Conservation Research Is Not Happening Where It Is Most Needed

Target 19, set by the Convention on Biological Diversity, seeks to improve the knowledge, science base, and technologies relating to biodiversity. We will fail to achieve this target unless prolific biases in the field of conservation science are addressed. We reveal that comparatively less research is undertaken in the world’s most biodiverse countries, the science conducted in these countries is often not led by researchers based in-country, and these scientists are also underrepresented in important international fora. Mitigating these biases requires wide-ranging solutions: reforming open access publishing policies, enhancing science communication strategies, changing author attribution practices, improving representation in international processes, and strengthening infrastructure and human capacity for research in countries where it is most needed.In the environmental sciences, the scientific process generates evidence for policies and practices. Published evidence indicates that the quality standards associated with peer review have been met. Publishing also provides others with access to the evidence being shared, and increasingly, to the data and methodological processes underlying it. There are, however, strong biases in the peer-reviewed literature.Biodiversity and the threats to its persistence are not uniformly distributed across the globe and therefore some areas demand comparatively greater scientific attention. If research is biased away from the most biodiverse areas, then this will accentuate the impacts of the global biodiversity crisis and reduce our capacity to protect and manage the natural ecosystems that underpin human well-being. Target 19 of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) states that “By 2020, knowledge, the science base, and technologies relating to biodiversity, its values, functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of its loss, are improved, widely shared and transferred, and applied” [1]. Biases in conservation science will prevent us from achieving this target.We conducted the first comprehensive analysis of publishing trends of the conservation science literature. We identified all publications from 2014 on the topic of “conservation” in the research areas of environmental sciences, ecology, biodiversity conservation, plant sciences, zoology, and geography. We searched both the Thomson Reuters Zoological Records and Web of Science Core Collection databases, which returned 10,036 scientific publications (from 1,061 journals), after the duplicate, unrelated, and incomplete records were removed. For a subset of these publications (n = 7,593, or 81%), we manually identified at least one topic country, and we determined the relative conservation importance of these countries for mammal conservation [2] as well as a broader definition of conservation importance that considers richness of vascular plants, endemic species, and functional species [3].The countries for which knowledge is sparse coincide with where research is most urgently needed. The top five countries, ranked according to relative importance for mammal conservation (i.e, Indonesia, Madagascar, Peru, Mexico, and Australia), were represented in 11.9% of the publications (Fig 1). If we consider the broader definition of conservation importance that reflects the richness of vascular plants, endemic species, and functional species, then the top five countries (i.e., Ecuador, Costa Rica, Panama, the Dominican Republic, and Papua New Guinea) are the focus of only 1.6% of publications (4,5], will continue to be populated with biased data.Open in a separate windowFig 1Global distribution of publications on biodiversity conservation (S1 Data).

Table 1

Publishing trends and representation in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Specialist Groups or the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) for (A) the countries ranked highest in terms of importance for mammal conservation [2], (B) the countries ranked highest in terms of biodiversity [3], and (C) the United States and United Kingdom, for the purposes of comparison (S1 Data).

Oocyte Scoring Enhances Embryo-Scoring in Predicting Pregnancy Chances with IVF Where It Counts Most

Context

Our center’s quality improvement optimization process on many occasions anecdotally suggested that oocyte assessments might enhance embryo assessment in predicting pregnancy chances with in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Objective

To prospectively compare a morphologic oocyte grading system to standard day-3 morphologic embryo assessment.

Design, Setting, Patients

We prospectively investigated in a private academically-affiliated infertility center 94 consecutive IVF cycles based on 6 criteria for oocyte quality: morphology, cytoplasm, perivitelline space (PVS), zona pellucida (ZP), polar body (PB) and oocyte size, each assigned a value of -1 (worst), 0 (average) or +1 (best), so establishing an average total oocyte score (TOS). Embryo assessment utilized grade and cell numbers of each embryo on day-3 after oocyte retrieval. Clinical pregnancy was defined by presence of at least one intrauterine gestational sac.

Interventions

Standard IVF cycles in infertile women.

Main Outcome Measures

Predictability of pregnancy based on oocyte and embryo-grading systems.

Results

Average age for all patients was 36.5 ± 7.3 years; mean oocyte yield was 7.97± 5.76; Patient specific total oocyte score (PTOS) was -1.05 ± 2.24. PTOS, adjusted for patient age, was directly related to odds of increased embryo cell numbers (OR 1.12, P = 0.025), embryo grade (OR 1.19, P < 0.001) and clinical pregnancy [OR 1.58 (95%CI 1.23 to 2.02), P < 0.001]. Restricting the analysis to day three embryos of high quality (8-cell/ good grades), TOS was still predictive of clinical pregnancy (OR 2.08 (95%CI 1.26 to 3.44, P = 0.004). Among the 69 patients with embryos of Grade 4 or better available for transfer 23 achieved Clinical Pregnancy. When the analysis was restricted to the 69 transfers with good quality embryos (≥ Grade 4) the Oocyte Scoring System (TOS) (AUC±SE 0.863±0.044, oocyte score) provided significantly greater predictive value for clinical pregnancy compared to the embryo grade alone (AUC 0.646 ± 0.072, embryo grade) p = 0.015.

Conclusions

Oocyte-scoring, thus, provides useful clinical information especially in good prognosis patients with large numbers of high quality embryos. This finding appears of particular importance at a time when many IVF centers are committing sizable investments to closed incubation systems with time-lapse photography, which are exclusively meant to define embryo morphology.     

Modularity in Development and Why It Matters to Evo-Devo

The concept of modularity is fundamental to research in bothevolutionary and developmental biology, though workers in eachfield use the idea in different ways. Although readily and intuitivelyrecognized, modularity is difficult to define precisely. Mostdefinitions of modularity are operational and implicit, particularlyin developmental biology. Examination of several proposed definitionspoints to some general characteristics of developmental modules,for example their internal integration, and suggests the importanceof devising a definition applicable at different levels of thebiological hierarchy. Modules, like homologs, must be definedwith respect to a specified level of the hierarchy, and a generaldefinition should support both analyses of the evolving causalrelationships between levels, and studies of the interconnectionsbetween modules of the same type. The designation of a developmentalstructure, process, or function as a "module" is a testablehypothesis; this hypothesis is confirmed in the case of thedorsal marginal zone of the amphibian gastrula, which acts asa morphogenetic module. Discussions of developmental modularitycan provide a meeting place for developmental and evolutionarybiologists by helping us articulate key questions at the intersectionof the two fields, and design experiments to begin answeringthem.     

Regenerating Eye Tissues to Preserve and Restore Vision

Download video (112MB)Help with mp4 files