From Scholarship to Policy: Dr. Aisha Dickerson on Testifying in Maryland

An interview with Aisha S. Dickerson, Ph.D., MSPH

Dr. Aisha S. Dickerson, Ph.D., MSPH, is an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. An environmental neuroepidemiologist, she studies how environmental and occupational exposures, including toxic metals, affect neurological health across the life course, with research spanning autism spectrum disorder, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cognitive aging, and dementia.

Dr. Dickerson is an Affiliated Scholar of the All Life Institute, which connects academics across disciplines with opportunities to bring their expertise to public policy and animal protection campaigns. In 2026, through the Center for a Humane Economy’s Getting the Lead Out campaign, she testified in person before both the Maryland Senate and House on SB 181 and HB 1067, which were introduced as measures to phase out lead ammunition in hunting. It was her first experience testifying before a legislature in her role as a scientist. Her testimony drew on both her scientific expertise and her personal experience coming from an Alabama hunting family.

Your research looks at how environmental exposures to toxicants can affect neurological health across the life span, sometimes years after an exposure occurs. Taking the example of lead ammunition in hunting, how has that shaped the way you think about prevention?

Dr. Dickerson: Public health revolves around preventing disease rather than trying to fix the problem once a disease manifests. That’s how we differ from medicine. Because the diseases that lead can increase risk of often aren’t noticed until long after the original exposure, this is a toxicant that is a priority for health protection and disease prevention.

What has your own research contributed to our understanding of lead exposure, and what does the broader scientific evidence tell us about its implications for human health at different stages of life?

Dr. Dickerson: Much of my research has indicated that people in lower-income communities have higher lead body burdens attributed to air pollution and water contamination. We have also reported more behavioral deficits in children of mothers who had higher blood lead levels during pregnancy and increased odds of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis for men occupationally exposed to lead several years before their diagnosis. Overall, what the data have shown is that lead accumulates over time and can impact health across the life course, so it deserves our attention.

Your research is primarily about human health rather than wildlife. What does lead exposure from hunting ammunition tell us about the connections between environmental health, wildlife health, and human health?

Dr. Dickerson: Because lead particulates can disperse when a gun is fired, not only is the person firing the gun exposed, but the area around where they fired the gun and anything they touch before washing their hands can become contaminated. Studies have proven for years that carnivorous, scavenging wildlife accumulate lead from eating carcasses of animals killed with lead ammunition. The same can be said for humans, as any lead-contaminated meat consumed can also contribute to accumulated lead body burden in humans.

How did you first become involved with the All Life Institute Scholar Network and the Center for a Humane Economy’s Getting the Lead Out campaign? What was different about having a network that could connect your expertise to a concrete policy opportunity?

Dr. Dickerson: I was contacted to provide expert testimony on the hazards of lead exposure. I became interested once I learned that hunters were encouraged to donate meat to food banks, which means that families receiving these donations would be unaware of their potential lead exposures. I am constantly looking for ways to improve public health. Unfortunately, as an academic I publish a lot of research papers that are unlikely to ever be read by the lay public. However, community engagement and expert testimonies give me the opportunity to have actual impact on health promotion.

You had trained in science communication before joining this campaign, but you had never testified in a legislative hearing. When you were asked to testify before the Maryland Senate and House, what were your thoughts and how did you prepare for that first experience?

Dr. Dickerson: My first steps were to check with Hopkins to make sure I wasn’t violating any policies. I learned that if I did not participate in any lobbying and was clear that my statements were mine, and not reflective of the views of Hopkins, I was okay. I prepared by reviewing the training videos and documents I had previously been provided then practicing with colleagues who had testified before.

“I was much more excited about testifying than writing another manuscript that may have no meaningful impact on change for potentially 5-10 years.”

Dr. Aisha Dickerson

What was it like to sit before legislators and testify as a scientist? Did anything surprise you about the hearing process or the way scientific evidence was received? And did the Senate and House hearings feel different?

Dr. Dickerson: I was surprised by how long we had to wait to be heard. It seemed like most legislators’ minds were made up before we got there, and any who were on the fence were contacted afterwards. I’m not totally convinced that my presence that day made as much of an impact on the legislators, but I appreciated the opportunity to get to hear the viewpoints of the opposing side while I was waiting to testify. I was also surprised that I spent all day waiting to talk to the Senate, and they didn’t even bother to vote on it this year.

Academic research can be highly technical, while legislative testimony has to be accessible to people with very different backgrounds. How did you make the science understandable to a non-scientific audience?

Dr. Dickerson: I made a point of not spouting off numbers and statistics that might confuse people. I typically avoid scientific jargon when I speak to the lay public, and this seemed especially important in this instance. I also tried to highlight research on populations that people tend to value the most: children and pregnant women.

You grew up in Alabama in a family of hunters, and you’ve talked about convincing your father, brother, cousins, and family friends to move away from lead ammunition. What ultimately persuaded them, and did that experience influence how you communicated with lawmakers?

Dr. Dickerson: Ultimately, they were more convinced that copper was better due to its perceived accuracy. Lead mitigation was just icing on the cake, and once they were able to purchase copper bullets at the store, they were sold. When my colleagues communicate the importance of public health measures to lawmakers, they tend to point out the economic benefits to draw them in. In my discussions with my family and the hunters testifying for the opposing side, the economic cost of acquiring ammunition made with different alloys seemed to be a major concern for them. Likewise, I learned that many of the legislators were opposed to the level of financial repercussions for violations of the proposed legislation, and I was inclined to agree with them that it was too high.

One of the goals of the All Life Institute Scholar Network is to help researchers translate academic expertise into practical changes in society. What can scientists contribute to policymaking that they may not realize they have to offer? Why is this important?

Dr. Dickerson: I think most scientists realize that they can contribute to policymaking. We have an entire department focused on doing this at Hopkins. However, between teaching, grant writing, mentoring, and all other manner of academic commerce, we often don’t have time. I have found that many of my graduating students are leaving academia for jobs in industry and consulting primarily because they want to have a more prominent and immediate impact on society. Unfortunately, academia is a bit slower sector bound by the limitations of not appearing politically influential, so many academics will steer clear of policy work.

You’re now taking what you learned from this experience into other forms of science communication, including an op-ed and a workshop for PhD students through Johns Hopkins’ LEARNERS program. What do you want early-career scholars and members of the Scholar Network who have never testified to understand about engaging in public policy? What advice would you give someone considering saying “yes” to an opportunity like this for the first time?

Dr. Dickerson: I would suggest they take a workshop or class in science communication. Communicating to the lay public is not something we are trained to do at school, and it takes some practice. However, I think it is worth the time to learn. I was much more excited about testifying than writing another manuscript that may have no meaningful impact on change for potentially 5-10 years.