Haynes et al. Appalachia is significantly higher than for the U.S. as a whole (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2002; Halverson et al. 2004; Wingo et al. 2008). This con­ cern about cancer was also mirrored in the CAB, but not to the same degree as in the survey. One likely reason for this difference is that the academic research team discussed the known health effects associated with Mn exposure with the CAB on multiple occasions (meetings, phone conversations). The infor­ mation shared included that although Mn is known to cause DNA damage, it does not pose a significant carcinogenic risk (Desoize 2003), thus reducing, but not eliminating their concern about cancer. It should also be noted that Washington County had a higher cancer incidence rate for all sites and types combined compared with the U.S. population from 2001 through 2005 (509.3 vs. 467.4 per 100,000, respectively) (Ohio Department of Health 2008), so fear of cancer in the com­ munity is a valid concern. During the consen­ sus process of selecting the primary research question, we discussed that although all research questions presented were valid, they could not all be addressed in a single epide­ miologic study and that further studies would be needed to address each research idea. Through the communityw­ide survey, the community was able to express their interest in participating in a research study. The vast majority of participants reported being likely or extremely likely to participate in a research study (≥ 77%) and to allow their child to par­ ticipate in a research study (≥ 63%). We did not further investigate the reasons for their likeliness to participate; however, given their high level of concern about Mn and air quality and their perception that the air quality has a direct impact on their and their children’s health, their enthusiasm is not surprising. The community­perceived leading barri ­ ers to improving local air quality were impact on the economy, lack of enforcement from government (federal and state), and a lack of research related to identifying the relationship between air quality and health. It was interest­ ing to note the “other” comments, such as “apathy,” “malaise,” and a “feeling of helpless­ ness.” These thoughts may be typical of under­ served populations. Environmental groups, such as OCA and NCA, provide the opportu­ nity for both increased understanding of envi­ ronmental issues and engagement in solutions to community environmental problems. The most trusted and perceived most knowledgeable source on risks of local industrial emissions was research scientists. Unfortunately, the community reported receiv­ ing very little information about these risks from research scientists. These findings high­ light the current disconnect between researchers and community members while reinforcing the 1370 need for more researcher–community mem­ ber interaction. Communicating science to lay audiences has always been a challenge (Bucchi and Neresini 2004; Condit 2004; Condit et al. 2004; Howel et al. 2003; Parrott et al. 2004; Popay and Williams 1996). Research scientists receive very little, if any, training in communicating their research findings to com­ munity members. Given that the community was very interested in learning more about the health risks of Mn exposure (87% responded that they wanting to know more), research scientists need to identify effective commu­ nication strategies to disseminate their find­ ings into the communities where they conduct their research. It may be advantageous for research scientists to work with effective risk communication sources within communities, such as environmental groups, Web sites, and media. Our survey respondents did not include information sources, such as public health officials or schools, although we did include teachers. These may also be potential risk com­ munication sources through which research scientists can effectively communicate their research findings. Environmental groups were regarded as highly knowledgeable, highly trusted, and the leading source of information received about risks from local industrial emissions. We did not inquire further into which environmental groups (local or national) were perceived as such; however, both OCA and NCA were highly active in the community before and during the time of the survey, which probably contributed to this finding. Respondents trust physicians as a source of information on risks associated with indus­ trial emissions. This finding is consistent with others that the public has a high level of trust in clinicians to provide environmental health risk information, yet clinicians are often ill equipped to discuss environmental health risks with patients (Chai et al. 2001; Miller and Solomon 2003; Trasande et al. 2010; Wilson et al. 2000). Clinicians are uniquely positioned to address environmental health risks with vulnerable populations, yet there are limited educational tools for training cli­ nicians in environmental health (Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics 2011; ATSDR 2010), and many clinicians do not know where to access this information. It is worth noting that the chemical industry officials are also viewed to be highly knowledgeable; however, they were also the least trusted information source. The community­wide survey was con ­ ducted using a nonrandom sampling strategy. Our survey did not reach every community member, and every community member who received it may not have completed it, thus introducing nonresponse bias. In a study of 311 recruiter–applicant pairs, Goldberg (2003) found no difference in the outcome variables for the respondents compared with nonrespondents, so our survey is likely repre­ sentative of the community. Academic–community partnership. One of the ultimate goals was to develop a strong partnership between the academic research team institution and the community. One measure of the success of this goal is our codevelopment and award of two NIEHS­ funded research projects: a CBPR award [Marietta Community Actively Researching Exposure Study (CARES)] and a PIR award described in “Materials and Methods.” Although an unmeasured outcome of our partnership that is possibly coincidental, it is worth noting that EMI, Inc. invited NCA for a facet­of­ace meeting a couple of weeks after the press release of our CBPR study award (February 2008). EMI, Inc. management now provides NCA with regular updates on their processes and emissions. Other potential influential factors for this change in approach with the community included the OCA–NCA Good Neighbor Campaign, which included writing letters to EMI, Inc. (Marietta, OH) management, posting yard signs throughout the community, and canvassing doort­od­oor; a change in management within EMI, Inc. in 2007; and negative press after the involvement of one of its employees in the first time a local citizen group (NCA) was banned from partici­ pating in the local Labor Day parade in 2007. The NIEHS awards provided financial assistance to NCA and employment oppor­ tunities for the community. In the case of the PIR award, a portion of the grant was to be distributed directly to the community part­ ner, in this case NCA. Although this proved challenging for a small group of citizens who did not have official nonprofit status, it did provide some independence related to proj­ ect expenditures. Through the CBPR grant (Marietta CARES), we were able to provide several employment opportunities for com­ munity residents: one full­time position, seven part­time positions, and two positions for graduate students from Marietta College. Community members holding these posi­ tions received job­related training, such as neurodevelopmental testing, biological sam­ ple collection, study conduct, protection of human subjects, and home environmental sampling. Another training opportunity afforded through the PIR award consists of development of “science advocates,” a train­ ing program to enhance the scientific capac­ ity of NCA members through workshops of their choice, such as “All about Modeling Air for Manganese,” “All about Air Sampling,” and “Air Particles and Health” (Ryan 2010). The latter workshop was developed into an online educational module for use by local journalists and community members. This ovlume 119 | number 10 | October 2011 • Environmental Health Perspectives