.
•
Investigate the relative the importance of endogenous and exogenous controls of disease
dynamics by identifying physical, chemical and biological stressors and perturbations that may
contribute to disease processes (e.g., temperature, pH, CO2 concentration, salinity, precipitation,
currents, water quality, contaminated sediments, changing food assemblies, nutritional status,
intra- and inter-species competition, host physiology, predation).
•
Explore the role of disease in the population dynamics of endangered and invasive species.
•
Explore the ecological role of pathogenic organisms when they are not causing disease (i.e.,
investigate the natural ecology of opportunistic pathogens) and investigate non-pathogenic
relationships (e.g., Vibrio-squid symbiosis). Continue studies of natural disease systems without
anthropogenic ties as "baselines" to better understand and predict epidemics.
9
Figure 5. A healthy stand of the endangered elkhorn coral
on Molasses Reef in the Florida Keys. In the past 15 years,
more than 90% of this once common coral has
disappeared in the Florida Keys. (Photo credit: James W.
Porter, University of Georgia).
Figure 6. Possible fungal (Aspergillus spp.) lesions
on the seafan Gorgonia ventalina from 50' in
Puerto Rico. The purpling surrounding the lesions
is part of the amoebocyte-facilitated inflammatory
response of the seafan (Photo credit: Drew Harvell,
Cornell University).
Challenges for Addressing Novel Research Areas
Funding for Research on EMID

Budget and funding levels often limit the ability to assemble a large, diverse interdisciplinary
team, which is necessary to tackle the cross-disciplinary issues in complex marine systems;

Lack of seed grants for EID to collect preliminary data, conduct exploratory experiments or
explore simple models needed for more competitive EID grants from the marine community;
•
Lack of an EID-RAPID grant system to respond to outbreaks and emerging disease phenomena.
Limitations in Sampling, Diagnostic Tools, and Long-term Monitoring Data
•
Substantial variation in the spatial and temporal scales on which the parameters (i.e., biological,
ecological, chemical, and physical variables) can be measured;
•
Expense (e.g., funds, time, and labor) of ecological field studies that require good diagnostic
tools coupled with adequate sampling frequency and spatial coverage (Figures 7 and 8);
•
Expensive and yet-to-be developed molecular diagnostic tools required to account for viable but
non-culturable (VBNC) phenomenon common in environmental microbiology, including aquatic
pathogens;
•
Lack of basic information on the etiological agent (or inability to satisfy Koch’s postulates)
precludes a proposal from being rated as competitive;
•
Lack of long-term, base-line data for model development coupled with lack of biological sensors
on Ocean Observing Systems for rapid collection of real-time (or near real-time) data on
pathogens.
10
Figure 7. Studying the ecology of marine infectious
disease requires the development of new sampling
techniques for remote locations (Photo credit: James W.
Porter, University of Georgia).
Figure 8. Autonomous vertical profiler deployed in the
Neuse River Estuary as a key component for tracking
the impact of extreme storm events (Photo credit:
Rachel T. Noble, UNC Chapel Hill).
Limitations in Model Development

Lack of ability to integrate multi-scale models requiring a balance between “parameter based
mechanistic understanding” and “pattern based mechanistic understanding”;
•
Lack of generalization to specific systems. Model quality and usefulness depend on quality of
empirical data used and incorporation of the temporal element in models, specifically the
behavior of the “infective particles” in such models needs to be tailored to each pathogen of
interest;
•
Basic disconnects between modeling inputs and monitoring data require better communication
between diverse disciplines (e.g., coastal circulation modelers, disease ecologists, and
microbiologists).
Recommendations to Overcoming Challenges
Funding for Research on EMID
•
Establish seed grants within the EID Program to facilitate data gathering and investigator
cohesion;
•
Establish an EID-RAPID grant system attuned to outbreaks and emerging phenomena;
•
Expand interagency collaboration to leverage additional funding within the context of
developing research, monitoring and modeling of EID in marine systems (e.g., NIH, NOAA,
USDA and EPA);
11
•
Engage physical oceanographers to participate in EID proposals and then request that the
physical oceanography section at NSF contribute funds to the EID Program.
Sharing Concepts to Advance the Field

Draft a review paper summarizing our current knowledge regarding a census of aquatic
pathogens which could be grouped by phyla, hosts, habitats, and ocean processes, and include
impacts of physical, chemical, and other non-biological stresses;

Develop a EMID website and listserv to enhance the ability of scientists to initiate professional
collaborations;

Designate National or Regional Center(s) for Marine Infectious Diseases which would
coordinate interdisciplinary workshops for stakeholders, and disseminate information about other
workshop and workgroup funding opportunities;

Continue and expand support of data synthesis and of a framework for model inter-comparison
(e.g., National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis);

Evaluate the use of the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (EcoHAB)
research program as a model system to facilitate linkages for EID;

Evaluate the use of the One Health multi-agency initiative (www.onehealthinitiative.com) to
address human and eco-system health interactions.
Sharing Data to Advance the Field

Improve baseline data collection by standardization of protocols and reporting methods;

Support a coordinated expansion of existing data sources (e.g., USGS Wildlife disease
information network database, wildlifedisease.nbii.gov, environmental health tracking networks,
coral disease registry);

Share and archive all data from EID funded projects in appropriate data center(s) with a web
portal created for purposes of disseminating information;

Authorize resources for EID projects in collaboration with existing studies (e.g., NSF LongTerm Ecological Research (LTER) Network and the National Ecological Observatory Network
(NEON)) to add pathogen and disease-relevant data.
Establishing Partnerships to Bridge Interfaces and Developing Cross-Collaborative Work
•
Assemble working groups of EMID oriented individuals and institutions with the following
expertise:
o Scientists: physical, chemical, and biological oceanography, ecology, marine biology,
microbiology, molecular biology, botany, environmental sciences, terrestrial disease
ecology, statistics, environmental health sciences. Target social scientists to understand
and incorporate local community needs in the project, and to improve communication of
findings to the public;
12
o Modelers: (1) modelers studying and capturing the dynamics of the physical environment
that influence disease transmission; and (2) modelers that study and define the disease
dynamics within and among populations (Susceptible-Infected-Recovered (SIR) model
focused);
o Medical researchers or public health scientists: trained in relevant medical fields,
veterinary sciences, epidemiology, pathology;
o Agency officials: representation by all funding agencies with potential interests.
•
Engage wildlife veterinarians who have expertise in dealing with the difficulty of monitoring
animal populations and their diseases;
•
Engage plant pathologists in developing a framework for model systems for sessile marine
organisms. Applying the wealth of knowledge and understanding of terrestrial plant disease
dynamics to certain marine diseases, particularly those sessile organisms (e.g., colonial corals
and oysters), may be enlightening for understanding disease dynamics;
•
Improve training opportunities with more funding to support interdisciplinary opportunities for
students and post-doctoral researchers. Identify 4-5 crucial disciplines and create special
programs to support cross-training of students and post-doctoral researchers in these areas;
•
Facilitate training of PIs in scientific interpretation and advisory work (e.g., training through the
Aldo Leopold Institute or Compass).
Fostering Collaboration and Building the Scientific Community
•
Create an "EID Match.com" to develop mechanisms to link investigators with different expertise
to improve quality of grants by better matching up investigators (the Cooperative Institute for
Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET) is an example). A Wiki network
could be established for EMID through https://extwiki.nsf.gov/signup.action.
Disseminating Research Findings to Refine Management Strategies

Encourage interaction with local managers and public health agencies to facilitate development
of useful predictive tools and science-based management protocols;

Utilize disease and disease transmission information to affect management strategies, with an
emphasis in the fisheries management community as this has both human health and resource
implications;
Review research from terrestrial environments and marine protected areas (MPAs) for relevance
and ideas for management of diseases in marine communities.
Tools and Infrastructure
•
Increase accessibility of molecular and microbiological facilities at field sites, especially where
laboratories are non-existent or ill equipped (e.g., production of Biosafety certified, mobile
laboratories overseen by NSF that can be moved around to facilitate funded projects in those
areas;
13
•
Develop, advertise, and coordinate access to "service" laboratories for molecular and microbial
processing of samples;
•
Establish a centralized marine pathogen/host tissue sample repository to augment existing
electronic data repositories (NSF Biological Oceanography data centers, GenBank, International
Registry of Coral Pathology, etc.). Similarly, extend these current data repositories to better
handle different kinds of data sets (e.g., time series of various pathogens and diseases) that do
not fit the current geo-referenced monitoring data model;
•
Review the capacity of the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS)
vessels to support EMID research, especially in the framework of biological safety laboratory
related considerations. Consider tasking one of the UNOLS vessels for a 12-month global
assessment of EMID. This would increase visibility to EMID related research and might also be
a way to bring front line scientific equipment into remote areas.
Suggestions for Improvement of the EID Program
•
Modify existing EID Synopsis and/or request for proposals by: (1) adding the importance of
physical oceanography, environmental modeling, synergisms with cross cutting disciplines, and
other techniques to address the appropriate scales relevant to marine systems (2) specifically
mention circulation and mechanistic models in marine systems are of interest; and (3) adding
“studies on emerging diseases in marine (aquatic) systems will be considered”;
•
Modify the current evaluation process to include more panel members with experience in marine
systems, employing external review of proposals, or providing a tutorial for all panel members
regarding conceptual differences of pathogen dynamics and transmission between marine and
terrestrial systems;
•
Designate a percentage of funds to be dedicated to marine diseases within the EID Program.
Conclusion
EMID work is especially challenging. Historically, there has been a distinction between quantitative
epidemiological research developed in clinical fields, and classical marine biological research that
focuses on descriptive biology and ecosystem process. The lack of cross fertilization between these
fields has also made EMID related research more difficult to fund. Although it is recognized that marine
research problems are just as important as those in terrestrial environments, the research tools,
infrastructure, and preliminary data sets from marine investigations are often not as sophisticated or well
developed as materials from traditional epidemiological research laboratories. Finally, since scientists
working specifically in EMID frontiers are often on the edge of the state of the science, the research
tends to be higher risk, and empirical approaches often have a trial and error nature at the infancy of
specific studies of disease dynamics. Marine scientists wishing to conduct this type of research face
major hurdles to success, which this workshop was designed to overcome.
Acknowledgment
Our gratitude to Priscilla Viana for her tireless work on the inception of the workshop, planning and
logistical assistance with the workshop, organization of written material and contributions to the final
14
workshop report. We are also grateful for the work of Dr. Drew Harvell, Denene Blackwood, and Dr.
Maille Lyons in editing and substantial improvement of the workshop document. Thank you to all
workshop participants for gathering and spending their time to share research findings, ideas, and
thoughts for the future. Thank you to invited speakers who presented the state of the art in the EMID
field. Finally, we are grateful to Phil Taylor for the opportunity to conduct this workshop and convene a
fantastic community of scientists.
References
Behringer, D.C. Jr., M.J. Butler IV, and J. Shields. 2006. Avoidance of disease in social lobsters. Nature
441: 421.
Bienfang, P.K., S.V. Defelice, E.A. Laws, L.E. Brand, R.R. Bidigare, S. Christensen, H. TrapidoRosenthal, T.K. Hemscheidt, D.J. McGillicuddy, D.M. Anderson, H.M. Solo-Gabriele, A.B.
Boehm, and L.C. Backer. 2011. Prominent Human Health Impacts from Several Marine Microbes:
History, Ecology, and Public Health Implications. Int. J. Microbiol. 2011:152815
Bruno, J., S.P. Ellner, I. Vu, K. Kim and D. Harvell. 2011 Impacts of aspergillosis on sea fan coral
demography: modeling a moving target. Ecol. Monogr. 81: 123-139.
Conrad, P.A., M.A. Miller, C. Kreuder, E.R. James, J. Mazet, H. Dabritz, D.A. Jessup, F. Gulland and
M.E. Grigg. 2005. Transmission of Toxoplasma: clues from the study of sea otters as sentinels of
Toxoplasma gondii flow into the marine environment. Int. J. Parasitol.. 35, 1155–1168.
Ford, S., E. Powell, J. Klinck, and E. Hofmann. 1999. Modeling the MSX parasite in Eastern oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) populations. I. Model development, implementation, and verification. J.
Shellfish Res. 18:475–500.
Harvell, C.D., K. Kim, J.M. Burkholder, R.R. Colwell, P.R. Epstein, J. Grimes, E.E. Hofmann, E. Lipp,
A.D.M.E. Osterhaus, R. Overstreet, J.W. Porter, G.W. Smith and G. Vasta. 1999. Emerging marine
diseases - Climate links and anthropogenic factors. Science 285:1505-1510.
Harvell, D., R. Aronson, N. Baron, J. Connell, A. Dobson, S. Ellner, L. Gerber, K. Kim, A. Kuris, H.
McCallum, K. Lafferty, B. McKay, J. Porter, M. Pascual, G. Smith, K. Sutherland, and J. Ward.
2004. The rising tide of ocean diseases: Unsolved problems and research priorities. Front. Ecol.
Environ. 2: 375-382.
Lafferty, K.D., J.W. Porter, and S.E. Ford. 2004. Are diseases increasing in the ocean? Ann. Rev. Ecol.
Syst. 35:31-54.
Lafferty, K.D. 2008. Effects of disease on community interactions and food web structure, pp. 205-222.
In: R.S. Ostfeld, F. Keesing, and V. Eviner (Eds.) Infectious Disease Ecology. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ.
Looney, E.E., K.P. Sutherland, and E.K. Lipp. 2010. Effects of temperature, nutrients, organic matter
and coral mucus on the survival of the coral pathogen, Serratia marcescens PDL100. Environ.
Microbiol. 12:2479-2485.
Lyons, M.M., J.E. Ward, R. Smolowitz, K.R. Uhlinger, and R.J. Gast. 2005. Lethal marine snow:
Pathogen of bivalve mollusk concealed in marine aggregates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 50: 1983-1988.
15
McCallum, H.I., A. Kuris, C.D. Harvell, K.D. Lafferty, G.W. Smith, and J.W. Porter. 2004. Does
terrestrial epidemiology apply to marine systems? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:585-591.
Muller, E.M., C.S. Rogers, A.S. Spitzack, and R. van Woesik. 2008. Bleaching increases likelihood of
disease on Acropora palmata (Lamarck) in Hawksnest Bay, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Coral
Reefs 27:91-195.
Porter, J.W. (Ed.) 2001. The Ecology and Etiology of Newly Emerging Marine Diseases. Kluwer Acad.
Publ.; Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 201 pp.
Porter, J.W., E.K. Lipp, K.P. Sutherland, and E. Mueller. 2008. The ecology of an infectious disease in
the Florida Keys: From pathogens to politics, pp.387-403 In: R.S. Ostfeld, F. Keesing, and V.
Eviner (Eds.) Infectious Disease Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Stewart, J.R., R.J. Gast, R.S. Fujioka, H.M. Solo-Gabriele, J.S. Meschke, L.A. Amaral-Zettler, E. del
Castillo, M.F. Polz, T.K. Collier, M.S. Strom, C.D. Sinigalliano, P.D.R. Moeller, and A.F. Holland.
2008. The coastal environment and human health: microbial indicators, pathogens, sentinels and
reservoirs. Environ. Health 2008, 7(Suppl 2):S5.
Sutherland, K.P., J.W. Porter, and C. Torres. 2004. Disease and immunity in Caribbean and Indo-Pacific
zooxanthellate corals. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 266: 273-302.
Ward, J.R., and K.D. Lafferty. 2004. The elusive base-line of marine disease: Are diseases in ocean
ecosystems increasing? PLoS Biol. 2:542-547.
Wargo, A.R., and G. Kurath. 2011. In Vivo Fitness Associated with High Virulence in a Vertebrate
Virus Is a Complex Trait Regulated by Host Entry, Replication, and Shedding. J. Virology 85:
3959-3967.
Wetz, J.J., A.D. Blackwood, J.S. Fries, Z.F. Williams, and R.T. Noble. 2008. Trends in total Vibrio spp.
and Vibrio vulnificus concentrations in the eutrophic Neuse River Estuary, North Carolina, during
storm events. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 53:141-149.
16
Appendix I: Workshop Agenda
Saturday, February 12, 2011
7:30-8AM
Registration and continental breakfast
[Hang posters]
San Geronimo, 2nd floor
8-8:10AM
Welcome and conference goals
[Phil Taylor, National Science Foundation]
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
8:10-9AM
Introduction of participants
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
 Objective: Each participant introduces their research interests and/or talks about
collaboration opportunities (one minute per participant).
9-9:25AM
What can we learn from a case study within a well documented/constrained
system?
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
[Jim Porter, University of Georgia]
9:25-9:50AM
Linking research on EID in marine systems to EID in terrestrial systems
[Alan Hastings, University of California - Davis]
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
9:50-10:15AM
The spectrum of models crucial for EID in marine systems
[Eileen Hofmann, Old Dominion University]
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
10:15-10:30AM
Coffee break
San Geronimo, 2nd floor
10:30-10:55AM
Diagnostic tools and marine diseases
[Carolyn Friedman, University of Washington]
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
10:55-11:45
Synthesis of the plenary talks: Pointing to challenges, successes and new
directions
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
[Drew Harvell, Cornell University]
11:45-12PM
Breakout session – Charge
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
[Rachel Noble, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]
12-1PM
Lunch
1-3:40PM
San Geronimo, 2nd floor
Breakout groups
 Groups 1 and 2: What are the critical questions on EID in marine systems not
being properly addressed or resolved? What are the major conceptual gaps that
prevent fostering work on EID in marine systems? What are the other challenges
and impediments? Why are these questions important? What are the most novel
questions? What are the most tractable questions? Where can we make the most
progress?
o Group 1 [Session Chair – Mark Butler, ODU; Rapporteur - Laurie
Raymundo, UG]
San Felipe, 2nd floor
17
o Group 2 [Session Chair – Grieg Steward, U. of Hawaii; Rapporteur
- Maille Lyons, ODU]
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
 Groups 3 and 4: Is there scope for cross-collaborative work between terrestrial
and marine systems, and between medical and marine ecological research
communities? How can we facilitate this? How can we come together, share
concepts and push the field forward? What are the major differences between
research on marine disease ecology and terrestrial disease ecology? Are there
major system differences, and how does that impact comparison and
collaboration?
o Group 3 [Session Chair – Erin Lipp, U. of Georgia; Rapporteur Denene Blackwood, UNC Chapel Hill]
Luna room, 2nd floor
o Group 4 [Session Chair – Jeff Shields, VIMS; Rapporteur – Greta
Smith-Aeby, UH]
Sol boardroom, 2nd floor
4-5 PM
Each breakout group summarizes their discussions (5-10 min) followed by a
group discussion
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
[Facilitator: Rachel Noble, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]
5:30-7PM
Evening reception and poster session
San Geronimo, 2nd floor
Sunday, February 13, 2011
San Geronimo, 2nd floor
7:30-8:00AM
Continental breakfast
8:00-8:30AM
Within-host processes and infectious disease spread: implications for both
terrestrial and marine systems
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
[Vanessa Ezenwa, University of Georgia]
8:30-9:00AM
Theory and models for infectious disease dynamics: from the land to the
sea
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
[Mercedes Pascual, University of Michigan]
9:00-9:30AM
A case study of a complex disease system, zoonosis, terrestrial-marine
connection, physical-biological interactions
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
[John Largier, University of California - Davis]
9:30-9:40AM
Breakout session – Charge
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
[Rachel Noble, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]
9:40-10:00AM
Coffee break
10AM-12PM
San Geronimo, 2nd floor
Breakout groups
 Group 1: How can we define EID research? Should all EID research have a preidentified infectious agent and infection outcome?
[Session Chair – Rachel Noble, UNC Chapel Hill; Rapporteur - Evan Ward, U.
of Connecticut]
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
18
 Group 2: How are environmental stressors and perturbations (e.g., climate change,
land use, invasive species, water and sediment pollution) affecting dynamics and
transmission of marine infectious diseases?
[Session Chair – Paul Hershberger, USGS; Rapporteur - Colleen Burge, Cornell
U.]
San Cristobal room, 2nd floor
 Group 3: Have we succeeded in bringing the right people to the table for EID
work? What expertise is missing? What training is missing?
[Session Chairs – Jim Bowen, UNC-Charlotte, and Anwar Huq, Univ. MD;
Rapporteurs - Marilyn Brandt, U. Virgin Islands, and Helena Solo-Gabriele, U.
Miami]
Luna room, 2nd floor
 Group 4: What issues are perceived as limiting model development of disease in
marine/coastal systems (e.g., scale; integration between circulation models and
laboratory experiments; field and remote sensing satellite data)?
[Session Chair – Shafiqul Islam, Tufts University; Rapporteur - John Largier,
University of California, Davis]
Sol boardroom, 2nd
floor
12-1PM
Lunch
1-2PM
Each breakout group summarizes their discussions (10 minutes) followed by a
group discussion
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
[Facilitators: Jim Porter & Rachel Noble]
2-3:30PM
Summary and discussions of recommendations for short and long term
research on ecology of marine infectious diseases
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
[Facilitator: Drew Harvell, Cornell University]
3:30-4:30PM
Wrap-up
San Cristobal, 2nd floor
Funding opportunities
[Phil Taylor, NSF; Tracy Collier, NOAA and Peter Johnson, USDA]
Workshop highlights and next steps
[Jim Porter & Rachel Noble]
4:30PM
Adjourn
19
Appendix II: Participant List
Researchers and agency representatives from a range of different disciplines convened on February 1213, 2011, to share recent findings and diverse perspectives on disease and marine systems. The
workshop brought together scientists with different expertise, including those with specific knowledge
of diseases affecting marine organisms, those with expertise in relating models of physical
oceanography to biological processes, and individuals with expertise in the modeling and study of
diseases of terrestrial as well as marine organisms. Included in the participant list were scientists
actively conducting research on EID in marine, coastal and estuarine systems as well as others interested
in infectious diseases (e.g. biomedical, veterinary, epidemiologists, pathologists, oceanographers and
mathematicians).
First name
Alan
Anna
Anwar
Carolyn
Colleen
Last name
Hastings
Bass
Huq
Friedman
Burge
Denene
Blackwood
Diego
Drew
Narvaez
Harvell
Affiliation
University of California, Davis
University of New England
University of Maryland
University of Washington
Cornell University
University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill
Old Dominion University
Cornell University
Eileen
Erin
Erin
Hofmann
Lipp
Bromage
Old Dominion University
University of Georgia
Uni. Massachusetts Dartmouth
Ernesto
Weil
University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez
Greta
Grieg
Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology
University of Hawaii
J. Evan
James
Jason
Jeffrey
Aeby
Steward
SoloGabriele
Ward
Bowen
Graff
Shields
Jill
Stewart
Jim
John
John
Kathryn
Kevin
Laurie
Porter
Largier
Griffith
Sutherland
Lafferty
Raymundo
Helena
University of Miami
University of Connecticut
UNC Charlotte
University of Rhode Island
VIMS
University of North Carolina - Chapel
Hill
University of Georgia
University of California, Davis
SCCWRP
Rollins College
US Geological Survey
University of Guam Marine Laboratory
20
Lisa
Marilyn
Mark
Mary Maille
Plano
Brandt
Butler
Lyons
University of Miami
University of the Virgin Islands
Old Dominion University
Old Dominion University
Mathias
Wegner
Leibniz Institute for Marine Sciences
IFM-Geomar
Mercedes
Pascual
University of Michigan
Montira
Pongsiri
USEPA
Mya
Pam
Breitbart
Morris
Paul
Hershberger
Peter
Johnson
Phillip
Priscilla
Taylor
Viana
Rachel
Noble
University of South Florida
University of South Carolina
USGS - Marrowstone Marine Field
Station
USDA-National Institute of Food and
Agriculture
National Science Foundation
National Science Foundation
UNC Chapel Hill Institute of Marine
Sciences
Rebecca
Shafiqul
Tracy
Vanessa
Vega
Thurber
Islam
Collier
Ezenwa
Florida International University
Tufts University
NOAA
University of Georgia
21
Appendix III: Breakout Session Summaries
Saturday, February 12th, 2011
Breakout session I
Session I - Breakout Group 1: Critical Questions Not Being Properly Addressed I
Facilitator: Mark Butler (Old Dominion University)
Rapporteur: Laurie Raymundo (University of Guam Marine Laboratory)
Participants: Marilyn Brandt (University of the Virgin Islands), ), Mya Breitbart (University of South
Florida), Erin Bromage (University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth), Colleen Burge (Cornell
University), Helena Solo-Gabriele (University of Miami), Mathias Wegner (Leibniz Institute of Marine
Sciences) , Ernesto Weil (University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez, and Priscilla Viana (National Science
Foundation)
I. WHAT ARE THE CRITICAL QUESTIONS ON EID IN MARINE SYSTEMS NOT PROPERLY
ADDRESSED OR RESOLVED? WHAT ARE THE MAJOR CONCEPTUAL GAPS THAT
PREVENT FOSTERING WORK ON EID IN MARINE SYSTEMS?
• Are there "model" marine disease systems? How to categorize them and what are commonalities
among systems so we can develop broad theories that encapsulate the general dynamics of
different disease types? What types of host, pathogen, or environmental factors are common to
each dynamic? Investigate stress-related opportunistic diseases vs. well evolved host-pathogen
relationships. Here is where theory may perhaps play an important role in directing research &
selection of model systems.
• Can we use model systems to explore in novel ways theoretical "what if" considerations (e.g.,
large, focused studies & grants on these model systems)? Which of these systems do we know
the best? . Can these better-known systems be used to accelerate investigations in more poorly
known systems?
• Understanding marine hosts is crucial to studies of factors influencing host resistance,
susceptibility, and response. EMID research may have to focus as much on basic host biology
and ecology as on disease phenomena.
• Our understanding of marine diseases is in many ways rudimentary compared to terrestrial
systems, so we should not overlook studies on marine diseases that are unrelated to
anthropogenic influences. More studies of natural disease systems without anthropogenic ties
remain useful and important, especially as "baselines". In addition, applying the wealth of
knowledge and understanding of terrestrial plant disease dynamics to certain marine diseases,
particularly those of clonal colonial corals, may also be enlightening, particularly for
understanding disease dynamics, and epidemiology.
• Notoriously Complex life histories of marine hosts (sessile vs. mobile; adults vs. juveniles;
instars and metamorphis ) and diverse oceanic environments offer opportunities for studies of
complex transmission pathways (e.g., larvae, particles), of which we are largely ignorant. We
also know little about pathogen viability in the water column and thus transmission probabilities
depending on time in water, water characteristics, etc.
• The dynamics of pathogens suspended in an aqueous soup are perhaps very different from the
dynamics of pathogens settled in soil. Everything from nutrient to host availability will be
22
•
•
different. Knowledge of reservoirs and vectors is essential, but still very rudimentary. Cascading
effects of diseases on other organisms within a system has also not been considered in full.
How important are endogenous vs. exogenous control of disease dynamics (e.g., local dynamics
vs. connectivity of pathogens)? Physical oceanographers should be involved in this discussion.
Incorporation of physical oceanography is crucial to those systems where regional connectivity is
high (whether consistent or pulsed) but perhaps not highly relevant for systems where local
stressors & transmission dynamics appear to dominate. Transmissibility of particular diseases
must be tested.
II. WHAT ARE THE OTHER CHALLENGES AND IMPEDIMENTS?
• Connect modeling inputs and monitoring data. Monitoring data must be well chosen to better
integrate with modeling. Successful projects are often the ones that begin with an explicit
integration of field & lab work. There is a Need to bring ecological modelers and environmental
samplers together upfront, not after the fact.
• Establish an EID Seed Grant Program to facilitate data gathering and investigator cohesion
("Baby EIDs" Program)
• Create an "EID Match.com" to develop mechanisms to link investigators with different expertise
to improve quality of grants by better matching up investigators. CICEET example.
• Make available molecular & microbiological facilities at field sites, sometimes where
laboratories are non-existent or ill equipped. Produce a mobile-laboratory container- module
(Biosafety certified) overseen by NSF (Bio-OCE/EID/Facilities & Infrastructure) that can be
moved around to facilitate funded projects in those areas.
• Develop, advertise & coordinate access to "service" laboratories for molecular & microbial
processing of samples.
• Establish and fund a centralized marine pathogen/host tissue sample repository to augment
existing electronic data repositories (NSF Biol Ocean data centers, Genbank, etc.). Similarly,
extend these current data repositories to better handle different kinds of data sets (e.g., time
series of various pathogens & diseases) that do not fit the current geo-referenced monitoring data
model.
III. WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT AND NOVEL QUESTIONS?
• Describe Modes of disease transmission and construct general models. These are difficult but
are crucial to an advancement in our understanding of marine diseases.
• Quantify the impact of disease on aquatic on populations, communities, and ecosystems.
• Assess if this impact increasing relative to other population regulatory factors such as
competition, predation, and abiotic factors.
• Identify the Origins of pathogens and the evolution of pathogen infectivity and host
susceptibility. Are marine zoonoses mostly marine phenomena, or are there increasingly
exogenous drivers?
• Construct Simulation/mathematical models of marine host-pathogen co-evolution. Microbial
host-pathogen systems offer possibilities for empirical studies over reasonable time scales.
IV. WHAT QUESTIONS ARE MOST TRACTABLE AND WHERE CAN WE MAKE THE MOST
PROGRESS?
• Support Predictive modeling. The expertise is there already. The quality and usefulness of
these models will depend on the quality and quantity of empirical data. Temporal elements must
23
be incorporated. Encourge the use of up-to-date data so that the model is is both timely and
adaptive.
V. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
 Deep sea: host/pathogen relationships, host ranges, benthic-pelagic coupling
o Is disease in deep water an important question? Given low host density, this is probably a
lower priority. Spawning aggregations and species that transport disease among systems
may provide opportunities for transmission that should be investigated.
 How to anticipate disease outbreaks, especially in areas not easily monitored (deep sea)
o We need to know the environmental or host population triggers that facilitate outbreaks
so we can focus on monitoring those factors.
 Globalization effects on marine diseases
o Understanding how change in environmental drivers affects patho-systems;
o Aquaculture, ballast water, aquarium trade, “free Willy” syndrome: transporting potential
pathogens to naïve hosts;
o Cruise ships, tourism development: increasing human impacts in pulses in small
concentrated areas.
Session I - Breakout Group 2: Critical Questions Not Being Properly Addressed II
Facilitator: Grieg Steward (University of Hawaii)
Rapporteur: Maille Lyons (Old Dominion University)
Participants: Jim Bowen (University of North Carolina at Charlotte), Vanessa Ezenwa (University of
Georgia), Pam Morris (University of South Carolina), Diego Narvaez (Old Dominion University), Lisa
Plano (University of Miami), and Karen Porter (University of Georgia)
I. WHAT ARE THE CRITICAL QUESTIONS ON EID IN MARINE SYSTEMS NOT PROPERLY
ADDRESSED OR RESOLVED? WHAT ARE THE MAJOR CONCEPTUAL GAPS THAT
PREVENT FOSTERING WORK ON EID IN MARINE SYSTEMS?
• Recognized difficulty in identifying “most novel” and “most tractable” ideas because of a lack of
current knowledge.
 Identified the need for a state-of-the-art paper summarizing a census of aquatic pathogens which
should be grouped by phyla, hosts, processes, and/or habitat and include impacts of physical,
chemical, and other non-biological stresses.
 Acknowledged the need for funding agencies to establish 1 year exploratory grants in order to
generate preliminary data needed for more competitive EID grants from the marine community.
 Recommend modifying the current evaluation process to include more panel members with
experience in marine systems, external review of proposals, or adding a discussion/tutorial for all
panel members regarding issues specific to marine environment.
II. HOW OFTEN IS A DISEASE CAUSED BY A SINGLE PATHOGEN COMPARED TO A
MICROBIAL COMMUNITY?
 Acknowledged the importance of considering a polymicrobial approach to disease ecology
 Encourage alternatives to the 1 pathogen – 1 disease model.
 Evaluate microbial communities and their role in disease ecology including microbe-microbe
interactions.
 Identify appropriate spatial and temporal scales for a community-level approach.
24
o Projects that require different approaches and diagnostics to understand concept.
o Projects that require different scale: micro-distribution, long term monitoring, etc.
III. WHAT IS THE NATURAL ROLE OF DISEASES?
 Generate a baseline understanding of natural disease processes in order to better understand and
predict epidemics.
 Identify the ecological role of pathogenic organisms when they are not causing disease (i.e.,
investigate the natural ecology of opportunistic pathogens).
 Identify the agents and mechanisms of pathogenesis.
 Do not restrict research to only systems that have satisfied Koch’s postulates (i.e., recognize an
ecological definition of disease in addition to a medical one).
 Identify the role of disease in the population dynamics of endangered and/or invasive species.
IV. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRESS AND DISEASE?
 Look to the literature (e.g., toxicology research) for examples of modeling multi-host, multipathogen, multi-stress, multi-factor systems.
 Identify which physical stresses contribute to disease processes.
 Identify biological stresses (other than the pathogen) that may contribute to disease processes
(e.g., nutritional status, intra- and inter-species competition, host physiology, predation).
V. WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT THAT COULD PROVIDE
BETTER INSIGHT INTO ECOLOGICAL DISEASE DYNAMICS?
• Recognized the importance of physical oceanography models of water movement because the
way in which hosts and pathogens move and interact in marine ecosystems is fundamentally
different from the terrestrial environment; Behavior of the “infective particles” in such models
needs to be tailored to the pathogen of interest.
• Recognized that field studies require good diagnostic tools coupled with adequate sampling
(frequency and spatial coverage) and that this is very expensive and labor intensive.
• Focus on using marine systems to identify unique routes and mechanisms of transmission.
• Focus on marine research to identify systems that the basic ecology, biology, and microbiology
are well known and could serve as models for human systems.
• Acknowledged that many diseases are not being studied (especially if they do not have
commercial or human importance).
• Discussed issue of exploratory research vs. that of societal relevance (need to make connections
to tourism, fishing, aquaculture, health and well being, preservation, discovery, natural products,
etc.).
• Discussed collaborating with terrestrial researchers (for comparative studies) may yield new
insights into disease processes in both systems.
VI. WHAT ARE THE MOST NOVEL QUESTIONS?
• Polymicrobial approach and microbe-microbe interactions.
• Host physiology and ecology and pathogen physiology and ecology.
• Environmental pressures/stressors (e.g., heat, pH, salinity).
• Phage dynamics (pathogen control; pathogen conversion).
• Food-web processes/dynamics.
• Concentrations and Micro-distribution of pathogens in the environment.
25
•
•
•
•
•
Identify reservoirs.
Identify triggers of pathogen virulence.
Identify factors of host susceptibility.
Non-pathogenic relationships: Vibrio-squid symbiosis.
Genomic approaches to tackle pathogens that are not culturable.
Session I - Breakout Group 3: Fostering cross collaborative work between terrestrial and marine
systems I
Facilitator: Erin Lipp (University of Georgia)
Rapporteur: Denene Blackwood (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
Participants: Anna Bass (University of New England), Jason Graff (University of Rhode Island), Alan
Hastings (University of California Davis), Paul Hershberger (USGS Marrowstone Marine Field
Station), Anwar Huq (University of Maryland), and Jill Stewart (University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill)
I. WHAT IS THE SCOPE FOR CROSS-COLLABORATIVE WORK BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL
AND MARINE SYSTEMS, AND BETWEEN MEDICAL AND MARINE ECOLOGICAL
RESEARCH COMMUNITIES?
• Best areas of collaboration may be with wildlife veterinarians who have some expertise in
dealing with difficult to monitor animal populations and their diseases, which is similar to what
we deal with in marine systems.
• Plant diseases may be good model systems for sessile marine organisms. Clinical
microbiologists (and MDs) have standardized procedures for monitoring and reporting; and this
approach could be applied to marine disease surveillance.
• Similar dynamics of interactions do apply to terrestrial and marine systems alike.
II. FACILITATION (I.E. HOW CAN WE COME TOGETHER, SHARE CONCEPTS AND PUSH
THE FIELD FORWARD?)
 Managing disease information (surveillance): USGS Wildlife disease information network
database (wildlifedisease.nbii.gov).
 Use One Health multi agency concept to address human and eco-system health interactions. The
One Health Initiative (www.onehealthinitiative.com) is a movement to forge co-equal, all
inclusive collaborations between physicians, osteopaths, veterinarians, dentists, nurses and other
scientific-health and environmentally related disciplines.
 Through better study design, it would prove useful to link human disease and marine
environment disease by using the same protocols to connect disease occurrence.
 Identify target organisms, diseases, ecosystems. Improve baseline data collection by
standardization of protocols and reporting methods. Improve methods for detection and thus
providing better surveillance. This type of information is needed to perform predictive modeling
and standardization.
 More use of existing data sources (i.e. USGS Wildlife disease information network database,
environmental health tracking networks, coral disease registry.) as well as take advantage of
existing sampling and monitoring programs. Add disease data or pathogen relevance
information to LTER and NEON Programs.
 Need for a comprehensive review paper on what we know on links between marine effects and
human health.
26


Identify workshop and workgroup funding opportunities, such as NIMBioS (National Institute
for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis consists of NSF, USDA and Homeland Security,
which funds workshops and working groups that are a mix of mathematicians and biologists.)
Establish a marine biology disease community combined with mathematical modelers.
Use EcoHAB model as means of facilitating linkages for EID (The goal of the ECOHAB
Program was to develop an understanding of the population dynamics and trophic impacts of
harmful algal species which could be used as a basis for minimizing adverse effects on the
economy, public health, and marine ecosystems. The objective of the ECOHAB Program is to
combine field, laboratory and modeling studies in a coordinated effort to characterize the
physical, chemical and biological processes governing the growth, distribution and impacts of
HAB species through field studies, mesocosms, and theoretical models).
III. WHAT ARE THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL
DISEASE ECOLOGY?
• Less data available for marine ecosystems. Marine organisms less easy to track. Differences in
transmission. Differences in connectivity and dispersal in host and pathogen.
• Global change is changing distribution of some species and their pathogens.
• Sentinel species you can make a more direct link.
• Do not have to rely on surrogate organisms to model disease with a lot of marine organisms.
• Rapid emergence of pathogens in marine ecosystems due to gene transfer and genetic exchange.
Session I - Breakout Group 4: Fostering cross collaborative work between terrestrial and marine
systems II
Facilitator: Jeff Shields (Virginia Institute of Marine Science)
Rapporteur: Greta Aeby (Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology)
Participants: John Griffith (Southern California Coastal Water Research Project), Eileen Hofmann (Old
Dominion University), Shafiqul Islam (Tufts University), Katie Sutherland (Rollins College), Rebecca
Vega Thurber (Florida International University), and Evan Ward (University of Connecticut)
I. IS THERE SCOPE FOR CROSS-COLLABORATIVE WORK BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL AND
MARINE SYSTEMS, AND BETWEEN MEDICAL AND MARINE ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH
COMMUNITIES?
 What is the motivating force to enhance these collaborations? Buy-in needed for modelers,
terrestrial systems analysts, etc.
 Why reinvent the wheel regarding concepts? What can be used or engaged from the terrestrial
systems? Typing of microbial agents, medical literature in virulence, pathogenicity, diagnostics,
etc.
 Parallelism between systems, e.g., vectors, virulence and virulence factors, arms race, etc. do
they all apply?
 Different approaches can be offered in both directions. Ecological approach has a lot to offer.
 Lack of funding in marine disease systems due to economic considerations. Pathogen ID, etc.
requires work with field ecologist to improve investigation.
 Opportunities are at the terrestrial – near shore margin, not farther afield.
II. IS THERE SCOPE FOR COLLABORATION BETWEEN MEDICAL AND MARINE RESEARCH
DISCIPLINES?
27





NOAA Centers Oceans and Human Health Program
o disease aspects and human health;
o training in HABs, human health connectivity;
o training Public Health students in marine science experience in HABs, water quality, etc.;
o UConn example – Public Health School and Marine Sciences School;
o Traineeship grants – requirements to include public health trainers.
Connections with the medical/terrestrial/veterinary scientist community
o Common grounds for ideas and projects;
o Education on the important issues;
o Beach water quality;
o Water–contact illness;
o Fate and transport of pathogens in the marine environment.
“Hydroepidemiology” – the Cholera example
o micro-scale processes;
o macro-scale levels – introductions, dispersal mechanisms, controls, predictive abilities,
transfer of knowledge;
o Cholera examples – two different seasonal processes,
o Requirement needed for basic understanding of causal mechanisms;
o Cholera example – maybe more like marine.
Anthroponosis – reverse zoonosis of Serratia.
Toxoplasma in sea otters.
III. HOW CAN THIS BE FACILITATED?
 Improve training opportunities.
 More funding to support students and research.
 Identify 4-5 crucial disciplines for cross training, force postdoc or grad training in these areas.
 Training grants to postdocs? Biosystems postdocs, environmental biology graduate students?
 Discussions with legislators to increase funding base.
How to facilitate further:
 Disease systems share many underlying processes – Similarity is real.
 Multiple site comparisons of the same system – linking models.
 Combined with environmental observations.
 Ocean observation systems don’t include diseases (difficulty in implementing detection systems
 Frequency of observations is important - need more frequent observations.
 Biosensors – rapid detection, HAB detection (Chris Scholin), cholera, and other pathogens.
 Indian Oceans Observing system and EID Program.
 LTER – and other systems, lack of good coastal.
 Retrospective studies (chytrid fungus example) can be initiated or implemented.
 Adapting existing programs to additional monitoring/surveillance.
 Data needs - need more data on host organisms, right kinds of data (use of correct units and
metadata, raw data?).
 Public skepticism towards science.
28
IV. HOW TO SHARE CONCEPTS TO PUSH THE FIELD OF MARINE DISEASE ECOLOGY
FORWARD?
 National Center for Ecological Synthesis, 10-yr block grant.
 National or Regional Center(s) for Marine Infectious Diseases – coordinating workshops, etc.
 Communication of scientific findings to the shareholders.
 Aldo Leopold Institute or Compass for training of scientists. NSF may want to facilitate training
of PIs in scientific interpretation and advisory work.
 Co-opting resources for additional studies. LTER sites, retrospective studies, local monitoing etc.
 RAPID grant system attuned to outbreaks or emerging phenomena.
V. WHAT ARE THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RESEARCH IN MARINE DISEASE
ECOLOGY AND TERRESTRIAL DISEASE ECOLOGY?
 Types of research present different challenges: estuarine, nearshore, pelagic, deep sea. Spatial
scales, degree of dispersal. Observation and scale.
o How to decide on resource allocations? Tractable or work in more difficult
environments? Risk and expense can be daunting.
 Habitat quality – water quality as a stressor; hidden impacts. Thresholds make it difficult to catch
in time for mitigation.
 Relevance of marine diseases to larger issues. System services and ecosystem function, sentinel
species, fisheries.
VI. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES? AND SIMILARITIES? HOW DO THESE AFFECT
COMPARISONS AND COLLABORATIONS?
 Key is to put together a good interdisciplinary team – circulation, pathology, biology, ecology,
etc.
o Must be conscious of budget limitations;
o Funding level can be limiting for some teams.
 Terrestrial systems are ahead of us. More is known of these systems. (Coral example) Better
communication among groups, focused publications, more money available (agriculture or
public health).
 Causality of disease can be difficult in marine systems – Koch’s postulates cannot always be
fulfilled. This should not negate a proposal, particularly if there is a precedent for causality with
that type of organism.
 Difficult to assemble and get preliminary data before preparing because magnitudes of study can
be much larger. Caribbean wide disease transmission (sea urchin example).
 Marine systems require a larger range in expertise to tackle the cross-disciplinary issues in these
complex systems.
 Modeling systems have a lot of similarities.
 More transfer of knowledge.
 Transition costs for cross training.
 Sharing expertise – creative “accidents”.
 Better communication between groups. Communication between field biologists and modelers,
how to facilitate communications?
 Disease group should provide LTER groups information to establish long term data.
 “Diseases of” books – focus on single species focus. Wikipedia? Susan Bower’s.
29
Sunday, February 13th, 2011
Breakout session II
Session II - Breakout Group 1: Defining EID research
Facilitator: Rachel Noble (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
Rapporteur: Evan Ward (University of Connecticut)
Participants: John Griffith (Southern California Coastal Water Research Project), Laurie Raymundo
(University of Guam Marine Laboratory), Jeff Shields (Virginia Institute of Marine Science), Grieg
Steward (University of Hawaii) Phil Taylor (University of Georgia), Mathias Wegner (Leibniz Institute
of Marine Sciences), and Ernesto Weil (University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez)
I. WHAT IS THE FORMAT OF EID – WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE PROGRAM?
• Predictive models, transmission, life history.
• EID must consider the broader importance, but the science must be sound.
• Are the definitions of the Program sufficient to stimulate more EMID proposals?
• How do we promote EMID work?
II. POSSIBLE CONSTRAINTS
• Not all agents cause disease, but combinations of different agents might cause disease
• Ecology of disease can be modeled to an extent without knowing all of the infectious agents and
satisfying Koch’s postulates.
III. OTHER AVENUES FOR SUPPORT
 EID is not the only NSF Program that could fund disease work – other programs could fund
disease work given the right approach (e.g., Bio Oceanogr., BIO).
 Can we include NOAA to leverage additional funding.
 Rapid Response Research (RAPID) grants and EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research
(EAGER).
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
 Threshold EID grants may be a way to allow more preliminary research on agents that are not
yet clearly defined
o This would embed an exploratory aspect into the EID Program;
o Time scale of development (how much exploratory work needs to be done) needs to be
considered;
o Constraints and structure needs to be considered;
o Would need to have a good theoretical construct but could be lacking in elements such as
full modeling component or ID of an infectious agent, etc.
 Modify EID Synopsis and/or RFP
o Add importance of physical oceanography, environmental modelers, synergisms with
cross cutting disciplines and other techniques to address the appropriate dynamics and
scales;
o Specifically mention circulation and mechanistic models in marine systems are of
interest;
o Add “studies on emerging diseases in marine (aquatic) systems will be considered”.
30


Provide guidance to the EID panel regarding marine / aquatic EID
o Point out limitations and realities regarding ecology of diseases in the marine
environment – differences between clinical and ecological work;
o Explanation about cross disciplinary work might help at the panel level.
Establish a Wiki network for EMID
o E.g., at the NSF.gov wiki: https://extwiki.nsf.gov/signup.action
Session II - Breakout Group 2: Environmental stressors and perturbations (e.g. climate change,
land use, invasive species, water, and sediment pollution)
Facilitator: Paul Hershberger (USGS Marrowstone Marine Field Station)
Rapporteur: Colleen Burge (Cornell University)
Participants: Mark Butler (Old Dominion University), Tracy Collier (Oceans and Human Health
NOAA), Vanessa Ezenwa (University of Georgia), Erin Lipp (University of Georgia), Maille Lyons (Old
Dominion University), Pam Morris (University of South Carolina), Diego Narvaez (Old Dominion
University), Jim Porter (University of Georgia), and Katie Sutherland (Rollins College)
I. HOW ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORS AND PERTURBATIONS MIGHT AFFECT DYNAMICS
AND TRANSMISSION OF MARINE INFECTIOUS DISEASE?
 Historically, disease ecologists have focused on the relationship between the host, pathogen, and
the environment, represented by a Venn diagram, where a change in one or more parts of this
relationship or shifting diagram leads to disease.
 We have recognized that each of these parts can be further defined by several parts or perhaps a
series of circles pushing around. These series of circles represents potential change or nature of
each factor: the host, the pathogen, and the environment.
 Change represented by each of these factors is not homogeneous; in fact there is a spatial
(including refugia) and seasonal scale.
 We compiled a list of factors for each part of the Venn diagram which highlights important
current and future research areas for the host, environment, and the pathogen focusing on
transmission and transmission dynamics:
o The host: variance (genetic, epigenetic, immune), social behavior (i.e. lobsters), life
stage (i.e. larval, juvenile, or adult), life history strategies, i.e.: adult sessile organisms
with dispersal stage of larvae (i.e. shellfish, corals), schooling behavior in fish, colonial
animals (i.e. corals), movement of animals (directly to avoid disease), resistance ,
migration (i.e. crocodiles and other terrestrial animals);
o The environment: temperature (both affects on host and pathogen), salinity, changes in
CO2, turbidity, precipitation, currents, changing food assemblages, habitat loss, affect of
MPA on disease contaminants (sediments, oil, endocrine disruptors, nitrogen etc),
biodiversity, loss of predators, fishing: loss of larger size classes, and how fishing affects
disease; changes in organic particles, composition, and concentrations, such as after big
rains, where concentration of organic particulates suspended in the water coming from
runoff increases significantly and “rains” on sessile organisms. These particulates
certainly carry a lot of bacteria and potential pathogens.
o The pathogen: variance (genetic, virulence), diversity, transmission strategy, interaction
of transmission with environment, spatial scale.
II. CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS IMPACT ON DISEASE DYNAMICS AND TRANSMISSION
31



Climate change will have an effect on disease, as disease will precede hypothermia, although
each host-pathogen relationship may be impacted differently by climate change.
Climate change will have a large affect on run-off and infrastructure. For example, rising sea
water will change many coastal zones and cause increased flooding which we are not equipped
for. This type of increased flooding has other impacts such as: sediment pollution, including
contaminants, pathogens (toxoplasma in sea otters), cysts (i.e. harmful algae blooms), and
contaminants (oil, endocrine disruptors, antibiotics, nitrogen etc).
Increased hurricanes may also have an impact as hurricanes cause a major impact on sediment
disbursement and re-suspension.
III. DISEASE TRANSMISSION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
 As a planet and nation, we are focusing on ocean observing systems but not on health and
disease of aquatic organisms. More data is needed to better understand the affects of disease on
our ecosystems, including refugia and scale, and the affects of human caused change such as
climate change, invasive species, and habitat modification.
 Disease and disease transmission should be affecting management strategy, and there should be
an emphasis in the fisheries management community as this has both human health and resource
implications. Disease research has informed management, for example, in fisheries affected by
Hematodinium, instead of culling animals on the boat, bringing the affected animals to shore
leads to a decreased number of crab infected with Hematodinium. There are other research areas
where EMID research may inform fisheries and aquaculture. For example, slot limits or
maximum size limits may be important to maintain less susceptible individuals for reproduction
and disease resistance (i.e. younger individuals often more affected by disease). In aquaculture,
we are often selecting specific stocks or limiting biodiversity. Promoting poly-culture may
mitigate disease; poly-culture is also a more sustainable practice.
 MPAs may also provide insight on how biodiversity may protect against disease.
 Management strategies and research focuses from the terrestrial environment should also be
reviewed for relevance and ideas for management of disease in marine world.
Session II - Breakout Group 3A: Bringing the right people to the table
Facilitator: James Bowen (University of North Carolina at Charlotte)
Rapporteur: Helena Solo-Gabrielle (University of Miami)
Participants: Erin Bromage (University of Massachessetts at Dartmouth), Peter Johnson (USDA –
National Institute of Food and Agriculture), Lisa Plano (University of Miami), and Rebecca Vega
Thurber (Florida International University)
I. HAVE WE SUCCEEDED IN BRINGING THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO THE TABLE FOR EID
WORK? WHAT EXPERTISE IS MISSING? WHAT TRAINING IS MISSING?
 Who might be missing?
o EID research requires an integrated systems approach. The marine environment is especially
complex given disease transmission through water. Evaluating the appropriate level of
complexity needed to fully understand transmission and transport of infectious agents is
essential to more efficiently increase the predictive accuracy of models.
o Scientists who focus on understanding host response
- What is missing? Evolution of host response; intermediate host response between
dead and alive; nutrition effects on host, etc.
32
-
Who is missing? Veterinarians and invertebrate/vertebrate biologists for animal
hosts; medical researchers trained in epidemiology and infectious diseases for human
hosts.
o Scientists who focus on understanding the pathogen
- What is missing? Mechanisms of pathogenesis ignored or inadequately addressed;
multiple pathogen caused diseases.
- Who is missing? Polymicrobial scientists, microbiologists, medical researchers
trained in infectious diseases.
o Scientists who focus on understanding the environment
- What is missing? Understand how infectious disease-causing microbes are
transported.
- Who is missing? Transport modelers, oceanographers of all sorts, system biologists.
o Social scientists to understand and incorporate local community needs in the project, and to
focus on proper dissemination and translation of findings to the public.
II. DISEASE TRIAD (Pathogen, Environment, Host)
 Participants
o Pathogen – Lisa Plano, Becky Vega Thurber
o Environment – Jim Bowen, Helena Solo-Gabrielle
o Host- Erin Bromage, Peter Johnson
 Expertise Needed
o Pathogen (Physicians, Microbiologists, Modelers)
o Environment (Modelers, Systems Biologists, Oceanographers - physical, chemical, and
biological)
o Host (Physicians, Physiologists, Biologists, and Veterinarians)
o Additionally, social scientists and outreach and marketing of ideas and research
- Examples: social scientists interacting with the public to minimize the health effects
from mercury; inclusion of anthropologists in LTER project to develop surveys to
understand the community viewpoints.
III. CONSTRAINTS THAT LIMIT COLLABORATION
 Institutional values
o PI should do rather than facilitate
o Money should be kept in-house
o Co-PIs not valued relative to PIs
 Educational mission of universities
o Industries hire the expert, universities teach the novices
 Collaboration expectations expressed in RFPs
o e.g. modelers in EID projects
 Knowing who is out there
o EID Match.com – hard to bring the right person to the table given our limited knowledge of
the research community
 Schedules and budgets are limited
o Collaborations take time
o Interdisciplinary marine field-work based research is very expensive
33
IV. SOME HOPEFUL SIGNS
 Funding agencies are encouraging collaboration
o Workshops
 Inter-agency collaboration given the complexity of the field
o USDA, NSF, NIH, NOAA, EPA
 Interagency programs encouraged by federal agency
V. HOW TO BUILD COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH CLIMATE?
 Cross-train graduate students and post-docs
o Workshops, capstone projects, an EID fellowship program to promote cross-training across
laboratories, short term stays with other researchers.
 Follow NCES (National Center of Education Statistics) as an example.
Session II - Breakout Group 3B: Bringing the right people to the table
Facilitator: Anwar Huq (University of Maryland)
Rapporteur: Marilyn Brandt (University of the Virgin Islands)
Participants: Mya Breitbart (University of South Florida), Jason Graph (University of Rhode Island),
Drew Harvell (Cornell University), and Priscilla Viana (National Science Foundation)
I. HAVE WE SUCCEEDED IN BRINGING THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO THE TABLE FOR EID
WORK? WHAT EXPERTISE IS MISSING? WHAT TRAINING IS MISSING?
 Who is missing?
o Medical doctors, Veterinary doctors, Fisheries pathologists;
o Physical, chemical, biological oceanographers;
o Polymicrobial (consortia) disease scientists;
o Land-sea interface scientists (hydrologists);
o Representation by all funding agencies with potential interests.
II. DISEASE TRIAD (HOST, PATHOGEN, PROCESS)
 Host Processes:
o When we talk about host, primarily we mean humans and animals, but also plants;
o We need to understand host biology, host population dynamics, disease interaction with
different life cycle stages and host immunological response;
o Knowledge of genetics and genetic connectivity would also enhance the understanding of
the processes within and among hosts. We note that fisheries diagnosticians and breeders
have a lot of expertise to share. At the workshop, however, we noticed barely any
representation of human disease experts, i.e., medical researchers trained in infectious
diseases. and certainly a need for more representation by veterinary animal disease
experts (DVM’s).
 Pathogen Processes:
o In order to understand the pathogenicity of an organism or organisms, we need to know
pathogen biology, population dynamics, and how pathogenicity expression interacts with
different life cycle stages;
o Understanding the causes and consequences of the expression of virulence factors and
how the environment can influence virulence is also necessary. Those pathogens that
survive or reside outside the host, human, animal or plant, need a favorable environment
34

for their persistence and multiplication to be able to continue infecting and causing
disease;
o Understanding what contributes to a favorable environment for pathogen persistence and
what mechanisms allow the pathogen to persist outside the host is also necessary.
Infectious dose of a specific pathogen may vary significantly among individuals,
suggesting a role for multi-pathogen interaction or consortiums of pathogens in the
disease process;
o Therefore, it is important to develop appropriate diagnostic tools and methodologies to
identify target organisms or groups of organisms capable of producing disease
independently or collectively;
o Although pathogens are often present in the environment or even inside the host, they can
remain undetected because of their physiological condition. Viable but non-culturable
phenomenon, i.e., not cultivable bacterial cells on conventional culture media, are
capable of producing disease and must be recognized. Therefore, improved tools and
methods for detection and diagnosis of non-culturable pathogens are needed;
o The group felt that there was not adequate representation for multi-pathogen interaction
(consortiums) at the meeting.
Environmental processes:
o We need a better understanding of how environment influences host and pathogen
population dynamics;
o To understand how disease propagates through the environment, we need to know the
transport mechanism of both host and pathogens, particularly when involving the marine
environment;
o The influence of environment, i. e., impact of environmental factors on host susceptibility
and pathogen virulence, is an important component when studying the ecology of
infectious diseases. Chemical properties of the water and ocean currents that are both
influenced by climate and changes in climate play an important role in the spread and
transmission of disease. Therefore, we feel that more representation by physical,
chemical and biological oceanographers was needed in the group;
o Other areas we discussed were the role of modelers, and we identified two distinct
groups: (1) modelers studying and capturing the dynamics of the physical environment
that influence disease transmission; and (2) modelers that study and define the disease
dynamics within and among populations (SIR focused, i.e., use an epidemiological model
to relate Susceptible, Infectious and Recovered organisms). It is extremely important that
investigators coordinate and interact with modelers at the beginning of the project in
order to formulate a well integrated proposal, contribute to the designing of data
collection methods as well as throughout the duration of the project to coordinate data
inputs and not just at the termination of the project when all the data collection has been
completed and may not be appropriate for modeling;
o Interaction with local managers and public health agencies should also be encouraged to
facilitate development of useful predictive tools and science-based management
protocols.
III. WEB PORTAL FOR DATA
 We also felt data from projects should be shared and archived in appropriate data center(s) with a
web portal created for purposes of disseminating information. For instance, a system would be
35



very useful that would coordinate with monitoring programs to produce long term and quality
data to help other projects involving environmental monitoring and disease monitoring.
There should be a consideration of creating data bases of all existing monitoring programs.
Funding agencies should support data synthesis and a framework for model intercomparison.
Development of a website to enhance the ability of scientists to initiate professional
collaborations as part of the EID Program would be useful.
IV. IMPEDIMENTS TO A SUCCESSFUL EID PROGRAM
 How to expand the pie of resources?
o More funds in biological oceanography could be dedicated for basic research in marine
disease;
o More interagency collaboration could be sought among NIH, NSF, NOAA, USDA and
EPA:
- We need to motivate why this is important and why funding agencies should care –
we need to articulate this need through white papers, presentations etc.;
- We need to motivate agencies so that they perceive the importance of an integrated
funding program and become interested in joining.
 We should entice more physical oceanographers and then the physical oceanography division
could also contribute to EID projects. This would also broaden the physical oceanographers
effort in teaming up with other scientists in order to advance ocean and health science.
 More projects are needed focusing on the land-sea margin.
 In conjunction with expanding the pie:
o We need more panelists in the EID panel with marine background. Panelists need to be
sensitive to conceptual differences of pathogen dynamics and transmission between
marine and terrestrial systems;
o We recommend a percentage of funds be specifically dedicated to marine diseases in the
EID Program;
o Cross training graduate students, post-docs, and early career scientists should be
encouraged to strengthen the EMID community, and opportunities for fisheries disease
biologists to interact with other components;
o A new concept of “hydro-epidemiology” is suggested to address issues related to “Ocean
and Health”.
Session II - Breakout Group 4: Limitations in model development
Facilitator: Shafiqul Islam
Rapporteur: John Lagier
Participants: Greta Aeby (Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology), Anna Bass (University of New England),
Alan Hastings (University of California Davis), Eileen Hofmann (Old Dominion University), Mercedes
Pascual (University of Michigan), and Jill Stewart (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
I. ISSUES LIMITING MODEL DEVELOPMENT OF DISEASE IN MARINE/COASTAL SYSTEMS
(E.G., SCALE; INTEGRATION BETWEEN CIRCULATION MODELS AND LABORATORY
EXPERIMENTS; FIELD AND REMOTE SENSING SATELLITE DATA)
 We recognize the lack of data BUT what is “Adjacent Possible for Marine community” that can
ask tractable questions to be answered (e.g., credible transport modeling from physical
36



oceanography is possible while our knowledge of microbial ecology for marine infectious
diseases need further exploration).
Lack of human capacity: Training is needed in different kinds of modeling approaches (develop
curriculum, recruit students, develop common vocabulary).
Explorations using simple models: Need to explore diverse ideas in the early stages of model
development; early in the research process use models to explore ideas; later use models to
synthesize understanding and to forecast (different models for different purposes). We do not
know enough yet to develop sophisticated/complex community model. Note value of two
model types: bottom-up mechanistic model (e.g., marine ecology), top-down pattern driven
model (e.g., epidemiology).
Lack of basic data: Need data to put values on parameters in model and/or data on outcome
patterns against which one can test the model. Preliminary models can suggest what data to
collect. Conceptual models - if inadequate knowledge of biology precludes mechanistic model,
one can still model pattern (from which one can deduce mechanism). Use physical
oceanography (transport models) to formulate hypotheses – link transport model to observed
pattern, deduce biology (e.g., toxoplasmosis and sea otters). The EMID community is at stage of
“understanding processes”, not yet at “forecasting”. Need some commitment to long-term data
collection (e.g., disease LTER).
II. WHAT BIOLOGICAL/PHYSICAL/EPIDEMIOLOGICAL QUESTIONS TO ASK?
 Can we use atmospheric community approach (NCAR Community climate models vs. Lorenz
simple model)? Another way to think about it is: Exploratory vs. Operational models.
 How to integrate multi-scale models? We need to create a balance between “parameter based
mechanistic understanding” VS “pattern based mechanistic understanding”.
 What monitoring/data are needed to refine/validate model?
 Clarification of the disease question: Why do you want to model? What is the question? Focus
on prototype system – classes of systems – Can we identify “classes of systems” (e.g., Oyster in
Chesapeake Bay) and/or “different transmission mechanisms” to examine and identify broad and
perhaps generalizable patterns? Ask multiple questions about one system. Strike balance
between understanding based on rate variables versus understanding based on state variables
(population level versus individual level).
III. ACTIONABLE ITEMS
 Develop a research community and human capacity over 5 years (e.g., 5-year RCN based on
community participation; develop workshops where the scientific community can really interact,
including non-funded researchers).
 Develop workshops & summer schools for cross-training with different focus each year (e.g.,
modeling, transport, host intrinsic dynamics).
 Create “synergy” among sponsors (NSF, NOAA, NIH, etc.) within the context of
“monitoring/data collection”, “funding of different components of diseases in the marine
environment”. Create a link with NOAA OHH Program – interagency effort.
 Develop a synthesis of current knowledge base in micro- and macro-scale processes. For
example, a synthesis of epidemiological studies coupled with macro-scale hydrologic and
climatic processes is needed to systematically connect pathogen strains with environmental
sources and pathways which can lead to a “new” sub-discipline: Hydroepidemiology.
37

Reduce up-front requirements – fund both multi-investigator and smaller single-PI grants. Make
RFP less “prescriptive” to allow marine community to compete. Currently, the EMID
community is at the level of “understanding of processes” NOT at the “forecasting level”. There
are several marine groups that do not submit grant proposals because they do not have the
required components; EID should encourage DIVERSITY of proposals, and support smaller
grants (e.g., exploratory or operational modeling).
38