Search

Marine Science Communication (MSC) aims to increase understanding and to raise awareness of Ocean science. It also increases curiosity about scientific discoveries and issues related to our Ocean. MSC is a tool to improve understanding of the importance of Ocean science, to help create awareness and inspire responsible behaviour at all levels of society, and to advocate for policy that is committed to a sustainable Ocean and planet. The purpose of this Future Science Brief is to shed light on the state of the art, the impact, the visibility and the future of MSC actions in Europe. This document aims to highlight MSC as a critical field of activity, and to share recommendations for its future development. It also examines lessons learnt during the process of MSC, considers the role of different stakeholders in this process, and highlights the challenges and opportunities that arise when communicating about Ocean science. Finally, it delivers specific recommendations on how to recognize, support and improve MSC in Europe. The main target audience are professional communicators within Ocean/marine research institutions, Ocean conservation organizations, or scientists who communicate their own research. This document is also aimed at marine scientific organization managers, research funders, European and national policy-makers and NGOs, who support a healthy Ocean, the local economy, food provision, tourism, etc. Over the coming decade, MSC will become critical to achieve a more Ocean literate and sustainable society. To strengthen the capacity of MSC in Europe, we make the following recommendations: 1. Marine Science Communication should not hide facts, but should avoid only presenting the ‘negative bias’ in Ocean news. It should also show the opportunities, and when possible, the positive side of a story. 2. Marine science institutions and funders should change their culture in order to stimulate science communication and to acknowledge and value science communication. 3. Marine science communicators should look for connections with science communicators outwith marine science, and with communicators in non-scientific domains (e.g. marketing). Communication experts should increase interaction with all stakeholders (scientists, citizens, media, aquaria & science centres, students, policy-makers, industry, educators) in the MSC process. 4. A marine science communication platform or database should be developed by the communication community to share expertise and resources, especially to help those with reduced resources. 5. Additional funding and human resources are needed to cope with future MSC needs. The European Marine Board Communications Panel recommends that marine science institutions should dedicate at least 10% of their staff time to MSC. This can include both staff dedicated to MSC and/or time spent on MSC by scientists and other staff. 6. Marine science communicators should make better use of new technologies and approaches to reach the wider public in order to enhance successful traditional methods (story-telling, hands-on activities, arts, visuals, etc.), ‘to make the invisible visible’, to stimulate curiosity and hunger for knowledge, and to actively connect with a wider audience. 7. There is a clear need for professional communication and outreach training programs, workshops and events (e.g. the CommOCEAN conferences), both for marine scientists and for other MSC stakeholders. It is recommended that a structural means for supporting the continuation of these conferences is sought, possibly in partnership with the European Commission. 8. Marine science communicators should communicate as much as possible under the umbrella of the Ocean Decade and of the EU Mission: Restore our Ocean and waters by 2030, both unique opportunities to enhance MSC. An evaluation by the conveners of these efforts should be made in order to learn from the experience and to be prepared to underpin similar future actions. 9. A general communication baseline for marine science should be established by the communication community, which emphasizes the ‘Why’ of Ocean science and MSC. This should be based on the rationale shaping the international Ocean Literacy movement

Western society considers itself free, liberal and nurturing of gender equality, yet women's genitalia remain a taboo subject. Women rarely say the word ‘vulva’, and instead describe their external genitalia using a vast array of different terms, often using euphemisms (e.g. ‘down below’) or incorrectly calling it ‘vagina’.1 The lack of appropriate vocabulary reflects a general lack of knowledge of female genital anatomy and function. Sex education focuses mainly on reproduction and hence on the vagina, an internal structure which most children have no experience of and can't see.2 A physiological analogy would be to teach the role of the throat in swallowing food without mentioning the tongue or mouth. A research paper examining female sexual terminology suggests that “societal silence regarding the role of the clitoris may act as a symbolic clitoridectomy”.2 This pervading ‘vulval taboo’ means that women are often not comfortable openly sharing genital insecurities. In recent years the internet has become a source of information, and has brought female genitalia out of the shadows and into public scrutiny. Popular culture is increasingly sexualised with acceptance of nudity in the media, and popularity of skimpy, tightly fitting fashions. Images of hairless, minimalist pudenda on pornographic websites may skew women's views of their own genital normality, as well as changing men's expectations. This has contributed to a change in beauty ideals and introduced a culture of genital modification.3 Society usually regards hairiness as unfeminine4 and women from different cultures have removed body hair in varying amounts since ancient times. However, it is only in recent decades that pubic hair removal has become a popular Western trend. Around 85% of British women report pubic hair removal.4 An American study found that total hair removal is fashionable among young women, and reasons for genital …

Many thanks to Hermione Lovel for her letter1 commending my personal view article on the vulva.2 I welcome the discussion as a way to further explore and emphasise this important topic. I want to respond to the points raised by Dr Lovel in turn. I agree wholeheartedly with Dr Lovel that using international terminology is helpful in describing female genital mutilation (FGM), which is why I used, and …

The opinion of Marion Larat is that “nobody, but nobody should take the third- and fourth-generation pills”.1 This view is not surprising as she suffered a devastating stroke at the age of 18 years.2 A subsequent enquiry linked her cerebral vascular accident to Meliane®,3 a 20 μg pill containing gestodene that she had been prescribed for contraception. In December 2012, Marion Larat successfully sued the manufacturer, Bayer, and the French drug regulatory board Agence national de securite du medicament et des produits de sante (ANSM) for damages. Her case was widely publicised in the media and 30 similar lawsuits soon followed. In January 2013, the Minister for Health, Marisol Touraine, announced that France's social security system would no longer reimburse prescriptions for third- and fourth-generation pills.4 At the time around half of the five million French women on the combined pill were taking such pills,5 which cost more to the state than older formulations. Plans were made to strip midwives and nurses of their pill-prescribing powers.5 The ANSM advised that third- and fourth-generation pills should never be used as first-line contraception and should only be prescribed if an older formulation had not been tolerated.5 The ANSM then referred the matter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for further investigation. Since the introduction of the combined oral contraceptive pill (COC) in the 1960s, an association between ethinylestradiol (EE) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been apparent. The amount of EE in pills has lessened over time to reduce thrombotic potential as well as estrogenic side effects. Older pills contain testosterone-derived progestogens and can have androgenic side effects. Newer formulations have been developed that contain less androgenic progestogens and so aim for better tolerability. Progestogens have been arbitrarily categorised into ‘generations’ based on their chemical structure …

Objective To map aggrecan cleavage by matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and aggrecanases in normal murine tibial articular cartilage (CBA strain) and in the development of spontaneous osteoarthritis (OA) in the STR/ort mouse and to assess the influence of sex hormone status on these conditions in gonadectomized STR/ort mice. Methods The distributions of neoepitopes of aggrecan generated by MMP (VDIPEN) and aggrecanase (NITEGE) cleavage were investigated by immunohistochemistry. Results VDIPEN neoepitope was detected mainly in the pericellular matrix of deep-zone chondrocytes in normal tibial cartilage from STR/ort and CBA mice. In early OA, VDIPEN immunostaining also localized to the pericellular matrix of chondrocytes at the site of the lesion. With increasing severity of OA lesions, VDIPEN immunostaining was also detected in the interterritorial matrix, close to the site of the lesion. In contrast, NITEGE mapped most strongly to the pericellular matrix of upper-zone chondrocytes in normal tibial cartilage. As with VDIPEN, NITEGE was strongly expressed in the pericellular matrix at the site of early OA lesions. With advancing OA, NITEGE colocalized with VDIPEN in both the pericellular and interterritorial matrices of chondrocytes adjacent to OA lesions and in those of the deep zones. Hormone status did not appear to influence the development of OA or the distribution of aggrecan neoepitopes in STR/ort mice. Conclusion MMP- and aggrecanase-generated neoepitopes map predominantly to different regions in normal murine tibial cartilage. However, both groups of enzymes generate increased amounts of neoepitopes in pericellular and interterritorial matrix adjacent to histopathologic lesions of OA. Aggrecan degradation and the development of OA appear to be independent of sex hormone status in this model.