Community science for coastal acidification monitoring and research

© The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Gassett, P. R., O’Brien-Clayton, K., Bastidas, C., Rheuban, J. E., Hunt, C., Turner, E., Liebman, M., Silva, E., Pimenta, A., Grear, J., Motyka, J., McCorkle, D., Stancioff, E., Brady, D., & Strong, A. Community science for coastal acidification monitoring and research. Coastal Management, 49(5), (2021): 510-531, https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1947131.Ocean and coastal acidification (OCA) present a unique set of sustainability challenges at the human-ecological interface. Extensive biogeochemical monitoring that can assess local acidification conditions, distinguish multiple drivers of changing carbonate chemistry, and ultimately inform local and regional response strategies is necessary for successful adaptation to OCA. However, the sampling frequency and cost-prohibitive scientific equipment needed to monitor OCA are barriers to implementing the widespread monitoring of dynamic coastal conditions. Here, we demonstrate through a case study that existing community-based water monitoring initiatives can help address these challenges and contribute to OCA science. We document how iterative, sequential outreach, workshop-based training, and coordinated monitoring activities through the Northeast Coastal Acidification Network (a) assessed the capacity of northeastern United States community science programs and (b) engaged community science programs productively with OCA monitoring efforts. Our results (along with the companion manuscript) indicate that community science programs are capable of collecting robust scientific information pertinent to OCA and are positioned to monitor in locations that would critically expand the coverage of current OCA research. Furthermore, engaging community stakeholders in OCA science and outreach enabled a platform for dialogue about OCA among other interrelated environmental concerns and fostered a series of co-benefits relating to public participation in resource and risk management. Activities in support of community science monitoring have an impact not only by increasing local understanding of OCA but also by promoting public education and community participation in potential adaptation measures.AGU Centennial Grant NOAA OAP OFFICE North American Association for Environmental Education Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation Sea Grant programs within the region Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions Funding acknowledgment: MIT Sea Grant award NA18OAR4170105 to Bastidas NERACOOS The WestWind foundation (to Rheuban) Woods Hole Sea Grant (NOAA Grant No. NA18OAR4170104

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome