Health communication in and out of public health emergencies: to persuade or to inform?

Much health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic has been designed to persuade people more than to inform them. For example, messages like “masks save lives” are intended to compel people to wear face masks, not to enable them to make an informed decision about whether to wear a face mask or to understand the justification for a mask mandate. Both persuading people and informing them are reasonable goals for health communication. However, those goals can sometimes be in conflict. In this article, we discuss potential conflicts between seeking to persuade or to inform people, the use of spin to persuade people, the ethics of persuasion, and implications for health communication in the context of the pandemic and generally. Decisions to persuade people rather than enable them to make an informed choice may be justified, but the basis for those decisions should be transparent and the evidence should not be distorted. We suggest nine principles to guide decisions by health authorities about whether to try to persuade people

A risk assessment of the effects of mercury on Baltic Sea, Greater North Sea and North Atlantic wildlife, fish and bivalves

A wide range of species, including marine mammals, seabirds, birds of prey, fish and bivalves, were investigated for potential population health risks resulting from contemporary (post 2000) mercury (Hg) exposure, using novel risk thresholds based on literature and de novo contamination data. The main geographic focus is on the Baltic Sea, while data from the same species in adjacent waters, such as the Greater North Sea and North Atlantic, were included for comparative purposes. For marine mammals, 23% of the groups, each composing individuals of a specific sex and maturity from the same species in a specific study region, showed Hg-concentrations within the High Risk Category (HRC) and Severe Risk Category (SRC). The corresponding percentages for seabirds, fish and bivalves were 2.7%, 25% and 8.0%, respectively, although fish and bivalves were not represented in the SRC.publishedVersio

Arabidopsis MAP kinase 4 regulates gene expression through transcription factor release in the nucleus

Plant and animal perception of microbes through pathogen surveillance proteins leads to MAP kinase signalling and the expression of defence genes. However, little is known about how plant MAP kinases regulate specific gene expression. We report that, in the absence of pathogens, Arabidopsis MAP kinase 4 (MPK4) exists in nuclear complexes with the WRKY33 transcription factor. This complex depends on the MPK4 substrate MKS1. Challenge with Pseudomonas syringae or flagellin leads to the activation of MPK4 and phosphorylation of MKS1. Subsequently, complexes with MKS1 and WRKY33 are released from MPK4, and WRKY33 targets the promoter of PHYTOALEXIN DEFICIENT3 (PAD3) encoding an enzyme required for the synthesis of antimicrobial camalexin. Hence, wrky33 mutants are impaired in the accumulation of PAD3 mRNA and camalexin production upon infection. That WRKY33 is an effector of MPK4 is further supported by the suppression of PAD3 expression in mpk4–wrky33 double mutant backgrounds. Our data establish direct links between MPK4 and innate immunity and provide an example of how a plant MAP kinase can regulate gene expression by releasing transcription factors in the nucleus upon activation