CLOSE
Advanced searchCitation search
Suggested Terms:
Skip main navigation

Search Result

21 - 23of23
per page:
Relevance
Filters

You do not have any saved searches

  • OPEN ACCESS
    Assessing species at risk legislation across Canadian provinces and territories
    FACETS • Vol. 9 • pp. 1 - 18
    Canada’s provinces and territories govern species at risk across most of Canada, with the federal Species at Risk Act generally covering only aquatic species, migratory birds, and species living on federal land. More than a decade after a 2012 report by the environmental law charity Ecojustice on species at risk protection in Canada, we use the same criteria to evaluate the current state of provincial and territorial species at risk legislation, and we provide updates on changes in each jurisdiction since 2012. These criteria are as follows: whether at-risk species are being identified, whether these species are being protected, whether their habitat is being protected, and whether species recovery plans are being created and implemented. We find that there is considerable variation across jurisdictions, with shortcomings that result in inadequate protections for at-risk species, as well as strong components that should be adopted by all jurisdictions. We recommend seven key areas for improvement: dedicated and harmonized legislation, limited discretionary power, increased embrace of scientific and Indigenous knowledge, appropriate timelines for actions, reasonable exemptions to protections, habitat protection across land ownership types, and transparency throughout the process. We urge policymakers to address current shortcomings as they work toward meeting Canada’s biodiversity conservation commitments.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    A One Health perspective on recreational fisheries
    FACETS • Vol. 9 • pp. 1 - 9
    Recreational fisheries involve an intimate connection between people, individual fish, and the environment. Recreational fishers and their health crucially depend on healthy fish and ecosystems. Similarly, fish and ecosystems can be impacted by the activities of people including recreational fishers. Thus, amplified by the global interest in recreational fishing, we posit that recreational fishing is particularly suited as an empirical system to explore a One Health perspective, with a goal of creating pathways to better manage such socio-ecological systems for the benefit of people, fish, and the environment. Although zoonoses are uncommon in fishes, fish can carry pathogens, biotoxins, or contaminants that are harmful to people. When captured and released, fish can experience stress and injuries that may promote pathogen development. Similarly, when humans contribute to environmental degradation, not only are fish impacted but so are the humans that depend on them for nutrition, livelihoods, culture, and well-being. Failure to embrace the One Health perspective for recreational fisheries has the potential to negatively impact the health of fish, fisheries, people, society, and the aquatic environment—especially important since these complex social–ecological systems are undergoing rapid change.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections
    FACETS • Vol. 9 • pp. 1 - 14
    This candid perspective written by scholars from diverse disciplinary backgrounds is intended to advance conversations about the realities of peer review and its inherent limitations. Trust in a process or institution is built slowly and can be destroyed quickly. Trust in the peer review process for scholarly outputs (i.e., journal articles) is being eroded by high-profile scandals, exaggerated news stories, exposés, corrections, retractions, and anecdotes about poor practices. Diminished trust in the peer review process has real-world consequences and threatens the uptake of critical scientific advances. The literature on “crises of trust” tells us that rebuilding diminished trust takes time and requires frank admission and discussion of problems, creative thinking that addresses rather than dismisses criticisms, and planning and enacting short- and long-term reforms to address the root causes of problems. This article takes steps in this direction by presenting eight peer review reality checks and summarizing efforts to address their weaknesses using a harm reduction approach, though we recognize that reforms take time and some problems may never be fully rectified. While some forms of harm reduction will require structural and procedural changes, we emphasize the vital role that training editors, reviewers, and authors has in harm reduction. Additionally, consumers of science need training about how the peer review process works and how to critically evaluate research findings. No amount of self-policing, transparency, or reform to peer review will eliminate all bad actors, unscrupulous publishers, perverse incentives that reward cutting corners, intentional deception, or bias. However, the scientific community can act to minimize the harms from these activities, while simultaneously (re)building the peer review process. A peer review system is needed, even if it is imperfect.