Interviewed on November 26th, 2024
Biography
Prof. Dr. Tamara Tal leads the Mechanistic Toxicology Group in the Chemicals in the Environment Research Section (CITE) at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ. She also holds a Professorship in Integrated Systems Toxicology in the Medical Faculty at the University of Leipzig. Prior to joining the UFZ in 2019, Tamara was a Principal Investigator at the United States Environmental Protection Agency in the Office of Research and Development. Tamara completed postdoctoral fellowships in the labs of Dr. Robyn Tanguay (Oregon State University) and Dr. Stephanie Padilla (EPA) and earned a doctorate in toxicology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill under the mentorship of Dr. James Samet. Tamara’s research group develops new approach methods for developmental and adult neurotoxicity endpoints and works to resolve underlying mechanisms by which widely occurring pollutants alter neurobehavioral development in early life stage zebrafish.
How did you get interested in Toxicology?
I developed a deep appreciation for the environment while attending Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in South Florida, named after the renowned Everglades conservationist. Later, at the University of Central Florida, I had a wide range of interests—from psychology to biology, and even fine arts. But what really set me on the path toward toxicology was a book I read called Virus Hunters of the CDC. That really sparked an interest in a life of public service at a Federal Research Institute. For graduate school, I chose UNC because of its close relationship with the U.S. EPA. My vision was to become a research scientist dedicated to supporting the EPA’s mission of improving human health and the environment. I thought that would be a really fulfilling reason to go to work every day.
Can you tell us about your life at UNC and CiTEM?
At UNC, I had the opportunity to do all of my lab rotations at the EPA, which was a great experience. For my dissertation research, I joined James Samet’s lab, located on the UNC campus but part of the EPA’s human studies facility. My work focused on altered signaling mechanisms following exposure to different components of air pollution. That period of my life in graduate school was incredibly invigorating. I really enjoyed being in the UNC toxicology curriculum, and I met so many peers who are still active in the field today. There’s a strong, global community of UNC toxicology alumni, and that network is one of the reasons I enjoy going to conferences—I’m always running into people from UNC, EPA, or NIEHS. This area is really an epicenter for toxicology research, and it’s a wonderful place to be a student and learn how to become a toxicologist.
Can you tell us more about your career trajectory after PhD?
As I neared graduation, I realized I wanted to expand beyond airway epithelial cells and work with whole organisms, where I could look at various cell types and tissues in response to toxic exposures. I moved to Oregon State University for my first postdoc with Robin Tanguay, who was instrumental in establishing zebrafish as a model for toxicology studies. There, I learned so much about the power of the zebrafish model and everything that’s possible–from advanced phenotyping to automated behavior analysis and genetic engineering. After my time at Oregon State (OSU), I was lucky to continue my postdoctoral work with Stephanie Padilla at the U.S. EPA. There, I had the opportunity to explore zebrafish screening research in a government setting, which was a completely different experience from what I’d been used to at OSU. My focus there was on developing high-content assays to screen for vascular toxicants. It was a great learning experience in terms of adapting academic research to more structured, regulatory frameworks.
At the same time, I started thinking about the role of the microbiome in toxicology. I applied for an internal grant to establish a microbiome-based test system using zebrafish, and this was when I got involved in microbiome research. I learned how to create a gnotobiotic, microbiome-free environment for the fish from John Rawls and Ted Espenschied at Duke and developed a system to study how the presence or absence of a microbiome might mediate the toxicity of environmental chemicals. This was cutting-edge research at the time, and it was exciting to explore how the microbiome can influence toxicity responses in such a dynamic model like zebrafish.
By the time I had spent a few years as a postdoc, I was ready to move into the next phase of my career. I was really fortunate to transition to independence as a principal investigator at the U.S. EPA. This was a huge milestone for me—I started my own lab and took on the responsibility of proposing and running mission-oriented research projects. At the EPA, my lab focused on understanding whether the microbiome plays a role in mediating the toxicity of various chemicals, particularly using the zebrafish model. We also started to focus on the growing need for research into PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), which were becoming a major concern for the agency.
After about four years at the EPA, I made the decision to move my group internationally to the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) in Leipzig, Germany. My group at UFZ still focuses on neurobehavioral toxicology and microbiome research in zebrafish, with the same goal of understanding how environmental exposures, especially chemicals, impact human health, particularly through the lens of neurodevelopment. So, while the location and setting have changed, the focus of my work has remained consistent, and I’m excited about the research we’re doing here.
What is it like to work in Europe?
I work at the UFZ, which focuses on promoting environmental health, so it feels like the perfect fit for me. I’m part of a research unit called Chemicals in the Environment, which consists of seven departments with expertise ranging from toxicology and environmental monitoring to computational research and high-throughput screening. It’s an exciting and interdisciplinary space to work in.
Beyond the research itself, the work-life balance in Europe is something I really appreciate. We get 30 vacation days a year, and everyone takes them—students included. There’s a strong emphasis on maintaining a rich life outside of work. Parental leave is also quite generous; many of my colleagues take a full year off when they have a child. It’s refreshing to be in a system that values both scientific progress and personal well-being.
Another advantage is the accessibility of travel. Since everything is well-connected by train, attending conferences and collaborating with researchers across Europe is easy. European funding also supports large, interdisciplinary projects, which has significantly expanded my professional network.
Of course, there are challenges, like the language barrier. While my research institute mostly operates in English, German is widely spoken in daily life, especially in East Germany where I am based. I’ve been taking German lessons and making progress, but my kids have picked it up much faster than I have.
Overall, doing research in Europe has been an incredible experience. It’s a place that truly supports science while also promoting a healthy and balanced lifestyle.
Can you briefly describe your current role and responsibilities?
I lead a research group, which is similar to a principal investigator role in the U.S. My group consists of 11 people, including a postdoc, five PhD students, a technician, and several master’s students. A significant part of my job involves project management—supporting students and trainees to conduct rigorous research on important scientific questions.
Another major responsibility is securing grant funding. While my own position and the technician’s salary are covered by the institute, all other positions rely on third-party funding. So, writing grant proposals is a constant part of my work.
Additionally, I hold a professorship in Integrated Systems Toxicology at the University of Leipzig. It doesn’t come with teaching requirements, but it allows me to confer PhD degrees to my students. I do occasionally teach in master’s courses, mainly on topics related to new approach methods for neurotoxicity testing and the microbiome, but it’s more of a guest lecturer role rather than a heavy classroom teaching.
Overall, my role is a mix of research leadership, project management, funding acquisition, mentoring, and occasional hands-on lab work—plus a bit of teaching.
What is the least favorite part of what you do?
I’m a pretty optimistic person, so I try not to dwell on the negatives. Of course, there are challenges—like when experiments don’t work, a grant proposal gets rejected, or my flight is canceled for the third time in two months and I can’t get home. These things happen, but I don’t let them get me down.
Overall, I feel incredibly lucky to have a job that’s creative, fun, and constantly exciting. I get to work with brilliant young scientists who bring fresh ideas, which is a privilege. If I had to point out something negative, it would be the workload. To be successful, the demands keep growing—you’re not just writing grants to run your lab anymore, but you’re also taking on more and more service roles for your institute and the broader research community. It’s like you start with one job, and before you know it, you’re juggling 15. The relentless avalanche of work can be tough to manage, but I also find it rewarding. So even though it can be overwhelming at times, I still feel fortunate to do what I do.
What do you think is the key to your career success?
I’d say a combination of hard work and being in the right place at the right time. You really can’t underestimate the role that luck plays in life. But beyond that, I think taking risks is also essential. Lastly, I wouldn’t have been nearly as successful—nor had the privilege of bringing my research program to another country—without working alongside some truly incredible people. From the very beginning, I’ve had the chance to mentor and collaborate with outstanding trainees and students. Their remarkable contributions to science have not only been rewarding to witness but have also helped open doors for me. So, in many ways, my success is also a reflection of the amazing people I’ve had the opportunity to work with.
How is it different working at a government agency and academia?
There are some pretty stark differences between the two. For example, within government, the level of scrutiny really depends on which part of the government you’re working in. If you’re in a regulatory agency like the EPA, there’s generally much more oversight compared to a research-focused organization like the NIEHS, which doesn’t make regulations.
At the EPA, you have to be really good at planning and justification. You can’t just conduct experiments for the sake of it—you need to have a research plan that aligns with the current strategy, whether it’s for short-term management needs or long-term, higher-risk research. You have to articulate your ideas clearly and convince people that your research is worth pursuing. Once you get approval, there can be a lot of resources and time for interesting projects, but everything needs to be well-documented and justified, like animal use protocols and data analysis plans. This structure often leads to very rigorous and reproducible science that benefits society at large.
Some of the challenges are that the funding available for government research is more limited, and you also need to stay responsive to agency needs.
My current position offers more creative freedom compared to my previous role at the EPA. We still have a research action plan to follow on a seven-year renewable cycle, and we need to secure third-party funding, but we also have internal funding available. Similar to the EPA, we need to come up with creative ways to move science forward and convince people of our ideas.
The biggest change, however, is how my research group is funded. Unlike the EPA, where funding is more restrictive and internal, here we have more flexibility in securing third-party funding, though it still needs to align with the mission of our research institute. Overall, both government and academic-adjacent research have their pros and cons, but the key difference lies in the level of creative freedom and the types of funding available.
What do you think is the most valuable skill you gained from your time at UNC?
I think the most valuable thing I gained at UNC was a deep appreciation and passion for being a public health scientist. Because the program is in the form of a curriculum rather than confined to a single department, I was exposed to a wide variety of public health and environmental health research and gained many different perspectives. I remember our weekly seminars, where we would hear a completely new topic each time, often from completely different areas of toxicological research. That really opened my eyes to how diverse and interesting science can be, and how much of it has direct public health relevance.
From a skills perspective, I feel very fortunate to have been a graduate student at UNC. The training I received on how to communicate science effectively, both orally and in writing, was invaluable. The curriculum prepared us especially well in areas like public speaking. I had a public speaking course with Stephanie Padilla for four semesters, and although I was terrified of presenting during my first couple of years, I now genuinely enjoy giving presentations. My graduate advisor, James Samet, taught me how to communicate scientific concepts clearly in written form. Both of these skills have been fundamental advantages for me.
Flexibility and adaptability are also important skills I learned at UNC. There’s so much science out there, and I learned how to approach problems from many different angles. When things didn’t go as planned, I also had access to a community of experts who could help me with diverse perspectives. That ability to adapt and seek out help is something I definitely carry with me today.
What is a piece of advice you would give to graduate students or postdocs, knowing what you know now?
I would say, take a step back and look around. When you’re deep into a project and things aren’t going well, or when you feel like graduation is far off and the end goal seems unclear, it can feel isolating and overwhelming. In those moments, it’s important to reconnect with why you started this journey in the first place—whether it’s your love of discovery or whatever initially brought you to the bench. Use that passion to fuel you and keep moving forward.
I also think it’s crucial to lean on your peers. My fellow graduate students and postdocs were incredible sources of energy and support. Graduate school and postdocs aren’t easy—there are personal and professional costs that come with these paths. But in the end, I truly believe you’re setting yourself up for an exciting life and career where you get to be creative every day, work in a challenging environment, and contribute to a mission that personally motivates you. It’s a journey worth sticking with.
About the interviewer: Brian Pyo is a 2nd year PhD trainee in the Curriculum in Toxicology and Environmental Medicine at UNC-Chapel Hill. He works in the laboratory of Dr. Matthew Redinbo where he studies how gut microbial enzymes affect xenobiotic metabolism and contribute to drug-induced toxicity. Outside the lab, he enjoys watching movies, playing tennis, cooking, baking, and brewing coffee with his manual espresso machine.
