Testing the Controversy

Critics of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology have advanced an adaptationists-as-right-wing-conspirators (ARC) hypothesis, suggesting that adaptationists use their research to support a right-wing political agenda. We report the first quantitative test of the ARC hypothesis based on an online survey of political and scientific attitudes among 168 US psychology Ph.D. students, 31 of whom self-identified as adaptationists and 137 others who identified with another non-adaptationist meta-theory. Results indicate that adaptationists are much less politically conservative than typical US citizens and no more politically conservative than non-adaptationist graduate students. Also, contrary to the “adaptationists-as-pseudo-scientists” stereotype, adaptationists endorse more rigorous, progressive, quantitative scientific methods in the study of human behavior than non-adaptationists.     

Kind-Making, objectivity, and political neutrality; the case of Solastalgia

Politics and science, it is customarily and broadly assumed, should not mix. I investigate a purported "new mental illness" arising from psychological stress associated with environmental damage. Previous assessments have concluded that the diagnosis of "solastalgia", which is clearly intended to advance a political agenda, may thereby lack scientific validity. Building on work by Ian Hacking and Nelson Goodman, and drawing comparisons with the history of "political medicine"--in particular, the scientific study of Child Abuse and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome--I argue that the political consequences of such a diagnosis may plausibly help to justify it as a distinct objective scientific kind, by demarcating it from alternative classifications. That science should be objective, then, does not require that it be politically neutral.     

Harold Varmus [interview by Karen Birmingham

He may have stepped away from the hottest seat in biomedical research, but Nobel Laureate Harold Varmus shows no signs of withdrawing from the frontline of the biomedical research community, and he still displays the inimitable combination of political astuteness and scientific expertise that made his reign as director of the United States National Institutes of Health so successful. Varmus spoke to Nature Medicine for the first in a series of profiles that the journal will run on scientists that make a difference to biomedical research.     

Tracking Public Beliefs About Anthropogenic Climate Change

A simple question about climate change, with one choice designed to match consensus statements by scientists, was asked on 35 US nationwide, single-state or regional surveys from 2010 to 2015. Analysis of these data (over 28,000 interviews) yields robust and exceptionally well replicated findings on public beliefs about anthropogenic climate change, including regional variations, change over time, demographic bases, and the interacting effects of respondent education and political views. We find that more than half of the US public accepts the scientific consensus that climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities. A sizable, politically opposite minority (about 30 to 40%) concede the fact of climate change, but believe it has mainly natural causes. Few (about 10 to 15%) say they believe climate is not changing, or express no opinion. The overall proportions appear relatively stable nationwide, but exhibit place-to-place variations. Detailed analysis of 21 consecutive surveys within one fairly representative state (New Hampshire) finds a mild but statistically significant rise in agreement with the scientific consensus over 2010–2015. Effects from daily temperature are detectable but minor. Hurricane Sandy, which brushed New Hampshire but caused no disaster there, shows no lasting impact on that state’s time series—suggesting that non-immediate weather disasters have limited effects. In all datasets political orientation dominates among individual-level predictors of climate beliefs, moderating the otherwise positive effects from education. Acceptance of anthropogenic climate change rises with education among Democrats and Independents, but not so among Republicans. The continuing series of surveys provides a baseline for tracking how future scientific, political, socioeconomic or climate developments impact public acceptance of the scientific consensus.     

Preservation for Science: The Ecological Society of America and the Campaign for Glacier Bay National Monument

Between 1917 and 1945, the Ecological Society of America (ESA) housed a Committee for the Preservation of Natural Conditions specifically charged with identifying and taking political action toward the preservation of wilderness sites for scientific study. While several historians have analyzed the social and political contexts of the Preservation Committee, none has addressed the scientific context that gave rise to the Committee and to political activism by ESA members. Among the Preservation Committee's lobbying efforts, the naming of Glacier Bay, Alaska, as a national monument in 1925 stands out as a unique success. I argue that the campaign for the preservation of Glacier Bay reveals the methodological ambitions ecologists had for their science in the 1920s and 1930s and demonstrates how ecologists understood the role of place in biological field studies. It represented preservation for science. Most of the political activities undertaken by the ESA in the interwar years, however, turned out to be science for conservation, which rarely involved lobbying for the protection of active research sites. In conjunction with changes in ecological methodology in the 1940s, the Committee's unclear scientific mission contributed to its being disbanded in 1945.     

The future of sociobiology: Counting babies or studying proximate mechanisms

Much of the debate over applying the theory of evolution to the study of human behaviour has died down because most critics now realize that the political ramifications of sociobiology are no more, or no less, than those of behaviourism, psychoanalysis or cognitive science. But controversy remains. It is scientific, and concerns the 'proper' way to do human sociobiology. I contrast the perspective of those sociobiologists who use the approach of behavioural ecology, and who have come to be known as 'darwinian anthropologists' or 'darwinian social scientists', with their critics, who refer to themselves as evolutionary or 'darwinian psychologists', describe the research methods that each uses, and ask if those issues must also be confronted by those studying animals.     

National purities and ecological disasters: Greek modernity and the war on nature

The ecological peculiarities we have experience lately are unintended consequences of the intellectual, scientific, and political patterns of modernity. This paper aspires to discuss nationalism as a cultural mechanism at the service of man’s scientific quest and domination over nature. As a major force and a by-product of the political project of modernity, nationalism appropriated designated landscapes and allowed their transformation into polluted environments. Through a strong alliance between state and industry, the pure and the pristine have mutated into the polluted and the contaminated. This paper will focus on the narratives of modernity, chemical agriculture, and environmental pollution in Greek Macedonia. It will discuss how our past emphasis on national politics and identity overshadowed early local concerns for environmental pollution, illness, and death. The mantle of nationalism can be held accountable for the miasmatic geographies that modernity created, threatening the nation with pollution, and vulnerable citizens with dreadful diseases and ailments, such as cancer.     

Taking evolution seriously in political science

In this essay, we explore the epistemological and ontological assumptions that have been made to make political science “scientific.” We show how political science has generally adopted an ontologically reductionist philosophy of science derived from Newtonian physics and mechanics. This mechanical framework has encountered problems and constraints on its explanatory power, because an emphasis on equilibrium analysis is ill-suited for the study of political change. We outline the primary differences between an evolutionary ontology of social science and the physics-based philosophy commonly employed. Finally, we show how evolutionary thinking adds insight into the study of political phenomena and research questions that are of central importance to the field, such as preference formation.     

Demarcating public from private values in evolutionary discourse

What I suggest we can see in this brief overview of the literature is an extensive interpenetration on both sides of these debates between scientific, political, and social values. Important shifts in political and social values were of course occurring over the same period, some of them in parallel with, and perhaps even contributing to, these transitions I have been speaking of in evolutionary discourse. The developments that I think of as at least suggestive of possible parallels include the progressive encroachment of public values into the private domain of post-World War II American life, the cold war, the rise of consumerism, and the flowering of what Christopher Lasch calls a narcissistic individualism.³⁵ In popular language, the 1960s gave birth to the me generation. Perhaps the most tantalizing analogue is suggested by Barbara Ehrenreich's argument for the emergence of a new meaning (and measure) of masculinity — an ideal of masculinity measured not by commitment, responsibility, or success as family provider, but precisely by the strength of a man's autonomy in the private sphere, his resistance to the demands of a hampering female.³⁶ It is tempting to speculate about possible connections between changes in scientific discourse and developments in the social and political spheres, but such connections, however suggestive, would clearly have to be demonstrated.For now, however, I want to focus on another kind of change —a transformation not so much in the social or political sphere as in the scientific sphere. I make this turn, or return, in support of a more complex account of scientific change that incorporates reverberations within the scientific communty along with social and political changes.     

Anecdotal,Historical and Critical Commentaries on Genetics: Darwin and Darwinism: The (Alleged) Social Implications of The Origin of Species

Most scientific theories, even revolutionary ones, change the practice of a particular science but have few consequences for culture or society at large. But Darwinism, it has often been said, is different in this respect. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, many have claimed that Darwinism has a number of profound social implications. Here, I briefly consider three of these: the economic, the political, and the religious. I suggest that, for the most part, these supposed implications have been misconstrued or exaggerated. Indeed, it is reasonably clear that the chain of implication sometimes primarily ran in the opposite direction—from, for instance, economics and political theory to Darwinism.THE appearance of The Origin of Species launched one of the greatest, and most justly celebrated, revolutions in the history of science. But in the 150 years since the appearance of Darwin''s book, many scholars, scientists, and pundits have claimed that Darwinism did more than revolutionize biology. Darwinism, they claim, also had a number of social and cultural consequences: economic and political, medical, eugenic, educational, and religious. Some of these consequences are to be applauded and others regretted, but all, it is said, can be traced to important strands of thought in The Origin of Species. One of the ironies of modern history would thus seem to be that the close scientific study of pigeons, mockingbirds, and barnacles could have such consequences.But while the case for the scientific importance of Darwinism is incontestable, the case for its presumed social and cultural consequences is far more complex and, in places, dubious. Here I consider three of these supposed consequences: the economic, the political, and the religious. Because the economic and religious cases have been widely discussed, I focus on the political one. I should note that I am not an expert on economics, political theory, or religion, but a biologist. Perhaps fortunately, then, little that I have to say is new but reflects the efforts of many social scientists and historians. Because their ideas seem little known among biologists, they may be worth recounting here.     

Estuarine and Tidal Wetland Restoration in the United Kingdom: Policy Versus Practice

Restoration of reclaimed marshes in the United Kingdom, referred to as managed realignment, is both a scientific and a political issue. A cross‐party House of Commons report to Government stressed that provision of long‐term sustainable coastal defenses must start with the premise that “coasts need space” and that government must work to increase public awareness, scientific knowledge, and political will to facilitate such a retreat from the almost sacrosanct existing shoreline. Government, in turn, has agreed with the basis of the report but is aware of conflicting interests, not least the European legislation, which has designated large areas of reclaimed marshes as Special Areas of Conservation that cannot legally be restored to their former tidal processes. Against this background, it is essential that scientific research provides convincing arguments for the necessity for managed realignment, the location, extent, and type of marshlands that need to be restored to provide sustainable flood defenses, maintain and enhance conservation status, and ensure a healthy functioning estuarine system. We examine the political and scientific issues involved, discuss model predictions and field experiments into realignment techniques, and outline the preliminary results of such experiments showing the evolution of restored intertidal wetlands in the United Kingdom.     

科学史视角下的“基因工程”课程思政探索与实践

课程思政是新时期高校思想政治教育的重要途径之一。科学史记载了科学知识从产生到持续发展的过程,蕴含着丰富的育人价值,能够为专业课的课程思政教学提供新的视角和思路。本文从科学史丰富的育人价值中选择科学精神、科学思维、科学兴趣和科学伦理4个方面的素材;依托"基因工程"课程内容,对有关诺贝尔奖的科学史进行梳理;然后,以4个方面的素材为育人载体,深挖其中蕴含的思政元素,通过实施课程思政教学,帮助学生达成课程思政目标;最后,综合运用问卷和深度访谈相结合的方式评价教学效果。借此引领学生树立正确的价值观,提高思想政治水平,以期为生物学专业的课程思政体系建设提供参考。     

World AIDS Day 2007: AIDS at 26, are we there yet?

This Commentary reflects on the success of the XVI International Conference on AIDS, that was held in Toronto between August 13–18, 2006. Not only was the Conference judged to have been a scientific success, it will probably also be recognized over time as having had important political impact. It is vital that scientists and policy-makers continue to be able to interact at these meetings as part of global efforts to combat the HIV epidemic.     

Nutritionally enhanced crops and food security: scientific achievements versus political expediency

Genetic engineering (GE) is one of a raft of strategies that can be used to tackle malnutrition. Recent scientific advances have shown that multiple deficiencies can be tackled simultaneously using engineered plant varieties containing high levels of different minerals and organic nutrients. However, the impact of this progress is being diluted by the unwillingness of politicians to see beyond immediate popular support, favoring political expediency over controversial but potentially life-saving decisions based on rational scientific evidence.     

Are ME/CFS Patient Organizations “Militant”?

Myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a contested illness category. This paper investigates the common claim that patients with ME/CFS—and by extension, ME/CFS patient organizations (POs)—exhibit “militant” social and political tendencies. The paper opens with a history of the protracted scientific disagreement over ME/CFS. We observe that ME/CFS POs, medical doctors, and medical researchers exhibit clear differences in opinion over how to conceptualize this illness. However, we identify a common trope in the discourse over ME/CFS: the claim of “militant” patient activism. Scrutinizing this charge, we find no compelling evidence that the vast majority of patients with ME/CFS, or the POs representing them, have adopted any such militant political policies or behaviours. Instead, we observe key strategic similarities between ME/CFS POs in the United Kingdom and the AIDs activist organizations of the mid-1980s in the United States which sought to engage scientists using the platform of public activism and via scientific publications. Finally, we explore the contours of disagreement between POs and the medical community by drawing on the concept of epistemic injustice. We find that widespread negative stereotyping of patients and the marginalization and exclusion of patient voices by medical authorities provides a better explanation for expressions of frustration among patients with ME/CFS.     

The Architects of the Evolutionary Synthesis in National Socialist Germany: Science and Politics

The Synthetic Theory of Evolution (SyntheticDarwinism) was forged between 1925 and 1950.Several historians of science have pointed outthat this synthesis was a joint venture ofSoviet, German, American and Britishbiologists: A fascinating example of scientificcooperation, considering the fact that theevolutionary synthesis emerged during thedecades in which these countries were engagedin fierce political, military and ideologicalconflicts. The ideological background of itsAnglo-American representatives has beenanalyzed in the literature. We have examinedthe scientific work and ideological commitmentsof the German Darwinians during the ThirdReich. We based our analysis on four criteria:1) General attitude towards the Third Reich. 2) Membership in the NSDAP and other nationalsocialist organizations. Endorsement anddisapproval of the state ideology in 3) scientific and 4) other publications. We willmainly discuss the various authors that havecontributed to Die Evolution derOrganismen (1943), a collection thatrepresented the evolutionary synthesis inGermany. Most of the authors promoted eugenicideas, but not all of them adopted the racistinterpretation of the Third Reich. Anotherfinding is that there existed no directconnection between party membership andpromotion of the state ideology.     

Science under politics. An Italian nightmare

Is political interference in science unavoidable? A look at the situation in Italy highlights what can happen if scientists do not defend their independence and their science.The second half of the twentieth century has seen the relationship between society, politics and science become increasingly complex and controversial. Particularly in democratic countries—where the application of scientific research and the diffusion of knowledge have contributed to a significant increase in the well-being of citizens—scientists have had to face interference from political, religious and ideological interest groups. Even the seemingly powerful scientific community in the USA was affected by an ‘epidemic of politics'' under the administration of President George W. Bush. This ‘infection of science'' was characterized by inappropriate political meddling in research driven by political prejudices and religious arguments, especially in more controversial research fields. During his tenure, Bush established science and health policies that went against expert advice, and in several cases made controversial appointments to key positions in scientific and health agencies (Kennedy, 2003; Mooney, 2005). This was all the more shocking because science and scientists in the USA have generally enjoyed a great deal of political independence.Even the seemingly powerful scientific community in the USA was affected by an ‘epidemic of politics'' under the administration of President George W. BushSuch ‘epidemics of politics'' are not exclusive to the USA; political interference in scientific research and its applications is endemic in many countries. Such meddling can take various forms depending on the country in question, the different democratic decision-making processes at work, the relative influences of politics, economics and society on the scientific community and, to some extent, the level of scientific literacy of the public. During the past two decades, science in Italy has been suffering from a particularly severe form of political interference that we believe deserves international consideration, if only to act as a warning for other countries.Italian science has often found itself entangled in political controversy. After the unification of the country in 1861, during the last two decades of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth century, Italian scientists actively participated in political debates about how to improve and integrate the fragments of Italian society, culture, economy, health, and so on. But from the beginning, they often confused political battles with their professional status and/or scientific disagreements (Casella et al, 2000). Throughout the fascist era, the scientific community—similarly to the rest of the country—was subjected to the rule of Benito Mussolini''s regime (Maiocchi, 2004). After the Second World War, both Catholic and Marxist ideologies prevented the rise of an autonomous scientific community, so Italian scientists had and still have little cultural or political influence.During the past two decades, science in Italy has been suffering from a particularly severe form of political interference…Yet Italians are far from hostile to science; they follow advances in research and technology with keen interest and expectation, as shown by a fairly recent survey (Eurobarometer, 2005a, b). Politicians, influential intellectuals and lobbyists who oppose research and innovation for various reasons have therefore adopted a strategy of trying to manipulate and censor facts. Rather than confronting the scientific evidence directly, they maintain a high degree of political control over scientific research and its applications. As a result, the validity of scientific evidence has become optional and its use arbitrary in public and political discussions.This situation has been virtually de rigueur since the advent of Silvio Berlusconi in 1994, although it would be unfair to say that the current Italian Prime Minister is the main culprit. Indeed, many factors have acted together to make Italian science prey to political influence, including the predominance of non-transparent and nepotistic approaches to the public funding of research, the chronic cultural and political impotence of Italian scientists and the waning professional quality of the national political and intellectual elites (Corbellini, 2009). The examples provided here should illustrate the weaknesses of the Italian scientific community and how politicians—irrespective of their political colour—have been reluctant to understand and respect the value of scientific procedures and evidence.In 1997, the Italian media regaled its readers with stories about a new and supposedly effective treatment for cancer, which had been developed by the physician and professor Luigi Di Bella, then at the University of Modena. The media storm was so convincing that a judge in Apulia ordered the local public health authorities to provide patients with the drug cocktail required for the therapy, despite the absence of a scientific basis for the claims or clinical evidence for the efficacy of the treatment (Remuzzi & Schieppati, 1999). The Di Bella multi-therapy (DBM)—as the treatment was called—soon became a topic for political wrangling between the members of right-wing parties who supported the treatment, and the more sceptical, ruling centre-left party. This continued until the health ministry, backed by prominent Italian oncologists, eventually agreed to sponsor a controversial clinical trial. This exposed the Italian medical community to international scorn (Müllner, 1999) and highlighted the lack of accurate and factual scientific information in the public debate (Passalacqua et al, 1999).Politicians, influential intellectuals and lobbyists who oppose research and innovation for various reasons have therefore adopted a strategy of manipulating and censoring factsIn late 2000 and early 2001, Italian plant biotechnologists were up in arms over a decree proposed by the centre-left government''s agricultural ministry that would have banned funding for any plant research involving genetic modification (Frank, 2000). The decree was eventually withdrawn as the result of a political move to prevent the opposition from exploiting the dispute. However, when the centre-right coalition came to power in May 2001, the new Ministry of Agriculture proved equally averse to the use of genetically modified plants. As a result, research in the field of plant genetics in Italy remains virtually devoid of public funding and a series of byzantine regulations still prevent Italian farmers from using genetically modified crops, despite the lack of scientific evidence that they are dangerous. In fact, the law does not explicitly ban their use and they are routinely imported as livestock feed.Striking examples of the manipulation and censorship of science were seen during the fierce debate that followed the introduction of Law 40—which was issued in 2004 with the apparent unofficial support of the Catholic Church—that limited the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures and banned research on human embryos. According to this law, each IVF procedure is allowed to create only three embryos, all of which must be implanted into the recipient mother (Boggio, 2005). This is in contrast to international guidelines on clinical practice (www.eshre.eu). Law 40 also prohibits pre-implantation diagnosis and the cryopreservation of embryos, as well as the generation of embryonic stem-cell lines, even when these are obtained from superfluous embryos that were created before the law was enforced and are destined to be stored frozen indefinitely.In 2005, patient advocacy groups and left parties called for a referendum to abrogate Law 40. This ignited a fierce dispute with Catholic politicians, backed by a handful of scientists, who called on voters to boycott the referendum and claimed that the law was scientifically sound and improved safety for patients (Vogel, 2005; Boggio & Corbellini, 2009). Interestingly, rather than attempting to justify their position with ethical, legal, scientific or religious arguments, the supporters of Law 40 often adopted the strategy of denigrating scientific research and facts and spreading misleading information (Corbellini, 2006). They claimed, for example, that pre-implantation diagnosis did not work, that the cryopreservation of embryos was not clinically necessary and that research with embryonic stem cells was pointless because adult stem cells had been proven to be effective for treating dozens of diseases (Corbellini, 2007).According to the Italian Constitution, the referendum was invalidated as less than 50% of the electorate voted. The proportion of Italian citizens who usually vote in a referendum is about 60%, and analysis shows that most non-voters decided not to participate because they did not understand what was at stake (Corbellini, 2006). Six years later, Law 40 has finally been revised by a series of decisions at Italy''s Constitutional Court and now, in some circumstances, pre-implantation diagnosis and the cryopreservation of embryos is permitted.The preceding examples have highlighted how Italian politicians and special interest groups have stifled scientific progress and liberty within Italy. The following examples highlight how political meddling and influence are jeopardizing the competitiveness of Italian research on the international stage.The teaching of evolution came frighteningly close to being scrapped from primary school curricula in Italy under a reform instigated by the 2003 centre-right government. It was reinstated only when the issue led to a political brawl between the Cabinet and the left-wing press (Frazzetto, 2004).Italy lacks an independent agency for research and also compulsory, transparent and unbiased selection processesThe same right-wing government was also opposed to the creation of the European Research Council (ERC), arguing that the agency would be too independent from political control (ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/italy/docs/positionfp7_it.pdf). This is not surprising for a country in which the chairs of public research institutions and the scientific directors of research hospitals are appointed by the government (with a few notable exceptions, see Anon, 2008) and where funding is often granted in a top-down manner by governmental decree to specific institutes, without public calls or peer review (Margottini, 2008).Even when funding is subject to peer review, cases in which money ends up at laboratories that are directly affiliated with members of the evaluating commission are, unfortunately, not the exception (Italian Parliament, 2006), which highlights the widespread conflicts of interest that are allowed. Italy lacks both an independent agency for research and compulsory, transparent and unbiased selection processes. As such, the guidelines and criteria that determine which research activities receive public funding are often established directly by the respective ministries, thereby increasing the risk of political interference. This was the case in 2007, when peers of Barbara Ensoli—then at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS) in Rome—felt that she was receiving a disproportionate amount of government funding, without peer review and in spite of the fact that her work on an HIV/AIDS vaccine was, at least to some scientists, unconvincing (Cohen, 2007).Conversely, in 2009 the Ministry of Health arbitrarily excluded projects involving human embryonic stem-cell lines from a call for proposals on stem-cell research funding—one of the authors of this article, Elena Cattaneo, is now appealing in court against the ministry''s decision (Cattaneo et al, 2010). Further, in October 2010 the Italian Ministry of Health decided, motu proprio, to grant €3 million to a private foundation that claimed to have created adult human stem cells that can be tested in patients with neurodegenerative diseases. This happened in spite of the Ministry''s declarations a few months previously that allocation of public money for research should be subject to peer review.If Italian scientists want to have a leading role in shaping society and the future, they must demand, reinstate and maintain sound principles of transparency and competitiveness in the allocation of public funding. This means that individual researchers—who enjoy the ephemeral benefits gained by deference to politicians and the exploitation of conflicts of interests—should be highlighted as negative examples to the scientific community, as their behaviour is damaging not only science, but also the practice of science as a model for public ethics.We hope that international experts in sociology and science policy find that the censorship of science, the manipulation of facts and the lack of objective peer review and evaluation in Italy deserve their attention and intervene on behalf of Italian science. They would be up against an interesting paradox: such abnormal conducts are often defended in the name of alleged democratic principles. The introduction of Law 40, for example, was justified publicly under the assumption that most Italian citizens were against the use of embryonic stem cells in research—which is, incidentally, false (Eurobarometer, 2006)—and the Apulia judge''s ruling on DBM was made on the grounds of individual freedom of access to therapy, laid down by the Italian constitution.… is Italy an exception, or simply a vision of things to come in other countries?One could ask whether the situation in Italy is simply a local consequence of a deteriorating relationship between science and society, or between scientists and politicians. In other words, is Italy an exception, or simply a vision of things to come in other countries? Regardless, the predicament of Italian science and scientists should stand as a warning of what happens when the rules of transparency are overridden, the scientific community remains largely silent, scientific facts have marginal political influence and science communication is helpless against ideologically driven propaganda that manipulates facts on a large scale (Corbellini, 2010). The experience of scientists in the USA during the Bush administration shows that for other countries this possibility is not too far-fetched and that, to paraphrase the British statesman Edmund Burke (1729–1797): bad science flourishes when good scientists do nothing.? Open in a separate windowElena CattaneoOpen in a separate windowGilberto Corbellini     

Cattle grazing does not reduce fire severity in eucalypt forests and woodlands of the Australian Alps

Large grazing herbivores can change fire regimes by altering fuel types and abundance, particularly in savanna biomes where the dominant fuel is grass. The use of herbivores as a fire management tool is receiving increasing consideration globally, but this intervention has a limited evidence‐base and is controversial because of potential deleterious ecological effects. These issues are well illustrated by the political and scientific debate about the capacity of cattle grazing to reduce fire hazard in the Victorian Alps of Australia; there have been remarkably few scientific studies to illuminate this issue. Here we use remote sensing and geographic information system analysis to determine the effect of active grazing licences on fire severity (crown scorch) in eucalypt forests and woodlands following large fires in the Alps during the summers of 2002/2003 and 2006/2007. Our statistical analyses, which controlled for spatial autocorrelation, found crown scorch was strongly related to vegetation type but there was no evidence that cattle grazing reduced fire severity. There was some evidence that grazing could increase fire severity by possibly changing fuel arrays. Such landscape analyses are a critical approach given that large‐scale grazing × fire trials are prohibitively expensive and impractical to conduct.     

The impact of Chagas disease control in Latin America: a review

Discovered in 1909, Chagas disease was progressively shown to be widespread throughout Latin America, affecting millions of rural people with a high impact on morbidity and mortality. With no vaccine or specific treatment available for large-scale public health interventions, the main control strategy relies on prevention of transmission, principally by eliminating the domestic insect vectors and control of transmission by blood transfusion. Vector control activities began in the 1940s, initially by means of housing improvement and then through insecticide spraying following successful field trials in Brazil (Bambui Research Centre), with similar results soon reproduced in S?o Paulo, Argentina, Venezuela and Chile. But national control programmes only began to be implemented after the 1970s, when technical questions were overcome and the scientific demonstration of the high social impact of Chagas disease was used to encourage political determination in favour of national campaigns (mainly in Brazil). Similarly, large-scale screening of infected blood donors in Latin America only began in the 1980s following the emergence of AIDS. By the end of the last century it became clear that continuous control in contiguous endemic areas could lead to the elimination of the most highly domestic vector populations - especially Triatoma infestans and Rhodnius prolixus - as well as substantial reductions of other widespread species such as T. brasiliensis, T. sordida, and T. dimidiata, leading in turn to interruption of disease transmission to rural people. The social impact of Chagas disease control can now be readily demonstrated by the disappearance of acute cases and of new infections in younger age groups, as well as progressive reductions of mortality and morbidity rates in controlled areas. In economic terms, the cost-benefit relationship between intervention (insecticide spraying, serology in blood banks) and the reduction of Chagas disease (in terms of medical and social care and improved productivity) is highly positive. Effective control of Chagas disease is now seen as an attainable goal that depends primarily on maintaining political will, so that the major constraints involve problems associated with the decentralisation of public health services and the progressive political disinterest in Chagas disease. Counterbalancing this are the political and technical cooperation strategies such as the "Southern Cone Initiative" launched in 1991. This international approach, coordinated by PAHO, has been highly successful, already reaching elimination of Chagas disease transmission in Uruguay, Chile, and large parts of Brazil and Argentina. The Southern Cone Initiative also helped to stimulate control campaigns in other countries of the region (Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru) which have also reached tangible regional successes. This model of international activity has been shown to be feasible and effective, with similar initiatives developed since 1997 in the Andean Region and in Central America. At present, Mexico and the Amazon Region remain as the next major challenges. With consolidation of operational programmes in all endemic countries, the future focus will be on epidemiological surveillance and care of those people already infected. In political terms, the control of Chagas disease in Latin America can be considered, so far, as a victory for international scientific cooperation, but will require continuing political commitment for sustained success.     

Sustainability indicator development—Science or political negotiation?

The efforts to develop sustainability indicators have strongly increased since the beginning of the 1990s, often led by intergovernmental processes. More recently, a number of sustainability indicator development processes have been initiated within large research projects that aim to design tools for sustainability assessments, funded by the European Union. The development of sustainability indicators provides a particular challenge to scientists, given the essentially normative dimension of the concept of “sustainability”. Thus, we argue, the development of sustainability indicators is a process of both scientific “knowledge production” and of political “norm creation”, and both components need to be properly acknowledged. Based on a respective theoretical framework and comparing five cases of sustainability indicator development processes (three science-led and two led by intergovernmental processes), we find that the political norm creation dimension is not fully and explicitly recognized in science-led processes. The paper concludes by discussing a number of implications for the design of sustainability indicator development processes, in particular with regard to participation and representation as well as adjustment of indicators over time.