Ship traffic connects Antarctica's fragile coasts to worldwide ecosystems.

Antarctica, an isolated and long considered pristine wilderness, is becoming increasingly exposed to the negative effects of ship-borne human activity, and especially the introduction of invasive species. Here, we provide a comprehensive quantitative analysis of ship movements into Antarctic waters and a spatially explicit assessment of introduction risk for nonnative marine species in all Antarctic waters. We show that vessels traverse Antarctica's isolating natural barriers, connecting it directly via an extensive network of ship activity to all global regions, especially South Atlantic and European ports. Ship visits are more than seven times higher to the Antarctic Peninsula (especially east of Anvers Island) and the South Shetland Islands than elsewhere around Antarctica, together accounting for 88% of visits to Southern Ocean ecoregions. Contrary to expectations, we show that while the five recognized "Antarctic Gateway cities" are important last ports of call, especially for research and tourism vessels, an additional 53 ports had vessels directly departing to Antarctica from 2014 to 2018. We identify ports outside Antarctica where biosecurity interventions could be most effectively implemented and the most vulnerable Antarctic locations where monitoring programs for high-risk invaders should be established

An expert-driven framework for applying eDNA tools to improve biosecurity in the Antarctic

Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System’s Environmental Protocol are committed to preventing incursions of non-native species into Antarctica, but systematic surveillance is rare. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide new opportunities for enhancing detection of non-native species and biosecurity monitoring. To be effective for Antarctic biosecurity, eDNA tests must have appropriate sensitivity and specificity to distinguish non-native from native Antarctic species, and be fit-for-purpose. This requires knowledge of the priority risk species or taxonomic groups for which eDNA surveillance will be informative, validated eDNA assays for those species or groups, and reference DNA sequences for both target non-native and related native Antarctic species. Here, we used an expert elicitation process and decision-by-consensus approach to identify and assess priority biosecurity risks for the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP) in East Antarctica, including identifying high priority non-native species and their potential transport pathways. We determined that the priority targets for biosecurity monitoring were not individual species, but rather broader taxonomic groups such as mussels (Mytilus species), tunicates (Ascidiacea), springtails (Collembola), and grasses (Poaceae). These groups each include multiple species with high risks of introduction to and/or establishment in Antarctica. The most appropriate eDNA methods for the AAP must be capable of detecting a range of species within these high-risk groups (e.g., eDNA metabarcoding). We conclude that the most beneficial Antarctic eDNA biosecurity applications include surveillance of marine species in nearshore environments, terrestrial invertebrates, and biofouling species on vessels visiting Antarctica. An urgent need exists to identify suitable genetic markers for detecting priority species groups, establish baseline terrestrial and marine biodiversity for Antarctic stations, and develop eDNA sampling methods for detecting biofouling organisms

An expert-driven framework for applying eDNA tools to improve biosecurity in the Antarctic

Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System’s Environmental Protocol are committed to preventing incursions of non-native species into Antarctica, but systematic surveillance is rare. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide new opportunities for enhancing detection of non-native species and biosecurity monitoring. To be effective for Antarctic biosecurity, eDNA tests must have appropriate sensitivity and specificity to distinguish non-native from native Antarctic species, and be fit-for-purpose. This requires knowledge of the priority risk species or taxonomic groups for which eDNA surveillance will be informative, validated eDNA assays for those species or groups, and reference DNA sequences for both target non-native and related native Antarctic species. Here, we used an expert elicitation process and decision-by-consensus approach to identify and assess priority biosecurity risks for the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP) in East Antarctica, including identifying high priority non-native species and their potential transport pathways. We determined that the priority targets for biosecurity monitoring were not individual species, but rather broader taxonomic groups such as mussels (Mytilus species), tunicates (Ascidiacea), springtails (Collembola), and grasses (Poaceae). These groups each include multiple species with high risks of introduction to and/or establishment in Antarctica. The most appropriate eDNA methods for the AAP must be capable of detecting a range of species within these high-risk groups (e.g., eDNA metabarcoding). We conclude that the most beneficial Antarctic eDNA biosecurity applications include surveillance of marine species in nearshore environments, terrestrial invertebrates, and biofouling species on vessels visiting Antarctica. An urgent need exists to identify suitable genetic markers for detecting priority species groups, establish baseline terrestrial and marine biodiversity for Antarctic stations, and develop eDNA sampling methods for detecting biofouling organisms.This work was supported as a Science Innovation Project by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment’s Science Innovation Program funding 2021–22 (project team: A.J.M., L.J.C., D.M.B., C.K.K., J.S.S. and L.S.). Support was also provided (to J.D.S, E.L.J., S.A.R., J.S.S., M.I.S., J.M.S., N.G.W.) from Australian Research Council SRIEAS grant SR200100005. P.C. and K.A.H. are supported by NERC core funding to the BAS Biodiversity, Evolution and Adaptation Team and Environment Office, respectively. L.R.P. and M.G. are supported by Biodiversa ASICS funding

Antarctica: The final frontier for marine biological invasions.

Antarctica is experiencing significant ecological and environmental change, which may facilitate the establishment of non-native marine species. Non-native marine species will interact with other anthropogenic stressors affecting Antarctic ecosystems, such as climate change (warming, ocean acidification) and pollution, with irreversible ramifications for biodiversity and ecosystem services. We review current knowledge of non-native marine species in the Antarctic region, the physical and physiological factors that resist establishment of non-native marine species, changes to resistance under climate change, the role of legislation in limiting marine introductions, and the effect of increasing human activity on vectors and pathways of introduction. Evidence of non-native marine species is limited: just four marine non-native and one cryptogenic species that were likely introduced anthropogenically have been reported freely living in Antarctic or sub-Antarctic waters, but no established populations have been reported; an additional six species have been observed in pathways to Antarctica that are potentially at risk of becoming invasive. We present estimates of the intensity of ship activity across fishing, tourism and research sectors: there may be approximately 180 vessels and 500+ voyages in Antarctic waters annually. However, these estimates are necessarily speculative because relevant data are scarce. To facilitate well-informed policy and management, we make recommendations for future research into the likelihood of marine biological invasions in the Antarctic region.John Monash Foundation (Arlie McCarthy is a John Monash Scholar for 2017) Zoology Department, University of Cambridge (Arlie McCarthy is a recipient of a Claire Barnes Studentship) University of Melbourne (Arlie McCarthy received a W.E.J. Craig Travelling Scholarship

Reply to C.D. Richter.

We thank Dr Richter for responding to our article “Continental drift? Do European clinical genetic testing laboratories have a patent problem?” [1]. Patents, and how they affect genetic testing laboratories and society, are vexed topics. Indeed, researchers from around the world have been studying and debating these topics for almost 20 years (see, e.g. [2, 3]). We, therefore, welcome and value Dr Richter’s perspective

Continental drift? Do European clinical genetic testing laboratories have a patent problem?

Recent US Supreme Court decisions have invalidated patent claims on isolated genomic DNA, and testing methods that applied medical correlations using conventional techniques. As a consequence, US genetic testing laboratories have a relatively low risk of infringing patents on naturally occurring DNA or methods for detecting genomic variants. In Europe, however, such claims remain patentable, and European laboratories risk infringing them. We report the results from a survey that collected data on the impact of patents on European genetic testing laboratories. The results indicate that the proportion of European laboratories that have refrained from providing associated testing services owing to patent protection has increased over the last decade (up from 7% in 2008 to 15% in 2017), and that the non-profit sector was particularly strongly affected (up from 4% in 2008 to 14% in 2017). We renew calls for more readily available legal support to help public sector laboratories deal with patent issues, but we do not recommend aligning European law with US law at present. Watchful monitoring is also recommended to ensure that patents do not become a greater hindrance for clinical genetic testing laboratories.Cambridge/ISSF Wellcome Philomathia Foundatio

’Let’s Call Ourselves the Super Elite’: Using the Collective Behavior Tradition to Analyze Trump’s America

The mid‐twentieth century “collective behavior” school asserted that (1) collective behavior—the actions of crowds, movements, and other gatherings—had distinct dynamics; (2) such action was often “nonrational,” or not governed by cost‐benefit calculation; and (3) collective behavior could pose a threat to liberal democracy because of these features. While this tradition fell out of scholarly favor, the 2016 election has given us empirical reasons to revisit some elements of collective behavior approaches. We argue for three key orienting concerns, drawn from this tradition, to understand the current political era. First is a focus on authoritarianism and populism, particularly among those who feel disaffected and isolated from political institutions, pared of psychologistic determinism and geared more sensitively to their manifestations as a political style. Second is a focus on racialized resentment, strain, and perceptions of status decline, especially in how such feelings are activated when people are confronted with disruptions to their lives. Third is an analysis of “emergent norms” and the extent to which political actors produce normative understandings of contextually appropriate action that are distinct from traditional political behavior. We elaborate on these themes, apply them to examples from current politics, and suggest ways to incorporate them into contemporary sociological research