Valuing Biodiversity for Use in Pharmaceutical Research
In: Journal of political economy, Band 104, Heft 1, S. 163
ISSN: 0022-3808
42 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Journal of political economy, Band 104, Heft 1, S. 163
ISSN: 0022-3808
In: Plant Nutrition, S. 1012-1013
In: Water and environment journal, Band 6, Heft 4, S. 397-407
ISSN: 1747-6593
ABSTRACTLee Valley Water plc has, in a joint study with the University of Birmingham, been reassessing the reliable yields of its existing chalk sources in order to make maximum use of the available groundwater resources. An approach to yield assessment was developed which took into account the hydrogeology and flow processes in the vicinity of pumping stations, and within the contributing area. The yield of many sources was found to be very dependent on regional water level conditions. Initial estimates of potential yields were made but future monitoring should aim to clarify the interrelationship between source output and aquifer state.
In: Water and environment journal, Band 5, Heft 3, S. 342-351
ISSN: 1747-6593
AbstractDetailed metering trials together with a survey of property type, household size, and appliance ownership have provided an opportunity to study domestic demand in detail. The data are presented in a number of alternative ways to highlight the relationship between demand and features of the individual households. The uncertainties inherent in using small samples to estimate demands for an area are discussed, and the usefulness of ACORN classifications to characterize an area is examined.
In the United States, the "common law," that regulates ethics review is being overhauled. We ask how UK University Research Ethics Committees (U-RECs), following the American model, have been able to shape social-science research without much commotion, and whether it is time for change. Despite the misbehavior of some ethnographic researchers, most social science research is valued for and motivated by its expert engagement with moral questions regarding discrimination, unfairness, exploitation, and so on, at home and abroad: knowledge of and sensitivity to the complexities around the violation of socio-economic, political, and cultural norms and values are carried high in the social science banner. Yet, since the 1990s, social science research projects in the Anglo-American world have increasingly entrusted research ethics to the scrutiny of U-RECs. This ethical delegation gives a mandate to U-RECs, often without suitable expertise, to vet research projects in a bureaucratic and time-consuming manner. It does not just lead to misunderstandings and frustration; it also privileges research as defined by research ethics committees rather than in negotiation with the ethics we encounter "in the field." Although formal research ethics is clearly confusing early career researchers (and others!) about the role of ethics (which?), its forms have come to shape our disciplines. How did we get there? How do we move forward?
BASE
In: CyTA: journal of food, Band 11, Heft 2, S. 127-135
ISSN: 1947-6345
In: Plant Nutrition, S. 898-899
In: Plant Nutrition, S. 896-897
In: Wildlife research, Band 51, Heft 1
ISSN: 1448-5494, 1035-3712
Context Habitat loss and fragmentation are leading causes of biodiversity decline worldwide. In Australia, woodland habitat has been extensively cleared and fragmented yet there has been limited research on the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on semi-arid reptiles, impeding conservation planning and recovery efforts. Aims We aimed to investigate factors influencing the distribution and occurrence of habitat specialist and generalist reptile species on a large agricultural holding in south-eastern Australia that has experienced habitat loss and fragmentation. Methods Reptiles were surveyed using pitfall and funnel traps and active searches across 20 sites stratified by land use and vegetation type. Twelve sites were established in remnant woodland patches embedded within an agricultural matrix and eight sites were established in a private conservation reserve on the same property. Generalised linear models were used to explore relationships between the occurrence of eight reptile species and predictor variables describing site, landscape and vegetation variables. Key results Of the 31 reptile species that were detected, eight were modelled. The results revealed that four specialist species, the eastern mallee dragon (Ctenophorus spinodomus), nobbi dragon (Diporiphora nobbi), barred wedge-snouted ctenotus (Ctenotus schomburgkii) and shrubland pale-flecked morethia (Morethia obscura), were closely associated with the conservation reserve, and that the southern spinifex ctenotus (Ctenotus atlas) had a strong association with spinifex (Triodia scariosa) dominated vegetation community. Conclusions Reptile habitat specialists are particularly sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation and are at a higher risk of local extinction compared with habitat generalists. Reptile occurrence was reduced in remnant woodland patches, but remnant patches also supported a suite of habitat generalists. Implications A suite of semi-arid reptile species are sensitive to the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation and are susceptible to localised extinction. However, the presence of habitat generalists within woodland remnants highlights the value of retaining representative habitat patches in agricultural landscapes. Conservation of semi-arid woodland reptiles will depend on the retention of large tracts of protected vegetation across a broad range of soil types to maintain habitat heterogeneity and reptile diversity.
In: Environmental and resource economics, Band 69, Heft 3, S. 467-481
ISSN: 1573-1502
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE