Biodiversity 2030: a road paved with good intentions: The new EU Commission's biodiversity Strategy risks to remain an empty husk without proper implementation

The EU''s Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 makes great promises about halting the decline of biodiversity but it offers little in terms of implementation. Subject Categories: S&S: Economics & Business, Ecology, S&S: Ethics

Earth is teeming with a stunning variety of life forms. Despite hundreds of years of exploration and taxonomic research, and with 1.2 million species classified, we still have no clear picture of the real extent of global biodiversity, with estimates ranging from 3 to 100 million species. A highly quoted—although not universally accepted—study predicted some 8.7 million species, of which about 2.2 million are marine (Mora et al, 2011). Although nearly any niche on the surface of Earth has been colonized by life, species richness is all but evenly distributed. A large share of the known species is concentrated in relatively small areas, especially in the tropics (Fig 1). Ultimately, it is the network of the interactions among life forms and the physical environment that make up the global ecosystem we call biosphere and that supports life itself.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Biological hotspots of the worldA total of 36 currently recognized hotspots make up < 3% of the planet''s land area but harbor half of the world''s endemic plant species and 42% of all terrestrial vertebrates. Overall, hotspots have lost more than 80% of their original extension. Credit: Richard J. Weller, Claire Hoch, and Chieh Huang, 2017, Atlas for the End of the World, http://atlas‐for‐the‐end‐of‐the‐world.com/. Reproduced with permission.Driven by a range of complex and interwoven causes–such as changes in land and sea use, habitat destruction, overexploitation of organisms, climate change, pollution, and invasive species–biodiversity is declining at an alarming pace. A report by the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) issued a clear warning: “An average of around 25 per cent of species in assessed animal and plant groups are threatened, suggesting that around 1 million species already face extinction, many within decades, unless action is taken to reduce the intensity of drivers of biodiversity loss. Without such action, there will be a further acceleration in the global rate of species extinction, which is already at least tens to hundreds of times higher than it has averaged over the past 10 million years” (IPBES, 2019) (Fig 2). Although focused on a smaller set of organisms, a more recent assessment by WWF has reached similar conclusions. Their Living Planet Index, that tracks the abundance of thousands of populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians around the world, shows a stark decline in monitored populations (WWF, 2020). As expected, the trend of biodiversity decline is not homogeneous with tropical areas paying a disproportionately high price, mostly because of unrestrained deforestation and exploitation of natural resources.Open in a separate windowFigure 2The global, rapid decline of biodiversity(A) Percentage of species threatened with extinction in taxonomic groups that have been assessed comprehensively, or through a “sampled” approach, or for which selected subsets have been assessed by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Groups are ordered according to the best estimate, assuming that data‐deficient species are as threatened as non‐data deficient species. (B) Extinctions since 1500 for vertebrate groups. (C) Red List Index of species survival for taxonomic groups that have been assessed for the IUCN Red List at least twice. A value of 1 is equivalent to all species being categorized as Least Concern; a value of zero is equivalent to all species being classified as Extinct. Data for all panels from www.iucnredlist.org. Reproduced from (IPBES, 2019), with permission.

Driven by a range of complex and interwoven causes […] biodiversity is declining at an alarming pace.

Against this dire background, the EU has drafted a Biodiversity Strategy 2030, an ambitious framework aimed to tackling the key reasons behind biodiversity loss. The plan hinges around a few main elements, such as the establishment of protected areas for at least 30% of Europe''s lands and seas (Fig 3); a significant increase of biodiversity‐rich landscape features on agricultural land by establishing buffer zones like hedges and fallow fields; halting and reversing the decline of pollinators; and planting 3 billion trees by 2030 (https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities‐2019‐2024/european‐green‐deal/actions‐being‐taken‐eu/eu‐biodiversity‐strategy‐2030_en). The budget for implementing these measures was set at €20 billion per year.Open in a separate windowFigure 3Natura 2000, the EU''s network of protected areasIn 2019, 18% of land in the EU was protected as Natura 2000, with the lowest share of protected land in Denmark (8%) and the highest in Slovenia (38%). In 2019, the largest national network of terrestrial Natura 2000 sites was located in Spain, covering 138,111 km², followed by France (70,875 km²) and Poland (61,168 km²). Reproduced from Eurostat: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics‐explained/index.php?title=Main_Page “Nature is vital for our physical and mental wellbeing, it filters our air and water, it regulates the climate and it pollinates our crops. But we are acting as if it didn''t matter, and losing it at an unprecedented rate”, said Virginijus Sinkevičius, Commissioner for the Environment, Oceans and Fisheries, at the press launch of the new EU action (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_884). “This new Biodiversity Strategy builds on what has worked in the past, and adds new tools that will set us on a path to true sustainability, with benefits for all. The EU''s aim is to protect and restore nature, to contribute to economic recovery from the current crisis, and to lead the way for an ambitious global framework to protect biodiversity around the planet”.Environmental groups and other stakeholders have welcomed the EU''s pledge in principle. “This is a unique opportunity to shape a new society in harmony with nature”, applauded Wetlands International. “We must not forget that the biodiversity and climate crisis is a much bigger and persistent challenge for humanity than COVID‐19”, (https://europe.wetlands.org/news/welcoming‐the‐eu‐biodiversity‐strategy‐for‐2030/). EuroNatur, a foundation focused on conservation, stated that the goals set out by the new strategy provide a strong basis for improving the state of nature in the EU (www.euronatur.org).Alongside the voices of praise, however, many have expressed concerns that the strategy could turn into a little more than a wish list. “The big issue of the strategy is that while setting a goal for financial funds, the EU does not specify where the money is supposed to come from. It only says it should include ‘EU funds and national and private funding’”, commented the European Wilderness Society, an environmental advocacy non‐profit organization headquartered in Tamsweg, Austria. “Goals are important, but do not create change without an organized and sustainable implementation. It''s a good and ambitious document, but what is also obvious is the lack of strategy of how to implement it, and a lack of discussion of why previous documents of this type failed” (https://wilderness‐society.org/ambitious‐eu‐biodiversity‐strategy‐2030/).

Alongside the voices of praise, however, many have expressed concerns that the strategy could turn into a little more than a wish list.

The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) is on the same page. The sustainability think‐tank based in Brussels and London noted that the outgoing EU 2020 biodiversity strategy showed major implementation problems, especially because of lack of engagement at national level and of ad hoc legislation supporting the meeting of key targets. Therefore, “[it] can be argued that a legally binding approach to the biodiversity governance framework is urgently needed unless Member States and other key stakeholders can show greater intrinsic ownership to deliver on agreed objectives”, (https://ieep.eu/news/first‐impressions‐of‐the‐eu‐biodiversity‐strategy‐to‐2030). In addition, IEEP remarked that money is an issue, since the €20 billion figure appears more as an estimate than a certified obligation.“The intentions of the Commission are good and the strategy contains a number of measures and targets that can really make a difference. However, implementation depends critically on the member states and experiences with the Common Agricultural Policy the past decade or so have taught us that many of them are more interested in short‐term economic objectives than in safeguarding the natural wealth of their country for future generations”, commented David Kleijn, an ecologist and nature conservation expert at the Wageningen University, the Netherlands. “I think it is important that we now have an ambitious Biodiversity Strategy but at the same time I have little hope that we will be able to achieve its objectives”.

I think it is important that we now have an ambitious Biodiversity Strategy but at the same time I have little hope that we will be able to achieve its objectives.

There is further criticism against specific measures, such as the proposal of planting 3 billion trees. “To have lots of trees planted in an area does not necessarily translate into an increase of biodiversity. Biodiverse ecosystems are the result of million years of complex multi‐species interactions and evolutionary processes, which are not as easy to restore”, explained plant ecologist Susana Gómez‐González, from the University of Cádiz, Spain. Planting a large number of trees is a too simplistic approach for saving European forests from the combined effects of excessive anthropic pressure and climate change, and could even have detrimental effects (see Box 1). More emphasis should be placed instead in reducing tree harvesting in sensitive areas and in promoting natural forest renewal processes (Gómez‐González et al, 2020). “For a biodiversity strategy, increasing the number of trees, or even increasing the forest area, should not be an objective; priority should be given to the conservation and restoration of natural ecosystems, forests and non‐forests”, Gómez‐González said.In other cases, it could be difficult, if not impossible, to reach some of the goals because of lack of information. For example, one of the roadmap''s targets is to restore at least 25,000 km of Europe''s rivers back to free‐flowing state. However, the number of barriers dispersed along European rivers will probably prevent even getting close to the mark. An international research team has collected detailed information on existing instream barriers for 147 rivers in 36 European countries, coming up with the impressive figure of over 1.2 million obstacles that inevitably impact on river ecosystems, affecting the transport and dispersion of aquatic organisms, nutrients, and sediments (Belletti et al, 2020). Existing inventories mainly focused on dams and other large barriers, while, in fact, a large number of artificial structures are much smaller, such like weirs, locks, ramps, and fords. As a result, river fragmentation has been largely underestimated, and the models used to plan flow restoration might be seriously flawed. “To avoid ‘death by a thousand cuts’, a paradigm shift is necessary: to recognize that although large dams may draw most of the attention, it is the small barriers that collectively do most of the damage. Small is not beautiful”, concluded the authors (Belletti et al, 2020).

Box 1: Why many trees don''t (always) make a forestForests are cathedrals of biodiversity. They host by far the largest number of species on land, which provide food and essential resources for hundreds of millions of people worldwide. However, forests are disappearing and degrading at an alarming pace. The loss of these crucial ecosystems has given new impulses to a variety of projects aimed at stopping this devastation and possibly reversing the trend.Once it is gone, can you rebuild a forest? Many believe the answer is yes, and the obvious solution is to plant trees. Several countries have thus launched massive tree‐planting programs, notably India and Ethiopia, where 350 million trees have been planted in single day (https://www.unenvironment.org/news‐and‐stories/story/ethiopia‐plants‐over‐350‐million‐trees‐day‐setting‐new‐world‐record). The World Economic Forum has set up its own One Trillion Tree initiative (https://www.1t.org/) “to conserve, restore, and grow one trillion trees by 2030”. Launched in January last year at Davos, 1t.org was conceived as a platform for governments, companies and NGOs/civil society groups to support the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030). The initiative has been christened by renowned naturalist Jane Goodall, who commented: “1t.org offers innovative technologies which will serve to connect tens of thousands of small and large groups around the world that are engaged in tree planting and forest restoration”, (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/one‐trillion‐trees‐world‐economic‐forum‐launches‐plan‐to‐help‐nature‐and‐the‐climate/).However, things are way more complicated than they appear: large‐scale tree planting schemes are rarely a viable solution and can even be harmful. “[A] large body of literature shows that even the best planned restoration projects rarely fully recover the biodiversity of intact forests, owing to a lack of sources of forest‐dependent flora and fauna in deforested landscapes, as well as degraded abiotic conditions resulting from anthropogenic activities”, commented Karen Holl from the University of Caliornia, Santa Cruz, and Pedro Brancalion from the University of São Paulo (Holl & Brancalion, 2020). A common problem of tree plantations, for example, is the low survival rate of seedlings, mostly because the wrong tree species are selected and due to poor maintenance after planting. Moreover, grasslands and savannas, which are often targeted for establishing new forests, are themselves treasure troves of biodiversity. Ending indiscriminate deforestation, improving the protection of existing forests, and promoting their restoration would therefore be a more efficient strategy to preserve biodiversity in the shorter term. If tree planting is indeed necessary, it should be well planned by selecting the right areas for reforestation, using suitable tree species that can maximize biodiversity, and involving local populations to maintain the plantations, Holl and Brancalion argue (Holl & Brancalion, 2020).

…even the best planned restoration projects rarely fully recover the biodiversity of intact forests, owing to a lack of sources of forest‐dependent flora and fauna in deforested landscapes…

The health of soil, where a high proportion of biodiversity is hosted, is another problem the new strategy should address in a more focused manner. “In my opinion, the EU Biodiversity Strategy is already a leap forward in terms of policy interest in soils in general and in soil biodiversity in particular. Compared with other nations/regions of the world, Europe is by far in the forefront regarding this issue”, commented Carlos António Guerra at the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) in Leipzig, Germany, and Co‐leader of the Global Soil Biodiversity Observation Network (https://geobon.org/bons/thematic‐bon/soil‐bon/). “Nevertheless, the connection between soil biodiversity and ecological functions needs further commitments. Soils allow for horizontal integration of several policy agendas, from climate to agriculture and, very importantly, nature conservation. This is not explicit in the EU Biodiversity Strategy in regard to soils”. It remains to be seen if EU restoration plan will emphasize soil biodiversity, or consider it as a mere side effect of other initiatives, Guerra added. “A soil nature conservation plan should be proposed”, he said. “Only such a plan, that implies that current and future protected areas have to consider, describe and protect their soil biodiversity would make a significant push to help protect such a valuable resource”.More generally, research shows that the current paradigm of protection must be shifted to prevent further losses to biodiversity. In fact, an analysis of LIFE projects—a cornerstone of EU nature protection—found that conservation efforts are extremely polarized and strongly taxonomically biased (Mammola et al, 2020). From 1992 to 2018, investment in vertebrates was sixfold higher than that for invertebrates, with birds and mammals alone accounting for 72% of the targeted species and 75% of the total budget. In relative terms, investment per species for vertebrates has been 468 times higher than for invertebrates (Fig 4). There is no sound scientific reasoning behind this uneven conservation attention, but just popularity. “[T]he species covered by a greater number of LIFE projects were also those which attracted the most interest online, suggesting that conservation in the EU is largely driven by species charisma, rather than objective features”, the researchers wrote (Mammola et al, 2020).Open in a separate windowFigure 4Taxonomic bias in EU fauna protection effortsBreakdown of the number of projects (A) and budget allocation (B) across main animal groups covered by the LIFE projects (n = 835). (C) The most covered 30 species of vertebrates (out of 410) and invertebrates (out of 78) in the LIFE projects analyzed (n = 835). The vertical bar represents monetary investment and the blue scatter line the number of LIFE projects devoted to each species. Reproduced from (Mammola et al, 2020), with permission.     

Diabetes research for developing countries

EAGLES investigations into the specific needs for diabetes research in developing countries, and Europe's potential to support that research [European Union and Diabetes http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_information/dissemination/diseases/diabetes_en.htm, EU Research on Diabetes http://ec.europa.eu/research/leaflets/diabetes/index_en.html] reach nine major conclusions. In each case, they involve tuning European research to have the greatest impact in the shortest possible time, by understanding and respecting developing countries' conditions of health, politics and economics. Major recommendations arise from the lack of national population-based epidemiology to enable planning and convince political powers of the need for action; from countries' low healthcare budgets, entailing needs for the cheapest possible interventions; from the need to investigate interventions specifically tuned to national circumstances; and finally from the needs for specific local biomedical research, such as studies into the several unique African phenotypes of the disease. The details of our nine recommendations can be seen at the end of the report.     

Automated location invariant animal detection in camera trap images using publicly available data sources

1. A time‐consuming challenge faced by camera trap practitioners is the extraction of meaningful data from images to inform ecological management. An increasingly popular solution is automated image classification software. However, most solutions are not sufficiently robust to be deployed on a large scale due to lack of location invariance when transferring models between sites. This prevents optimal use of ecological data resulting in significant expenditure of time and resources to annotate and retrain deep learning models.
2. We present a method ecologists can use to develop optimized location invariant camera trap object detectors by (a) evaluating publicly available image datasets characterized by high intradataset variability in training deep learning models for camera trap object detection and (b) using small subsets of camera trap images to optimize models for high accuracy domain‐specific applications.
3. We collected and annotated three datasets of images of striped hyena, rhinoceros, and pigs, from the image‐sharing websites FlickR and iNaturalist (FiN), to train three object detection models. We compared the performance of these models to that of three models trained on the Wildlife Conservation Society and Camera CATalogue datasets, when tested on out‐of‐sample Snapshot Serengeti datasets. We then increased FiN model robustness by infusing small subsets of camera trap images into training.
4. In all experiments, the mean Average Precision (mAP) of the FiN trained models was significantly higher (82.33%–88.59%) than that achieved by the models trained only on camera trap datasets (38.5%–66.74%). Infusion further improved mAP by 1.78%–32.08%.
5. Ecologists can use FiN images for training deep learning object detection solutions for camera trap image processing to develop location invariant, robust, out‐of‐the‐box software. Models can be further optimized by infusion of 5%–10% camera trap images into training data. This would allow AI technologies to be deployed on a large scale in ecological applications. Datasets and code related to this study are open source and available on this repository: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.1c59zw3tx.

     

BH3‐only proteins are part of a regulatory network that control the sustained signalling of the unfolded protein response sensor IRE1α

Correction to: The EMBO Journal (2012) 31: 2322–2335. DOI 10.1038/emboj.2012.84 ¦ Published online 17 April 2012 Figure 4A. Original.Source data are available online for this figure. Figure 4A. Corrected. Source data are available online for this figure. The journal was alerted to the claim that the IRE input panels are identical in Figure 1G. Since the IRE input panels show a high degree of similarity, the source data for both panels are published with this notice for the avoidance of doubt.The HSP90 blot looks very similar in Fig 3F and Fig S4A. The authors confirmed that they had stripped and re‐probed the original HSP90 blot in Fig 3F and Fig S4A. Specifically, the membrane was probed with antibodies to IRE1, and HSP90, and then re‐probed with anti‐PERK antibodies. For that reason, HSP90 was presented in both figures because it is the same experiment. In the source data published with this correction, the authors have marked the original data with contrast boxes and arrows to indicate which blots were presented in the figure. The legends have been updated to state that a control originating from one blot is displayed in both figures.The authors acknowledge that they had removed one set of experimental conditions with wild‐type parental DKO cells when preparing Fig 4A and state that this does not change the conclusions of the figure. The figure is herewith updated with a demarcating line and source data for the full experiment is published with this notice.All authors agree with this corrigendum. The authors apologize for any confusion caused by these errors.     

PhenoSpace: A Shiny application to visualize trait data in the phenotypic space of the global spectrum of plant form and function

1. A recent analysis of variation in six major traits conducted on a large worldwide sample of vascular plant species showed that three‐quarters of trait variation was captured by a two‐dimensional global spectrum of plant form and function (“global spectrum” hereafter). We developed the PhenoSpace application, whose aim is to visualize and export the position of any individual/population/species in the phenotypic space of the global spectrum.
2. PhenoSpace is a Shiny application that helps users to manipulate and visualize data pertaining to the global spectrum of plant form and function. It is freely accessible at the following URL: https://shiny.cefe.cnrs.fr/PhenoSpace/.
3. PhenoSpace has three main functionalities. First, it allows users to visualize the phenotypic space of the global spectrum using different combinations of traits and growth forms. Second, trait data from any new user‐defined dataset can be projected onto the phenotypic space of the global spectrum, provided that at least two of the six traits are available. Finally, figures produced and loadings of the imported data on the PCA axes can be downloaded, allowing users to conduct further analyses.
4. PhenoSpace fulfills the practical goal of positioning plants in the phenotypic space of the global spectrum, making it possible to compare trait variation at any level of organization against the worldwide background. This serves a major aim of comparative plant ecology, which is to put specific sets of individuals, populations or species into a broader context, facilitating comparison and synthesis of results across different continents and environments using relevant indicators of plant design and function.

     

ELIXIR‐EXCELERATE: establishing Europe's data infrastructure for the life science research of the future

A new inter‐governmental research infrastructure, ELIXIR, aims to unify bioinformatics resources and life science data across Europe, thereby facilitating their mining and (re‐)use. Subject Categories: Computational Biology, Methods & Resources, S&S: Ethics

Creating knowledge by connecting and analysing large amounts of life science data is transforming our society, allowing us to start addressing major scientific and societal challenges, such as adaptation to climate change or pathogen outbreaks in an interconnected world. Modern biology is dependent on the generation, sharing and integrated analysis of digital data at scale. A deeper understanding of biological systems is now becoming possible thanks to breakthroughs in technologies that study life systematically at different scales, from molecules and single‐cell pathogens to complex animal or plant models and ecosystems as well as across temporal ranges spanning split‐second reactions to multi‐year clinical or agronomic trials, and beyond. The key to analyse and leverage this complex, fragmented and geographically dispersed life science data landscape is to ensure it is easy to find and reuse by researchers. This article comments on ELIXIR, an international organisation that brings together bioinformatics researchers and life science resources across Europe and integrates them into a single federated infrastructure.     

The data‐index: An author‐level metric that values impactful data and incentivizes data sharing

Author‐level metrics are a widely used measure of scientific success. The h‐index and its variants measure publication output (number of publications) and research impact (number of citations). They are often used to influence decisions, such as allocating funding or jobs. Here, we argue that the emphasis on publication output and impact hinders scientific progress in the fields of ecology and evolution because it disincentivizes two fundamental practices: generating impactful (and therefore often long‐term) datasets and sharing data. We describe a new author‐level metric, the data‐index, which values both dataset output (number of datasets) and impact (number of data‐index citations), so promotes generating and sharing data as a result. We discuss how it could be implemented and provide user guidelines. The data‐index is designed to complement other metrics of scientific success, as scientific contributions are diverse and our value system should reflect that both for the benefit of scientific progress and to create a value system that is more equitable, diverse, and inclusive. Future work should focus on promoting other scientific contributions, such as communicating science, informing policy, mentoring other scientists, and providing open‐access code and tools.     

Effective communication between hospital staff and patients in compliance with personal data protection regulations

Secure communication between patients and health care facilities is especially important In 2016, the European Union (EU) introduced a new regulation — the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), applicable in all EU member states — aimed at improving protection of personal data. The GDPR provides broad guidelines on data protection, but generally lacks specific details. Consequently, although member states must comply with the GDPR, there is some flexibility to develop new regulations to suit national characteristics and practices, especially in key economic sectors, such as health care. The aim of the present article is to discuss the benefits and limitations of legal provisions governing the patient identification (both in-person and remotely). This analysis is based on Polish laws that were recently passed to comply with the GDPR. In some cases, these data protection regulations may be unnecessarily strict, making routine care more difficult than intended by the GDPR. National legislation in Poland imposes strict data protection measures, such as prohibiting the public display of patient names or calling out the patient’s name in public. However, after health care personnel around the country criticised many of these measures, the law will be modified to address those concerns. For example, the patient’s name can be displayed on a wrist band and on containers with the patient’s medicines. Nonetheless, numerous questions still need to be resolved to adapt the general data protection rules to ensure the effective operation of the hospital to avoid problems related to accurate patient identification.     

Large‐scale survey and database of high affinity ligands for peptide recognition modules

Many proteins involved in signal transduction contain peptide recognition modules (PRMs) that recognize short linear motifs (SLiMs) within their interaction partners. Here, we used large‐scale peptide‐phage display methods to derive optimal ligands for 163 unique PRMs representing 79 distinct structural families. We combined the new data with previous data that we collected for the large SH3, PDZ, and WW domain families to assemble a database containing 7,984 unique peptide ligands for 500 PRMs representing 82 structural families. For 74 PRMs, we acquired enough new data to map the specificity profiles in detail and derived position weight matrices and binding specificity logos based on multiple peptide ligands. These analyses showed that optimal peptide ligands resembled peptides observed in existing structures of PRM‐ligand complexes, indicating that a large majority of the phage‐derived peptides are likely to target natural peptide‐binding sites and could thus act as inhibitors of natural protein–protein interactions. The complete dataset has been assembled in an online database (http://www.prm‐db.org) that will enable many structural, functional, and biological studies of PRMs and SLiMs.     

DOMINO: a network‐based active module identification algorithm with reduced rate of false calls

Algorithms for active module identification (AMI) are central to analysis of omics data. Such algorithms receive a gene network and nodes'' activity scores as input and report subnetworks that show significant over‐representation of accrued activity signal (“active modules”), thus representing biological processes that presumably play key roles in the analyzed conditions. Here, we systematically evaluated six popular AMI methods on gene expression and GWAS data. We observed that GO terms enriched in modules detected on the real data were often also enriched on modules found on randomly permuted data. This indicated that AMI methods frequently report modules that are not specific to the biological context measured by the analyzed omics dataset. To tackle this bias, we designed a permutation‐based method that empirically evaluates GO terms reported by AMI methods. We used the method to fashion five novel AMI performance criteria. Last, we developed DOMINO, a novel AMI algorithm, that outperformed the other six algorithms in extensive testing on GE and GWAS data. Software is available at https://github.com/Shamir‐Lab.     

When we increase diversity in academia,we all win

Increasing diversity in academia is not just a matter of fairness but also improves science. It is up to individual scientists and research organisations to support underrepresented minorities. Subject Categories: S&S: Economics & Business, S&S: Ethics

There has been a large body of research on diversity in the workplace—in both academic and non‐academic settings—that highlights the benefits of an inclusive workplace. This is perhaps most clearly visible in industry where the rewards are immediate: A study by McKinsey showed that companies with a more diverse workforce perform better financially and by substantial margins, compared to their respective national industry medians (https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/why-diversity-matters#).It is easy to measure success in financial terms, but since there is no similar binary metric for research performance (https://sfdora.org), it is harder to quantify the rewards of workplace diversity in academic research. However, research shows that diversity actually provides research groups with a competitive edge in other quantifiable terms, such as citation counts (Powell, 2018), and the scientific process obviously benefits from diversity in perspectives. Bringing together individuals with different ways of thinking will allow us to solve more challenging scientific problems and lead to better decision‐making and leadership. Conversely, there is a direct cost to bias in recruitment, tenure, and promotion processes. When such processes are affected by bias—whether explicit or implicit—the whole organization is losing by not tapping into the wider range of skills and assets that could otherwise have been brought to the workplace. Promoting diversity in academia is therefore not simply an issue of equity, which in itself is a sufficient reason, but also a very practical question: how do we create a better work environment for our organization, both in terms of collegiality and in terms of performance?Notwithstanding the fact that there is now substantial awareness of the importance of diversity and that significant work is being invested into addressing the issue, the statistics do not look good. Despite a substantial improvement at the undergraduate and graduate student levels in the EU, women remain significantly underrepresented in research at the more senior levels (Directorate‐General for Research and Innovation European Commission, 2019). In addition, the lion’s share of diversity efforts, at least in Sweden where I work, is frequently focused on gender. Gender is clearly important, but other diversity axes with problematic biases deserve the same attention. As one example, while statistics on ethnic diversity is readily available for US Universities (Davis & Fry, 2019), this information is much harder to find in Europe. While there is an increased awareness of diversity at the student level, this does not necessarily translate into initiatives to support faculty diversity (Aragon & Hoskins, 2017). There are examples of progress and concrete actions on these fronts, including the Athena Swan Charter (https://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan/), the more recent Race Equality Charter (https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/charters/race-equality-charter), and the EMBO journals that regularly analyze their decisions for gender bias. However, progress remains frustratingly slow. In 2019, the World Economic Forum suggested that, at the current rate of progress, the global gender gap will take 108 years to close (https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-gender-gap-report-2018). I worry that it may take even longer for other diversity axes since these receive far less attention.It is clear that there is a problem, but what can we do to address it? Perhaps one of the single most important contributions we can make as faculty is to address the implicit (subconscious) biases we all carry. Implicit bias will manifest itself in many ways: gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or disability, just to mention a few. These are the easily identifiable ones, but implicit bias also extends to, for example, professional titles (seniority level), institutional affiliation and even nationality. These partialities affect our decision‐making—for example, in recruitment, tenure, promotion, and evaluation committees—and how we interact with each other.The “Matilda effect” (Rossiter, 1993), which refers to the diminishment of the value of contributions made by female researchers, is now well recognized, and it is not unique to gender (Ross, 2014). When we diminish the contributions of our colleagues, it affects how we evaluate them in competitive scenarios, and whether we put them forward for grants, prizes, recruitment, tenure, and so on. In the hypercompetitive environment that is academia today, even small and subtle injuries can tremendously amplify their negative impact on success, given the current reward system that appears to favor “fighters” over “collaborators”. Consciously working to correct for this, stepping back to rethink our first assessment, is imperative.Women and other minorities also frequently suffer from imposter syndrome, which can impact self‐confidence and make members of these groups less likely to self‐promote in the pursuit of prestigious funding, awards, and competitive career opportunities. This effect is further amplified by a globally mobile academic workforce who, when moving to new cultural contexts (whether locally or internationally), can be unaware of the unwritten rules that guide a department’s work environment and decision‐making processes. Here, mentoring can play a tremendous role in reducing barriers to success; however, for such mentorship to be productive, mentors need to be aware of the specific challenges faced by minorities in academia, as well as their own implicit biases (Hinton et al, 2020).Other areas where we, as individual academics, can contribute to a more diverse work environment include meeting cultures and decision‐making. Making sure that the members of decision‐making bodies have diverse composition so that a variety of views are represented is an important first step. One complication to bear in mind though is that implicit biases are not limited to individuals outside the group: A new UN report shows that almost 90% of people—both men and women—carry biases against women, which in turn is what contributes to the glass‐ceiling effect (United Nations Development Program, 2020). However, equally important is inclusiveness in the meeting culture. Studies from the business world show that even high‐powered women often struggle to speak up and be heard at meetings, and the onus for solving this is often passed back onto themselves. The same holds true for other minority groups, and in an academic setting, it extends to seminars and conferences. The next time you plan a meeting, think about the setting and layout. Who gets to talk? Why? Is the distribution of time given to participants representative of the composition of the meeting participants? If not, why not?As a final example of personal action, we can take: language matters (Ås, 1978). Even without malicious intent, there can be a big gap between what we say and mean, and how it comes across to the recipient. Some examples of this are given by Harrison and Tanner (Harrison & Tanner, 2018), who discuss microagressions in an academic setting and the underlying message one might be unintentionally sending. Microaggressions, when built up over a long period of time, and coming from different people, can significantly impact someone’s confidence and sense of self‐worth. Taking a step back and thinking about why we choose the language, we do is a vital part of creating an inclusive work environment.Addressing diversity challenges in academia is a highly complex multi‐faceted topic that is impossible to do justice in a short opinion piece. This is, therefore, just a small set of examples: By paying attention to our own biases and thinking carefully about how we interact with those around us, both in terms of the language we use and the working environments we create, we can personally contribute to improving both recruitment and retention of a diverse academic workforce. In addition, it is crucial to break the culture of silence and to speak up when we see others committing micro‐ or not so microaggressions or otherwise contributing to a hostile environment. There is a substantial amount of work that needs to be done, at both the individual and organization levels, before we have a truly inclusive academic environment. However, this is not a reason to not do it, and if each of us contributes, we can accelerate this change to a better and more equitable future, while all winning from the benefits of diversity.     

Tranexamic acid and bleeding in patients treated with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants undergoing dental extraction: The EXTRACT-NOAC randomized clinical trial

BackgroundOral bleeding after dental extraction in patients on non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) is a frequent problem. We investigated whether 10% tranexamic acid (TXA) mouthwash decreases post-extraction bleeding in patients treated with NOACs.Methods and findingsThe EXTRACT-NOAC study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, clinical trial. Patients were randomly assigned to 10% TXA or placebo mouthwash and were instructed to use the mouthwash once prior to dental extraction, and thereafter for 3 times a day for 3 days. The primary outcome was the number of patients with any post-extraction oral bleeding up to day 7. Secondary outcomes included periprocedural, early, and delayed bleeding, and the safety outcomes included all thrombotic events. The first patient was randomized on February 9, 2018 and the last patient on March 12, 2020. Of 222 randomized patients, 218 patients were included in the full analysis set, of which 106 patients were assigned to TXA (74.8 (±8.8) years; 81 men) and 112 to placebo (72.7 (±10.7) years; 64 men). Post-extraction bleeding occurred in 28 (26.4%) patients in the TXA group and in 32 (28.6%) patients in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 1.42; P = 0.72). There were 46 bleeds in the TXA group and 85 bleeds in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.05; P = 0.07). TXA did not reduce the rate of periprocedural bleeding (bleeding score 4 ± 1.78 versus 4 ± 1.82, P = 0.80) and early bleeding (rate ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.37). Delayed bleeding (rate ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.89) and bleeding after multiple extractions (rate ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.78) were lower in the TXA group. One patient in the placebo group had a transient ischemic attack while interrupting the NOAC therapy in preparation for the dental extraction. Two of the study limitations were the premature interruption of the trial following a futility analysis and the assessment of the patients’ compliance that was based on self-reported information during follow-up.ConclusionsIn patients on NOACs undergoing dental extraction, TXA does not seem to reduce the rate of periprocedural or early postoperative oral bleeding compared to placebo. TXA appears to reduce delayed bleeds and postoperative oral bleeding if multiple teeth are extracted.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT03413891","term_id":"NCT03413891"}}NCT03413891EudraCT; EudraCT number:2017-001426-17; EudraCT Public website: eudract.ema.europa.eu.

Anna Ockerman and co-workers evaluate mouthwash containing tranexamic acid for people on non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants undergoing dental extraction.     

Comparative LCA of concrete with recycled aggregates: a circular economy mindset in Europe

Purpose

Construction and demolition waste (C&DW) is the largest waste stream in the European Union (EU) and all over the world. Proper management of C&DW and recycled materials—including the correct handling of hazardous waste—can have major benefits in terms of sustainability and the quality of life. The Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC aims to have 70% of C&DW recycled by 2020. However, except for a few EU countries, only about 50% of C&DW is currently being recycled. In the present research, the environmental impact of concrete with recycled aggregates and with geopolymer mixtures is analysed. The aim of the present research is to propose a comparative LCA of concrete with recycled aggregates in the context of European politics.

Methods

Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology is applied using Simapro© software. A cradle to grave analysis is carried out. The results are analysed based on the database Ecoinvent 3.3 and Impact 2002+.

Results

Results show that the concrete with 25% recycled aggregates is the best solution from an environmental point of view. Furthermore, geopolymer mixtures could be a valid alternative to reduce the phenomenon of “global warming”; however, the production of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide has a great environmental impact.

Conclusions

A possible future implementation of the present study is certainly to carry out an overall assessment and to determine the most cost-effective option among the different competing alternatives through the life cycle cost analysis.

     

Identifying modules of cooperating cancer drivers

Identifying cooperating modules of driver alterations can provide insights into cancer etiology and advance the development of effective personalized treatments. We present Cancer Rule Set Optimization (CRSO) for inferring the combinations of alterations that cooperate to drive tumor formation in individual patients. Application to 19 TCGA cancer types revealed a mean of 11 core driver combinations per cancer, comprising 2–6 alterations per combination and accounting for a mean of 70% of samples per cancer type. CRSO is distinct from methods based on statistical co‐occurrence, which we demonstrate is a suboptimal criterion for investigating driver cooperation. CRSO identified well‐studied driver combinations that were not detected by other approaches and nominated novel combinations that correlate with clinical outcomes in multiple cancer types. Novel synergies were identified in NRAS‐mutant melanomas that may be therapeutically relevant. Core driver combinations involving NFE2L2 mutations were identified in four cancer types, supporting the therapeutic potential of NRF2 pathway inhibition. CRSO is available at https://github.com/mikekleinsgit/CRSO/.     

Microtubule poleward flux in human cells is driven by the coordinated action of four kinesins

Mitotic spindle microtubules (MTs) undergo continuous poleward flux, whose driving force and function in humans remain unclear. Here, we combined loss‐of‐function screenings with analysis of MT‐dynamics in human cells to investigate the molecular mechanisms underlying MT‐flux. We report that kinesin‐7/CENP‐E at kinetochores (KTs) is the predominant driver of MT‐flux in early prometaphase, while kinesin‐4/KIF4A on chromosome arms facilitates MT‐flux during late prometaphase and metaphase. Both these activities work in coordination with kinesin‐5/EG5 and kinesin‐12/KIF15, and our data suggest that the MT‐flux driving force is transmitted from non‐KT‐MTs to KT‐MTs by the MT couplers HSET and NuMA. Additionally, we found that the MT‐flux rate correlates with spindle length, and this correlation depends on the establishment of stable end‐on KT‐MT attachments. Strikingly, we find that MT‐flux is required to regulate spindle length by counteracting kinesin 13/MCAK‐dependent MT‐depolymerization. Thus, our study unveils the long‐sought mechanism of MT‐flux in human cells as relying on the coordinated action of four kinesins to compensate for MT‐depolymerization and regulate spindle length.     

Nadeshiko revisited: The situation of women in Japanese research and the measures taken to increase their representation

The Japanese government has enacted measures to increase the representation of women in research; the situation is improving but there is still much to do. Subject Categories: S&S: Careers & Training, S&S: History & Philosophy of Science, S&S: Ethics

Japanese parents are understandably proud that their 15‐year‐old boys and girls do equally well in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). In 2018, Japanese girls ranked second and third in Science and Mathematics, respectively, among the 40 participating countries, and Japanese boys ranked first in both subjects (https://data.oecd.org/japan.htm). However, Japanese boys and girls face different expectations and take different career paths as they grow up. In this commentary, we discuss how this affects the situation of female scientists in Japan. We start with the proportion of women in academic research and describe the problems they currently face. We underscore the tremendous measures developed and administered by the Japanese government to increase the participation and proportion of women in research. Finally, we mention an emerging grassroots initiative that is currently being implemented. We suggest that female empowerment may be one of the most promising strategies to improve the situation of women in the Japanese scientific community.