Cheap and Nasty? The Potential Perils of Using Management Costs to Identify Global Conservation Priorities

The financial cost of biodiversity conservation varies widely around the world and such costs should be considered when identifying countries to best focus conservation investments. Previous global prioritizations have been based on global models for protected area management costs, but this metric may be related to other factors that negatively influence the effectiveness and social impacts of conservation. Here we investigate such relationships and first show that countries with low predicted costs are less politically stable. Local support and capacity can mitigate the impacts of such instability, but we also found that these countries have less civil society involvement in conservation. Therefore, externally funded projects in these countries must rely on government agencies for implementation. This can be problematic, as our analyses show that governments in countries with low predicted costs score poorly on indices of corruption, bureaucratic quality and human rights. Taken together, our results demonstrate that using national-level estimates for protected area management costs to set global conservation priorities is simplistic, as projects in apparently low-cost countries are less likely to succeed and more likely to have negative impacts on people. We identify the need for an improved approach to develop global conservation cost metrics that better capture the true costs of avoiding or overcoming such problems. Critically, conservation scientists must engage with practitioners to better understand and implement context-specific solutions. This approach assumes that measures of conservation costs, like measures of conservation value, are organization specific, and would bring a much-needed focus on reducing the negative impacts of conservation to develop projects that benefit people and biodiversity

Subaltern Modernity: Kerala, the Eastern Theatre of Resistance in the Global South

In engaging with the debate on modernity, this article constructs the notion of a ‘subaltern modernity’ as a process of epistemological – spatial/temporal/agential – coalescence constituting a transverse solidarity politics. This is empirically informed by the narratives of the livelihood-environmental resistance launched by subalterns in the Indian state of Kerala, known for its twin legacies – of communist government and social development – which have proved to be a direct challenge to the state/corporate-led developmentalism in the region. The article thus attempts to contribute to the debate on modernity more from the perspective of resisting subjects and agents, with their particular subjective experience and understandings of science and reasoning. However, their resistance generates transformative events of universal relevance and thereby global issues of epistemology. As such, the article develops a theory of knowledge that takes subaltern resistance itself as modernity

Efficacy and safety of nerinetide for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke (ESCAPE-NA1): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Nerinetide, an eicosapeptide that interferes with post-synaptic density protein 95, is a neuroprotectant that is effective in preclinical stroke models of ischaemia-reperfusion. In this trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of nerinetide in human ischaemia-reperfusion that occurs with rapid endovascular thrombectomy in patients who had an acute ischaemic stroke. METHODS: For this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study done in 48 acute care hospitals in eight countries, we enrolled patients with acute ischaemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion within a 12 h treatment window. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with a disabling ischaemic stroke at the time of randomisation, had been functioning independently in the community before the stroke, had an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) greater than 4, and vascular imaging showing moderate-to-good collateral filling, as determined by multiphase CT angiography. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous nerinetide in a single dose of 2·6 mg/kg, up to a maximum dose of 270 mg, on the basis of estimated or actual weight (if known) or saline placebo by use of a real-time, dynamic, internet-based, stratified randomised minimisation procedure. Patients were stratified by intravenous alteplase treatment and declared endovascular device choice. All trial personnel and patients were masked to sequence and treatment allocation. All patients underwent endovascular thrombectomy and received alteplase in usual care when indicated. The primary outcome was a favourable functional outcome 90 days after randomisation, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2. Secondary outcomes were measures of neurological disability, functional independence in activities of daily living, excellent functional outcome (mRS 0-1), and mortality. The analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and adjusted for age, sex, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, ASPECTS, occlusion location, site, alteplase use, and declared first device. The safety population included all patients who received any amount of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02930018. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2017, and Aug 12, 2019, 1105 patients were randomly assigned to receive nerinetide (n=549) or placebo (n=556). 337 (61·4%) of 549 patients with nerinetide and 329 (59·2%) of 556 with placebo achieved an mRS score of 0-2 at 90 days (adjusted risk ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·96-1·14; p=0·35). Secondary outcomes were similar between groups. We observed evidence of treatment effect modification resulting in inhibition of treatment effect in patients receiving alteplase. Serious adverse events occurred equally between groups. INTERPRETATION: Nerinetide did not improve the proportion of patients achieving good clinical outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy compared with patients receiving placebo. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Alberta Innovates, and NoNO