Applied Filters
- Science and Policy
- Biological and Life SciencesRemove filter
Journal Title
Topics
Publication Date
Author
Access Type
1 - 5of5
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
| Search Name | Searched On |
|---|---|
| [Subject Areas: Science and Policy] AND [Subject Areas: Biological and Life Sciences] (5) | 26 Mar 2025 |
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESSAspects of Canada’s health regulatory system are currently being reviewed. This is timely, as the regulation and definition of drugs, foods, and natural health products (NHPs) is in need of revision to facilitate greater transparency and less ambiguity. A number of studies have illustrated the importance of a nutritious diet to prevent and manage chronic disease. Therefore, legislation surrounding food health claims needs to be adjusted so that it is more informative for disease prevention and, in some cases, treatment. Canada is modernizing the regulation of self-care products, under which NHPs, including probiotic products, are listed. With the growing appreciation for the role that microbes play in human health and the recognition that many foods, including those containing probiotic organisms, can prevent or mitigate disease, this provides an opportunity to reassess regulatory categories.
- OPEN ACCESSWith the widespread loss of biodiversity, zoos and aquariums are striving to become leaders in biodiversity conservation and research. Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA) is a nonprofit organization created to represent its members, including as agencies of conservation and science. However, the contribution of CAZA members to conservation and science has not been quantified. We used research productivity in the form of peer-reviewed publications to systematically quantify biodiversity conservation engagement by CAZA institutions. We extracted publications from the ISI Web of Science database and found that the annual number of publications increased over time. CAZA members published most in the area of veterinary science, with few publications in biodiversity conservation. Organization age, research-orientated mission statements, and financial assets were significant predictors of research productivity. CAZA institutions also published significantly less (X¯ = 12.5 ± 5.52 SE) than members of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (X¯ = 24.27 ± 5.08 SE), based in the United States. Zoos and aquariums are important resources in mitigating biodiversity loss, and are increasing their research output in this area. Nonetheless, only a small proportion of publications were in biodiversity conservation, and the majority of all publications occurred in zoo-centric journals.
- OPEN ACCESSAcademic scientists face an unpredictable path from plant biology research to real-life application. Fundamental studies of γ-aminobutyrate and carotenoid metabolism, control of Botrytis infection, and the uptake and distribution of mineral nutrients illustrate that most academic research in plant biology could lead to innovative solutions for food, agriculture, and the environment. The time to application depends on various factors such as the fundamental nature of the scientific questions, the development of enabling technologies, the research priorities of funding agencies, the existence of competitive research, the willingness of researchers to become engaged in commercial activities, and ultimately the insight and creativity of the researchers. Applied research is likely to be adopted more rapidly by industry than basic research, so academic scientists engaged in basic research are less likely to participate in science commercialization. It is argued that the merit of Discovery Grant applications to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada should not be evaluated for their potential impact on policy and (or) technology. Matching industry funds in Canada rarely support the search for knowledge. Therefore, NSERC Discovery Grants should fund basic research in its entirety.
- OPEN ACCESSIn some cases, managing an established invasive species may do more harm to an ecosystem than allowing the invader to persist. Given limited resources available to land managers and the realities of conservation triage, we recognized the need for systematic guidance for management decisions made at the “late end” of the invasion curve. We gathered an interdisciplinary group of experts and practitioners to address the question of “under what circumstances is the active management of an established aquatic invasive species warranted?” Our working group identified three key dimensions to this question: (1) the efficacy of available management options; (2) the net benefits of management actions weighed against the null scenario of no control; and (3) the socio-ecological context that defines management goals, a manager’s ability to achieve said goals, and perceptions of management outcomes. These considerations were used to structure a consensus decision tree that supports a multi-criteria approach to decision-making. Our approach promotes interdisciplinarity and systems thinking and emphasizes the need to consider costs and benefits comprehensively, for example by considering the persistence or reversibility of impacts from both the invasive species and from efforts to suppress or eradicate it.
- OPEN ACCESSHabitat sensitivity is a consideration for decision-making under environmental laws in many jurisdictions. However, habitat sensitivity has been variously defined and there is no consistent approach to its quantification, which limits our understanding of how habitat sensitivity varies among systems and in response to different pressures. We review various definitions offered in the scientific literature and policy documents before suggesting a universal framework for habitat sensitivity as (i) a habitat trait that defines the ecological impacts from a given pressure, (ii) which is composed of three components (habitat resistance, resilience, and recoverability), and (iii) which is quantified by measuring the change and recovery in the state of key habitat attributes in response to pressures. In addition, we provide guidance toward a consistent approach to assessing habitat sensitivity, which includes the use of pressure benchmarks and standardized metrics of change in key habitat attributes to create a common scale for comparison among habitat attributes and pressures. Our framework and recommendations should help to standardize the way in which habitat sensitivity is defined and assessed, and could be integrated into decision-making processes to improve ecosystem management in different jurisdictions.