Broad-scope plant science journal publishes focus issue on critical biosecurity gap

Peer-Reviewed Publication

AMERICAN PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOCIETY

 

IMAGE: JOURNAL COVER OF THE PHYTOFRONTIERS FOCUS ISSUE ON DIAGNOSTIC ASSAY DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION. view more 

CREDIT: THE AMERICAN PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOCIETY

The vast scale of global trade presents a constant threat of introducing new plant diseases, which is challenging to the United States system of biosecurity. Plant health professionals often must respond quickly to a newly introduced or emerging plant disease outbreak even before a well-validated diagnostic test is available. Additionally, thousands of plant pathogens that already exist have been routinely diagnosed with assays that were not fully or consistently validated, which can lead to inaccurate diagnoses, delays in proper disease management, and significant consequences for growers and the public.

Growing awareness of this gap in coordination and resources for plant disease diagnostic assay development and validation inspired Kitty Cardwell—Director of the Institute for Biosecurity and Microbial Forensics at Oklahoma State University—and colleagues, in collaboration with The American Phytopathological Society (APS), to publish the focus issue “Diagnostic Assay Development and Validation: The Science of Getting It Right” in the journal PhytoFrontiers. This visionary and widely collaborative focus issue contains more than twenty-five open access articles addressing the need to harmonize plant health diagnostics within the U.S. agricultural biosecurity system.

The focus issue contains ten perspective articles and sixteen research articles. Many of the perspective articles are based on discussions among a large group of experts over several years supported by a USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture seed grant (NIFA 2020). Other perspective articles discuss the outcomes of VALITEST, a similar project funded by the European Union (EU) on diagnostic assay validation. The need and vision for developing the Diagnostic Assay Validation Network (DAVN) describes the goal of facilitating the accessibility and shareability of standard diagnostic method development and validation data/tools across institutions. Cardwell says that “outcomes of the DAVN will include more validated diagnostic assays, faster assay development time, and better coordination and communications across the continuum of plant health professionals and the industries they serve, as well as networked people, technology, and resources to protect agriculture, the environment, and trade.”

Six research articles discuss developing and validating high throughput screening (HTS) methods to detect and identify common plant pathogen taxa. Three of these papers demonstrate the development, validation, and use of e-probe diagnostic nucleic acid analysis (EDNA). Ten more research articles highlight the validation of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) plant disease diagnostic assay methods for common plant pathogen taxa. 

“Diagnostic Assay Development and Validation: The Science of Getting It Right” is the first focus issue from PhytoFrontiers, a relatively new journal published by APS. Editor-in-Chief Steve Klosterman remarks, "The publication of this focus issue is an amazing accomplishment for PhytoFrontiers—due to the number of articles and their overall quality. Clearly, there is a thirst for this topic.”

This focus issue aims to raise awareness about, and improve the discourse on, the importance of assay validation for diagnostic accuracy. Cardwell and the other focus issue guest editors (Carrie Harmon, Poonam Sharma, and James Stack) state that this focus issue should enhance the quality of diagnostic assays and increase the confidence in their use for the protection of U.S. agricultural, horticultural, and natural landscapes. As the United States strives to maintain important relationships with its global trading partners, a transparent, robust assay validation system with networked resources and experts will assure trade partners and increase confidence in U.S. production systems. The science of “getting it right” presented in this focus issue can facilitate the protection of plant health in the U.S. and abroad.

 

For additional details, read Focus Issue Articles on Diagnostic Assay Development and Validation: The Science of Getting It Right, published in Vol. 3, No. 1 / 2023 of PhytoFrontiers. All articles in this issue are free to read.

 

Learn more about DAVN by visiting https://www.apsnet.org/DAVN/Pages/default.aspx.

Follow this research network on Twitter

PhytoFrontiers @phytofrontiers

DAVN @the_davn

Carrie Harmon @flplantdr

Poonam Sharma @PoonamSharmaG

The American Phytopathological Society @plantdisease

 

About PhytoFrontiers™

Established in 2020 by The American Phytopathological Society, PhytoFrontiers is an interdisciplinary open-access journal publishing high-quality research covering basic to applied aspects of plant health. PhytoFrontiers also provides space for plant pathologists to publish negative results or results perceived as having no impact.

Visit https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/journal/phytofr to learn more.

---

DOI

10.1094/PHYTOFR-02-23-0014-FI 

ARTICLE TITLE

Focus Issue Articles on Diagnostic Assay Development and Validation: The Science of Getting It Right

Addressing adaptation inequalities in climate research

Peer-Reviewed Publication

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

A new study proposes ways to better incorporate adaptation in climate change research, addressing the uneven distribution of adaptation capacities and needs worldwide.

Research on adaptation to the risks posed by climate change has witnessed significant growth in the past decade, with increasing recognition of its urgency in policy agendas at the international, national, and local levels. Adaptation needs and capacities are not evenly distributed worldwide, with countries in the Global South generally experiencing the highest challenges. Existing climate modeling tools, however, do not account for these differences in adaptive capacities, which may lead to an underestimation of the actual risks.

To help address this challenge, in a new IIASA-led study published in Nature Climate Change, researchers proposed ways to better incorporate adaptive capacity into the framework of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), a scenario set widely used by climate impact and integrated assessment modeling communities. SSPs describe alternative global development trajectories based on factors such as GDP, demographics, governance, and gender equality, and are able to characterize how well or ill-equipped a society is to cope with climate change.

“There has been previous work pointing at the need to better represent adaptation in climate models,” says Marina Andrijevic, a researcher in the IIASA Energy, Climate, and Environment Program and the lead author of the study. “In this study, for the first time we offer concrete ways to quantify adaptive capacity in climate research. Using the approach we are suggesting, our mainstream modeling tools can incorporate the idea that not all societies will be able to adapt to climate change.”

The researchers provide an overview on how adaptation is represented in conventional modeling tools and show that the SSP scenario framework can be leveraged to assess different categories of adaptation constraints and enablers. The study also offers guidance on model integration for assessing climate change risk and explores future research directions in global assessments used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“In our modeling efforts, adaptation must be regarded in the broader context of socioeconomic development with a focus on societal empowerment, not only in financial terms, but in the form of education, governance, and gender equality,” says Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, a researcher at Climate Analytics and a coauthor of the study.

The approach detailed in the study can accelerate ongoing efforts to improve the representation of adaptation, account for inequalities, and enable more precise risk estimates and reliable policy advice. To facilitate the integration of adaptive capacity in different research and policy agendas, the researchers also developed a data explorer, visualizing different global futures for indicators that can be used to assess adaptive capacity.

“A better integration of adaptation and adaptive capacity in quantitative risk modeling could show policymakers that we cannot take it for granted that adaptation will simply happen; stringent mitigation must remain the priority for climate risk reduction,” concludes Edward Byers, a researcher in the IIASA Energy, Climate, and Environment Program and a coauthor of the study.

The new framework will also be used in the IIASA-led SPARCCLE project on socioeconomic risks of climate change in Europe, that will start in September 2023. Along with 11 other partners across Europe, including the European Commission’s Joint Research Center, the €6.1 million project will develop new and integrated capacities to assess the risks of climate change and identify synergies between mitigation and adaptation actions.

Reference
Andrijevic, M., Schleussner, C., Cuaresma, J.C., Lissner, T., Muttarak, R., Riahi, K., Theokritoff, E., Thomas, A., van Maanen, N. and Byers, E. (2023). Towards scenario representation of adaptive capacity for global climate change assessments. Nature Climate Change. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-023-01725-1

 

About IIASA:
The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) is an international scientific institute that conducts research into the critical issues of global environmental, economic, technological, and social change that we face in the twenty-first century. Our findings provide valuable options to policymakers to shape the future of our changing world. IIASA is independent and funded by prestigious research funding agencies in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe. www.iiasa.ac.at

---

JOURNAL

Nature Climate Change

DOI

10.1038/s41558-023-01725-1 

ARTICLE TITLE

Towards scenario representation of adaptive capacity for global climate change assessments

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

17-Jul-2023

Do common methods for protecting bees from pesticides actually work?

Surprisingly few studies underpin most bee-protective measures, new analysis finds

Peer-Reviewed Publication

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA

 

IMAGE: RESPONSIBLE USE OF PESTICIDES INCLUDES STRIVING TO AVOID NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT, OFTEN WITH AN EMPHASIS ON PROTECTING BEES AND OTHER POLLINATORS. A NEW STUDY, HOWEVER, FINDS THAT MANY COMMON METHODS FOR MINIMIZING PESTICIDES’ IMPACT ON BEES—EVEN SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON PRODUCT LABELS—ARE BACKED BY MINIMAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. THE RESEARCHERS BEHIND THE STUDY, PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, SAY STRONGER TESTING IS NEEDED TO EVALUATE WHICH BEE-PROTECTION MEASURES ARE TRULY EFFECTIVE AND WHICH ONES MAY BE TOO RELIANT ON CONVENTIONAL WISDOM. MOREOVER, NEARLY ALL OF THE RESEARCH THAT HAS BEEN CONDUCTED ON THESE MEASURES HAS FOCUSED ON MANAGED HONEY BEES (LEFT) WHILE IGNORING WILD, NATIVE BEES SUCH AS BUMBLE BEES (RIGHT) AND OTHER POLLINATORS. view more 

CREDIT: (HONEY BEE PHOTO BY CHRIS EVANS, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS; BUMBLE BEE PHOTO BY DAVID CAPPAERT. BOTH PHOTOS VIA BUGWOOD.ORG)

Annapolis, MD; July 17, 2023—Responsible use of pesticides includes striving to avoid negative effects on the environment, often with an emphasis on protecting bees and other pollinators. A new study, however, finds that many common methods for minimizing pesticides' impact on bees—even some recommendations on product labels—are backed by minimal scientific evidence.

The researchers behind the study say stronger testing is needed to evaluate which bee-protection measures are truly effective and which ones may be too reliant on conventional wisdom. They share their analysis in a report published today in the Journal of Economic Entomology.

Growers are urged to follow a variety of "mitigation measures" meant to protect bees during pesticide applications, such as spraying at night, using specific nozzles on sprayers, or maintaining buffer zones.

"It takes time, money, and effort to follow these rules, so if they are not actually helpful, they are a waste of time," says Edward Straw, Ph.D., a postdoctoral researcher in the School of Agriculture and Food Science at University College Dublin (UCD) in Ireland and lead author on the study. "If they are helpful, though, they could be applied more widely, to protect bees further."

Straw and colleague Dara Stanley, Ph.D., assistant professor in applied entomology at UCD, combed published, peer-reviewed research for studies that evaluated the effectiveness of any kind of mitigation measure in reducing a pesticide's impact on bees. Just 34 studies matched their criteria, spread across a wide range of measures—but largely focused on just one kind of bee.

"Almost all research was centered around protecting honey bees. However, honey bees are a managed species that is not endangered," Straw says. "When we try to protect bees, we really want to be protecting wild, unmanaged bee species, as these are the species which are in decline."

Few mitigation measures had more than one or two studies evaluating their effectiveness, and methods of testing varied. For instance, some studies tested for direct overspray while others tested for longer-term pesticide residues. And just three studies among Straw and Stanley's review evaluated measures frequently found on pesticide labels.

"Least researched was testing on how you time a pesticide spray, be that time of day or time of year," Straw says. "There's good reason to believe that if you change when you spray, you could avoid peaks in bee activity. Yet surprisingly no one has really researched if this idea works. This is odd, as it's a very common mitigation measure and not overly hard to test."

Other mitigation measures tested in existing studies included how pesticides are applied (e.g., spray parameters or planting methods for pesticide-coated seeds), buffer zones, removing flowering weeds before spraying, direct interventions for managed bees (e.g., moving or covering colonies), and applying pesticides only in certain weather conditions or during certain crop stages.

A newer method had the most studies (12) investigating its potential: repellent additives to pesticide sprays, which encourage bees to avoid a recently sprayed crop. Several compounds have shown promise in lab testing, but all 12 studies tested repellency for honey bees only, and none were tested in formulation with a pesticide—only on their own.

"It is an interesting idea, but it is not yet ready to be used," says Straw. "It would need to be tested on a diversity of bee and insect species, as if it is only repellent to one or two species, all the other bees would still be exposed to the pesticide."

In sum, Straw and Stanley say too much hinges on bee-protective measures for them to be weakly supported. Bees play a critical role in both natural ecosystems and agriculture, and the presumption that mitigation measures are effective can be factored into decisions to authorize pesticides for use. Rigorous scientific evaluation of these measures is imperative, they say.

"The main limitation is that these studies need to be big, well-funded pieces of research. To test changes to how a pesticide is applied to a crop, you need to have a crop, a pesticide sprayer, and someone licensed to spray. All of that is expensive and time consuming, making it out of reach for most scientists," says Straw.

But, if such research can be generated, there's reason to believe it will have immediate positive impacts. In related research Straw and Stanely published earlier this year, compliance with pesticide regulations and guidelines among farmers in an anonymous survey was high. "We know that these mitigation measures are being followed," says Straw. "We just do not know if they are helpful yet."

###

"Weak evidence base for bee protective pesticide mitigation measures" will be published online on July 17, 2023, in the Journal of Economic Entomology. Journalists may request advance copies of the article via the contact below or access the published paper after 10 a.m., July 17, 2023, at https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toad118.

CONTACT: Joe Rominiecki, jrominiecki@entsoc.org, 301-731-4535 x3009

ABOUT: ESA is the largest organization in the world serving the professional and scientific needs of entomologists and people in related disciplines. Founded in 1889, ESA today has more than 7,000 members affiliated with educational institutions, health agencies, private industry, and government. Headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, the Society stands ready as a non-partisan scientific and educational resource for all insect-related topics. For more information, visit www.entsoc.org.

The Journal of Economic Entomology publishes research on the economic significance of insects and is the most-cited journal in entomology. It includes sections on apiculture and social insects, insecticides, biological control, household and structural insects, crop protection, forest entomology, and more. For more information, visit https://academic.oup.com/jee, or visit www.insectscience.org to view the full portfolio of ESA journals and publications.

---

JOURNAL

Journal of Economic Entomology

DOI

10.1093/jee/toad118 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Literature review

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Animals

ARTICLE TITLE

Weak evidence base for bee protective pesticide mitigation measures

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

17-Jul-2023

In determining what’s true, Americans consider the intentions of the information source

Boston College psychologists tested the roots of truth judgments in a so-called “post-truth” era

Peer-Reviewed Publication

BOSTON COLLEGE

Chestnut Hill, Mass. (7/17/2023)  – Putting truth to the test in the “post-truth era”, Boston College psychologists conducted experiments that show when Americans decide whether a claim of fact should qualify as true or false, they consider the intentions of the information source, the team reported recently in Nature’s Scientific Reports.

That confidence is based on what individuals think the source is trying to do – in this case either informing or deceiving their audience.

“Even when people know precisely how accurate or inaccurate a claim of fact is, whether they consider that claim to be true or false hinges on the intentions they attribute to the claim’s information source,” said Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience Liane Young, an author of the report. “In other words, the intentions of information sources sway people’s judgments about what information should qualify as true.”

Lead author Isaac Handley-Miner, a PhD student and researcher in Young’s Morality Lab, said the so-called post-truth era has revealed vigorous disagreement over the truth of claims of fact — even for claims that are easy to verify.

“That disagreement has alarmed our society,” said Handley-Miner. “After all, it’s often assumed that the labels ‘true’ and ‘false’ should correspond to the objective accuracy of a claim. But is objective accuracy actually the only criterion people consider when deciding what should qualify as true or false? Or, even when people know how objectively accurate a given claim of fact is, might they be sensitive to features of the social context—such as the intentions of the information source? We set out to test whether the intentions of information sources affect whether people consider a claim of fact to be true or false even when they have access to the ground truth.”

The researchers showed participants a series of claims accompanied by the ground truth relevant to those claims, according to the report. In one experiment, the claims concerned politicized topics such as climate change, abortion, and gun violence. In another experiment, these claims concerned non-politicized topics such as the average lifespan of a car and the price of a pair of headphones. The researchers asked participants in both experiments to decide whether they would consider each claim of fact to be true or false. 

When presented with a claim of fact, study participants were presented with one of two scenarios about the source of the information they were assessing: the information source either wanted to deceive or inform them. To do this, the researchers swapped out the news outlet that allegedly published the claim. For example, one participant might be told that a claim about climate change came from Fox News, while another participant might be told that the same claim about climate change came from MSNBC, Handley-Miner said.

In the experiment with claims about non-politicized topics, the researchers told the participants whether the information source was trying to be informative or deceptive, he said.

“We presented participants with claims of fact and ensured that participants knew precisely how accurate or inaccurate those claims were,” Handley-Miner said. “Across participants, we varied whether the source of those claims intended to inform or deceive their audience. Participants reported whether they would consider the claims to be true or false given the supplied ground truth. We then evaluated whether participants were more likely to classify claims as true when the information source was trying to inform versus deceive their audience.”

The researchers worked with 1,181 participants and examined approximately 16,200 responses fielded during their experiments.

Although participants knew precisely how accurate the claims were, participants classified claims as false more often when they judged the information source to be intending to deceive them.

Similarly, they classified claims as true more often when they judged the information source to be intending to provide an approximate account rather than a precise one, according to the study. For instance, what if someone knows for certain that 114 people attended an event, but one source reports 109 people attended, and another source reports that 100 attended? An individual is likely to view the latter number as true because it’s assumed the source is providing an estimate, Young said.

The findings suggest that, even if people have access to the same set of facts, they might disagree about the truth of claims if they attribute discrepant intentions to information sources.

The results demonstrated that people are not merely sensitive to the objective accuracy of claims of fact when classifying them as true or false. While this study focused on the intent of the information source, Young and Handley-Miner say intent is probably not the only other feature people use to evaluate truth.

In future work, the researchers hope to develop an expanded understanding about how people think about truth. Moreover, given the rise in popularity of Artificial Intelligence models, such as ChatGPT, the researchers may investigate whether state-of-the-art AI models “think” about truth similarly to humans, or whether these models merely attend to objective accuracy when evaluating truth.

The research was supported by funding from John Templeton Foundation, the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship, and BC’s Schiller Institute for Integrated Science and Society’s Grants for Exploratory Collaborative Scholarship (SIGECS) program.

In addition to Young and Handley-Miner, co-authors of the report included doctoral candidate Michael Pope, Boston College Associate Professor of Philosophy Richard Atkins, Associate Professor of Communication Mo Jones-Jang, and Associate Professor of Philosophy Daniel McKaughan; and Dartmouth College’s Jonathan Phillips.

 

---

JOURNAL

Scientific Reports

DOI

10.1038/s41598-023-34806-4 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Experimental study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

The intentions of information sources can affect what information people think qualifies as true

Political apathy spreads from parents to

adolescent children

Study identifies risks unique to families with close ties

Peer-Reviewed Publication

FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY

 

IMAGE: IN MANY COUNTRIES IN EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA, THE YOUNGEST VOTERS HAVE THE LOWEST PARTICIPATION RATES. view more 

CREDIT: ALEX DOLCE, FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY

Political apathy is growing in democracies around the world. Political apathy, also known as political alienation, describes feelings of separation and disaffection, a sense of powerlessness and an indifference to politics and political institutions. A hallmark of political alienation is a refusal to vote or participate in political activities. Adolescents and young adults are no exception to these trends. In many countries in Europe and North America, the youngest voters have the lowest participation rates.

Why are new voters so apathetic about politics? Many factors are at play. However, a new study from researchers at Florida Atlantic University focused on one of the most salient: parent attitudes about politics.

The study, published in the Journal of Family Psychology, indicates that political disaffection spreads from parents to children. Specifically, parent political alienation predicted subsequent increases in adolescent child political alienation one year later for youth who described relationships with parents as warm, but not for those who described relationships with parents as distant.

Put simply, in households where parents and adolescents are close, parents transmit political apathy to their adolescent children, which may have the unfortunate consequence of contributing to low political participation among young voters.

In this study, 571 German adolescents (314 girls, 257 boys), along with their mothers and their fathers, each completed questionnaires describing their own political alienation at two time points, approximately one year apart. In addition, adolescents completed questionnaires describing their perceptions of warmth in relationships with parents. Adolescents were in grades six, eight and 10 at the outset.

Mothers and fathers did not differ in terms of influence. Both were equally important in shaping adolescent attitudes about politics. Influence was a one-way street: adolescents did not contribute to the political alienation of either parent.

The findings from this new study are important because they point to a potentially promising new avenue of raising political participation among young voters: targeting the political attitudes of those with whom they are close, particularly their parents.

“The logic is straightforward,” said Brett Laursen, Ph.D., senior author and a psychology professor in FAU’s Charles E. Schmidt College of Science. “Children who are close to their parents are more likely to identify with them and are more receptive to messages from them about politics. We listen to those we like, we engage them in dialogue, we identify with them and we emulate their behaviors.” 

Political alienation reflects distrust and a lack of confidence in political systems and political figures. Political disaffection can be challenging for democracies as politically alienated citizens tend not to vote. When elections are decided by a small portion of the electorate, disaffection grows, which can further drive down turnout in a vicious cycle. It is difficult to change attitudes about politics. Many politically disaffected young adults continue to refrain from voting and political participation as they get older.

Findings from this study also are a reminder that parent influence is a double-edged sword.

“The results of our study matter because despite the rising importance of friends and peers, many forms of adolescent behavior remain highly susceptible to parent influence,” said Laursen. “We like to think of parents as positive socialization agents, and typically they are. But bad habits and bad attitudes also can spread from parents to children, and parents should be alert to this possibility. Some parents underestimate their importance. Children are watching and listening, even during late adolescence. They take cues from parents, particularly in families that are close-knit and warm. Attitudes toward politics are just another example of the many ways that parents exert a profound and lasting impact on the lives of their children.”

- FAU -

About Florida Atlantic University:
Florida Atlantic University, established in 1961, officially opened its doors in 1964 as the fifth public university in Florida. Today, the University serves more than 30,000 undergraduate and graduate students across six campuses located along the southeast Florida coast. In recent years, the University has doubled its research expenditures and outpaced its peers in student achievement rates. Through the coexistence of access and excellence, FAU embodies an innovative model where traditional achievement gaps vanish. FAU is designated a Hispanic-serving institution, ranked as a top public university by U.S. News & World Report and a High Research Activity institution by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. For more information, visit www.fau.edu.

 

 

---

JOURNAL

Journal of Family Psychology

DOI

10.1037/fam0001098 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Case study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

The Spread of Political Alienation From Parents to Adolescent Children

Cap top 20% of energy users to reduce carbon emissions

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS

Consumers in the richer, developed nations will have to accept restrictions on their energy use if international climate change targets are to be met, warn researchers.  

The big challenge is to identify the fairest and most equitable way that governments can curtail energy use, a process known as energy demand reduction.   

Writing in the journal Nature Energy, the research team - led by Milena Büchs, Professor of Sustainable Welfare at the University of Leeds - analysed several scenarios to identify a potential solution.   

One option is to cap the top 20% of energy users while allowing those people who use little energy and have poverty-level incomes to be able to increase their consumption levels and improve their quality of life.   

Setting the energy use cap 

Across any population there will be a range - or distribution - of values for how much energy individuals use. The values are sorted into 100 percentiles - for example, the 50th percentile represents the value that is exactly in the middle of the energy distribution, which half the population fail to reach and the other half exceeds.  

Under the energy demand reduction scheme, the top-level energy users would see their energy use restricted to the value of energy use at the 80th percentile. In the scenario modelled, that would be 170.2 Giga Joules (GJ) per person per year, compared to the mean energy use of the top 20% of consumers of 196.8 GJ per person per year.  

Using data from 27 European states, the researchers modelled how effective this energy demand reduction strategy would be. They found it would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 11.4% from domestic energy sources; 16.8% from transport and 9.7% from total energy consumption.   

Allowing people in poverty to increase their energy use would reduce these emissions savings by relatively small amounts - 1.2 percentage points for domestic energy; 0.9 for transport; and 1.4 for total energy consumption. It would enable the less well-off to meet unmet needs, perhaps where they may have been unable to adequately heat their home. 

Professor Büchs said: “Policymakers need to win public support for energy demand reduction mechanisms. The reality is decarbonisation on the supply side, where energy is generated and distributed, will not be enough to deliver the emission reductions that are needed.   

“So, energy demand will have to be reduced. That is the inescapable reality. Experts on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimate that reducing energy demand could produce between 40% and 70% of the emissions reductions that need to be found by 2050.  

“Our research is indicating that public support for energy demand reduction is possible if the public see the schemes as being fair and deliver climate justice.”   

The data in the study was collected as part of the 2015 European Household Budget Survey from 275,614 households. Household expenditure and data from the Exiobase dataset were used as proxies for energy use and emissions.  

Public support   

As part of the study, the research team also held focus groups with the public to gauge people’s responses to different policy interventions to reduce energy use. Quotas on flights and car mileage were seen by some respondents as attacks on freedom and choice.   

Conversely, other people supported a ban on activities beyond a certain level, say for business or personal flights.    

There was a recognition that there is a climate emergency and the problem needs to be tackled urgently.    

Writing in the journal, the researchers noted: “Several participants acknowledged that regulations that limit ‘luxury’ energy use would treat everyone equally and therefore fairly, which can be conducive to acceptance if good reasons are provided, as travel and other restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic have demonstrated.”   

Targeting ‘luxury’ energy use would be seen to treat everyone fairly and equally and that could soften any opposition to energy demand mechanisms. 

The paper "Emissions savings from equitable energy demand reduction" can be downloaded from the Nature Energy website when the embargo lifts. The authors are: Milena Büchs, Noel Cass, Caroline Mullen, Karen Lucas and Diana Ivanova.  

END 

---

JOURNAL

Nature Energy

DOI

10.1038/s41560-023-01283-y 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Data/statistical analysis

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Not applicable

ARTICLE TITLE

Cap top 20% of energy users to reduce carbon emissions

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

17-Jul-2023

UK

As interest rates soar, new study reveals insecure workers are ‘trapped’ and 42% fear job losses

Researchers from the Work Foundation at Lancaster University say the notion that people are choosing to stay in insecure work for the ‘perk’ of flexibility is flawed – as almost half (46%) would find another job if given the chance

Reports and Proceedings

LANCASTER UNIVERSITY

Researchers from the Work Foundation at Lancaster University say the notion that people are choosing to stay in insecure work for the ‘perk’ of flexibility is flawed – as almost half (46%) would find another job if given the chance.

However, they feel trapped due to limiting factors such as the cost and availability of childcare and transport, as well as a lack of local job opportunities.

With persistent inflation, rising interest rates and the cost of food on the rise, the think-tank warns that millions of insecure workers in the UK are most vulnerable due to the volatility in their pay, working hours and a lack of core protections like sick and redundancy pay. And, its latest study now finds one in four insecure workers (28%) are struggling to get by – with women suffering most.

Its warning comes on the back of survey responses from 4,000 UK workers (2,000 in insecure work and 2,000 in secure work) conducted by the Work Foundation in March, and supported by UNISON. This data informs new research which aims to understand why people opt to work in ‘insecure’ jobs – or roles that have unpredictable pay, no guarantee of set hours or future work, and no access to employment rights and protection – and explores the factors that shape their choices.

Researchers say insecure workers are more than three times as likely as secure workers to perceive a risk of job loss – with 42% of insecure workers expecting to lose their jobs within the next 12 months, compared with just 13% of secure workers. Survey responses also suggest younger and older workers are significantly more likely to feel they have more limited choices when looking to move out of insecure work, along with those on low-incomes and people working part-time.

Women in insecure work are also impacted more than men. One in three women (32%) say they are struggling to get by financially, compared to less than one in four men (23%); and 16% of women in insecure employment say they are suffering from poor mental health, compared to 11% of men (this affects 10% of men and 11% of women in secure employment).

Ben Harrison, Director of the Work Foundation at Lancaster University, said: “As inflation continues to bite and interest rates rise, workers in insecure jobs are under enormous strain. While many might believe that the benefit of flexibility offered to workers on temporary, part time or zero-hour contracts outweigh the risks of this form of employment, our new research shows that nearly half of these workers disagree.

“The reality is they feel trapped in these jobs by circumstances out of their control – and, without Government intervention to overcome these obstacles, they’re likely to be prevented from accessing more secure work in future.

“As our living standards continue to decline and the UK teeters on the edge of another recession a stable and well-paid job has never been more important. Workers in more secure employment are better able to weather economic turbulence, but this isn’t the case for the millions of workers in this country trapped in severely insecure work. They are already struggling, and it isn’t just impacting on their pockets – it’s affecting their mental health, too.”

UNISON general secretary Christina McAnea, said: “The cost-of-living crisis is hitting those on the lowest incomes the hardest. 

"To make matters worse, many people on zero hours and other kinds of insecure contracts are also losing out on sick pay and other employment rights most workers take for granted.

“It's no surprise that precarious work has the greatest negative impact on disabled employees and women juggling jobs with caring commitments. They don't choose to work in this way.

"Many are stuck in an insecure rut because other opportunities simply aren't open to them.

"This has to change. The government should ensure everyone feels secure at work and is able to thrive in their jobs. 

"No-one should feel trapped or be exploited because of the circumstances in which they find themselves. Genuine choice and flexibility must become a part of every job."

The survey also reveals:

• One in three insecure workers are uncertain of how much they will earn in the next three months and are twice as likely (26%) to experience job related stress 4-6 days a week than those in secure employment (13%)
• Insecure workers are also over four times more likely to see their shifts change at the last minute, with over half saying this led to decreases in their pay
• Over 52% of insecure workers earn less than Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s Minimum Income Standard of £25,500 – and more than one in four insecure workers (28%) say they are finding it difficult to get by
• Part-time insecure workers and freelancers are significantly more likely than other workers to indicate they are struggling financially, at around 34% from both groups, compared with 23% of full-time workers
• Workers are 3.7 times more likely to say they suffer from poor mental health when they also lack confidence in being able to afford an unexpected expense.

“A political battleground is opening up on the future of the UK labour market with both major political parties pledging tackle labour shortages and drive up the quality of jobs on offer to UK workers,” Ben Harrison continues. “This report provides crucial new evidence to inform these debates, shedding new light on the choices and experiences of those in insecure work, and outlines the interventions needed to support workers into better paid, more secure jobs in the future.”

The Work Foundation calls on Government to oblige employers to embed flexibility into all job roles from day one of employment, and make it available to all. It also encourages organisations to design campaigns to promote flexible working specifically to men and disabled workers.

Amongst the report recommendations it also urges the Government to increase the rate of pay for workers on maternity, paternity and parental leave and develop a long-term plan to bolster the childcare sector, in line with parents’ needs and ambitions.

To read the report and full recommendations, please visit: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/work-foundation

ENDS

---

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Survey

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

Analysis: Most research on PFAS harms is unpublicized

Peer-Reviewed Publication

GREEN SCIENCE POLICY INSTITUTE

Though per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) make headlines daily, a new paper reveals that most studies finding links between PFAS exposure and human health harms are published without a press release and receive little or no media coverage. The peer-reviewed analysis, published today in the journal Environmental Health, found that studies without any press attention receive fewer scholarly citations as well.

“It’s a shame that only a small slice of this science is reaching the public,” said lead author Rebecca Fuoco, the director of science communications at the Green Science Policy Institute. “New studies finding strong associations between forever chemicals and serious harms like preterm birth and cancer are flying under the radar. Research tucked away in scientific journals has limited reach, and therefore, impact.”

The authors analyzed 273 peer-reviewed epidemiological studies on PFAS human health impacts with publication years 2018-2020, as collected by the PFAS-Tox Database. Of papers reporting a statistically significant association with health harm, those with a press release received 20 times more media attention (as assessed by Altmetric scores) than those that did not. However, less than 8% of the papers with statistically significant findings issued a press release.

Papers without press releases included studies reporting significant links between PFAS exposure and risks of preterm birth, ovarian and breast cancers, osteoporosis, and gestational diabetes. These studies received no or very little news coverage and social media posts.

Though the analysis focused on PFAS research, the authors expect that the results reflect the larger body of environmental health research as well as other fields of science.

One reason research teams may forego issuing a press release is a real or perceived lack of career incentive to pursue non-scholarly communications. However, in this analysis the mean age-adjusted citation count for papers with press releases was two-thirds higher than those without. There was also a positive correlation between citations and Altmetric scores.

Another barrier is a fear among scientists that press coverage of their research may be inaccurate or over-hyped. However, previous research has found that overstatements can often be traced back to university press releases. This suggests that the solution is for scientists to take a more active role in press release drafting and ensure their accuracy rather than not issue one at all. Other barriers include lack of time, resources, or media savvy as well as differing philosophical views about the role of scientists in society.

“I urge scientists and their institutions to embrace media outreach as a critical part of the research process,” said co-author Linda Birnbaum, scientist emeritus at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and scholar in residence at Duke University. “As scientists we hold the key to information that can inform better policies, medical practices, industry innovation, and more. It’s our responsibility to unlock that potential by sharing our research with a wide audience.”

“Most scientific studies in our country are funded by the public who deserve to know the results of the research they’re paying for,” said Arlene Blum, executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute and a co-author of the study. “With a press release and straightforward plan, scientists can increase their media coverage, reach, and the impact of their work."  

The authors include recommendations for scientists who wish to get more media attention to their research and point to a webpage with videos, templates, and additional resources.

---

JOURNAL

Environmental Health

DOI

10.1186/s12940-023-00997-6 

ARTICLE TITLE

Effective communications strategies to increase the impact of environmental health research

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

18-Jul-2023