Search

Despite the acknowledged importance of interdisciplinarity in biodiversity conservation, there is still resistance to incorporate social science research (SSR) to both conservationist thinking and practice. The reasons for such a resistance can be summarized in three general statements still commonly attributed to SSR, namely: it is of 'little use' and it has 'less methodological rigor' than research in the natural sciences and, above all, it is unreliable because 'people lie'. The current essay was developed based on the experience of participants of a community of practice (formed by professionals from different fields and sectors associated with conservation), as well as on discussions held in this space of collective learning. It addresses the limitations and misconceptions behind the aforementioned statements. SSR is not less useful in conservation and not less methodologically rigorous than research conducted in the natural sciences. When researchers are lied to, the problem does not lie on the research itself, but on the subject-researcher relationship. We herein argue that as conservationists become more familiar with SSR, and as principles like equity and justice are incorporated to conservation values and goals, both the importance and need of SSR in conservation become obvious, making the lack of trust between researcher and subjects no longer a significant concern. Increasing capacity, integrating and supporting are our basic recommendations for researchers, educators, managers and decision-makers in the conservation, teaching, publishing and funding fields, so that SSR can fully fulfill its role in conservation.

In this article, we take up the overlapping nature of crises, and reflect on the knowledge we have gained vis-a-vis learning in a time of pandemic. COVID-19 and climate change have both, in overlapping ways, changed our understanding of what constitutes just and empowering approaches to crisis risk communication. In both areas of concern, the public has had to appropriate and interpret technical knowledge, and apply the same to risk situations. At times, whether it concerns the efficacy of masks for preventing COVID-19, or evacuating ahead of an impending tropical cyclone, the public has had to become their own local experts. Our work is guided by the ethic of relationality, which eschews objectification of the public, instead aiming for their full inclusion as partners in risk reduction. The challenge is to re-orient the role of the public from a passive recipient of expert knowledge to an active agent capable of acquiring, translating, and acting upon risk information. One interesting strategy has been to craft empowerment workshops where community members gain competencies in acquiring risk knowledge and translating the same into narrative forms that they can, in turn, share with others. This was translated into a lesson plan for elementary students in Tacloban, Philippines, on the risks of storm surge. We also describe how the same lesson was repurposed for COVID-19 risk communication. The case studies speak to an emerging form of environmental education that is relevant to crises of the Anthropocene.

Parabens (PBs) are widely used in the cosmetic, pharmaceutical, and food industries as preservatives of products. Because of its great use, humans and other organisms are highly exposed daily. However, little is known about the effect of PBs on male infertility. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of methylparaben (MePB) and propylparaben (PrPB), alone or in combination, on the physiological characteristics of pig in vitro exposed sperm to different concentrations (0, 200, 500, and 700 μM) for viability, motility, and acrosome integrity evaluation and (0, 200, 500, 700, 1000, and 2000 μM) for DNA fragmentation index evaluation, after 4 h of exposure. The results showed that sperm viability decreased after exposure to MePB from the concentration of 500 μM. In the PrPB and mixture groups, viability decreased at all concentrations except for the control. The decrease in viability of sperm exposed to PrPB was greater than that of the mixture and MePB groups. Sperm motility decreased in all the experimental groups exposed to PBs, at all concentrations, except for the control group. Acrosome integrity was not decreased in the MePB group; however, in the PrPB group, it decreased at a concentration of 200 μM and in the mixture at 500 μM. All groups exhibited DNA damage at different concentrations, except for the control group. Additionally, the effect of PBs on sperm quality was concentration‐dependent. The results demonstrated that MePB and PrPB alone or in combination can have adverse effects on sperm quality parameters. MePB had lower toxicity than did both PrPB and the mixture. The mixture did not have an additive effect on any of the parameters evaluated. This could partially explain the link between PB exposure and infertility. Sperm viability decreased after exposure to MePB from the concentration of 500 μM. In the PrPB and mixture groups, viability decreased at all concentrations. Sperm motility decreased in all the experimental groups exposed to PBs at all concentrations. Acrosome integrity was not decreased in the MePB group; however, in the PrPB group, it decreased at a concentration of 200 μM and in the mixture at 500 μM. All groups exhibited DNA damage at different concentrations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Los índices inflamatorios sistémicos se han validado como indicadores de inflamación sistémica como marcadores predictivos de mal pronóstico para diversas enfermedades oncológicas. Sin embargo, se desconoce el impacto pronóstico de los marcadores de inflamación sistémica en pacientes con tumores neuroendocrinos gastroenteropancreáticos (TNE-GEP) tratados con péptidos marcados con radionúclidos (PRRT). Realizamos un estudio observacional, retrospectivo, multicéntrico de 40 pacientes con TNEs-GEP y TNE de origen desconocido tratados con PRRT entre el 2016 y el 2020. Los marcadores inflamatorios sistémicos se calcularon de la siguiente manera: relación neutrófilos a linfocitos (NLR) = recuento de neutrófilos/recuento de linfocitos, relación de monocitos a linfocitos (MLR) = recuento de monocitos/recuento de linfocitos, relación de plaquetas a linfocitos (PLR) = recuento de plaquetas/recuento de linfocitos, relación de albúmina a linfocitos (ALR) = niveles de albúmina/recuento de linfocitos y relación derivada de neutrófilos a linfocitos (dNLR) = recuento de neutrófilos/(recuento de leucocitos – recuento de neutrófilos). Se utilizaron datos analíticos basales pretratamiento y después de la segunda dosis para el cálculo de los distintos índices. La mediana de edad fue de 63 años (rango 41-85), el 55% eran hombres. Los valores de corte de referencia para NLR fueron 2,61, para MLR 0,31, para PLR 110,14, para ALR 2,39 y para dNLR 1,71. Los valores de corte después de la segunda dosis fueron, para NLR 2,3, para MLR 0,3, para PLR 131,61, ALR 4,16 y dNLR 1,48. La mediana de la sobrevivencia libre de progresión (SLP) fue de 21,7 meses (IC del 95%: 10,7-32,8 m) y la supervivencia global (SG) fue de 32,1 meses (IC del 95%: 19,6-44,7 m), la SLP fue más corta en pacientes con NLR elevado (p = 0,001), ALR (0,03) y dNLR (p = 0,001) en el análisis basal. La tasa de control de enfermedad (DCR) fue del 81% y la tasa de respuesta objetiva (ORR) del 18%. En los TNE-GEP o de origen desconocido tratados con PRRT hemos identificado el impacto predictivo y pronóstico de los factores inflamatorios sistémicos en la analítica basal pretratamiento. Systemic inflammatory factors have been validated as indicators of ongoing systemic inflammation that could be predictive markers of poor prognosis for oncological outcomes. However, the prognostic impact of systemic inflammation markers is unknown in patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) treated with peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). We conducted an observational, retrospective, multicentric study of 40 patients with GEP or unknown origin NETs treated with PRRT between 2016 and 2020. The systemic inflammatory markers were calculated as follows: neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) = neutrophil count/lymphocyte count, monocyte to lymphocyte ratio (MLR) = monocyte count/lymphocyte count, platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR) = platelet count/lymphocyte count, albumin to lymphocyte ratio (ALR) = albumin levels/lymphocyte count and derived Neutrophil to Lymphocyte ratio (dNLR) = neutrophil count/(leucocytes count – neutrophils count). Baseline analysis and after the second dose were used for the calculation of different ratios. The median age was 63 years (range 41–85), 55% were male. The baseline cut-off values for NLR were 2.61, for MLR 0.31, for PLR 110.14, for ALR 2.39 and for dNLR 1.71. The cut-off values after the 2° dose were, for NLR 2.3, for MLR 0.3, for PLR 131.61, ALR 4.16, and dNLR 1.48. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.7 months (95% CI 10.7–32.8 months) and overall survival (OS) was 32.1 months (95% CI 19.6–44.7 months), PFS was shorter in patients with elevated NLR (P = 0.001), ALR (0.03), and dNLR (P = 0.001) in baseline analysis. DCR was 81% and ORR 18%. In GEP or unknown origin NETs treated with PRRT, we have identified the predictive and prognostic impact of baseline systemic inflammatory factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]