The Accomplishments of a Network- Priceless Resources: A Strategic Framework for Wetland and Riparian Area Conservation and Restoration in Montana 2008-2012- and Prioritization for 2013-2017

The Montana Wetland Council provides a forum for scientists, mangers, regulators, and others to network and collectively advance wetland and riparian conservation. While these professions aren’t typically known for their social dynamism, the passion for the resource holds together and propels this functioning network and has resulted in three National Wetland Award winners in the last 7 years. Five-year accomplishments include: Montana now has digital wetland and riparian maps for a majority of the state and these important aquatic resources are one of the state’s supported 14 Montana Spatial Data Layers. Montana also has a new statewide In-Lieu Fee Program for impacts to aquatic resources throughout Montana under the auspices of the Corps’ 404 and Section 10 regulatory programs. These and other accomplishments from the State’s 2008-2012 Wetland and Riparian conservation strategy will be described along with what difference the accomplishments have made and opportunities they leverage for increased wildlife habitat protection and restoration. The next 5-yr strategy is currently in the makings. Hear about the 2013-2017 draft priorities and share your input to shape the collective direction of the Montana Wetland Council network

An introduction to the co-creation of policy briefs with youth and academic teams

Drawing on insights from a four-day online workshop, which explored geo-engineering and policy making with 13 youth participants, an academic and youth authorial team provide a guide to the co-creation of policy briefs. Drawing on excerpts from the policy brief at different stages of development and commentary provided by the authors during the workshops, we set out four stages including (1) Identifying the key message and audience, (2) Reading and critically engaging with examples of policy briefs during the drafting process, (3) Developing the policy brief text, and (4) Reviewing and revising the policy brief. We have developed this guidance with a co-creative, group work approach in mind and suggest that this has relevance for those working in and beyond the discipline of geography

An introduction to the co-creation of policy briefs with youth and academic teams

Drawing on insights from a four-day online workshop, which explored geo-engineering and policy making with 13 youth participants, an academic and youth authorial team provide a guide to the co-creation of policy briefs. Drawing on excerpts from the policy brief at different stages of development and commentary provided by the authors during the workshops, we set out four stages including (1) Identifying the key message and audience, (2) Reading and critically engaging with examples of policy briefs during the drafting process, (3) Developing the policy brief text, and (4) Reviewing and revising the policy brief. We have developed this guidance with a co-creative, group work approach in mind and suggest that this has relevance for those working in and beyond the discipline of geography

Minimal information for studies of extracellular vesicles 2018 (MISEV2018):a position statement of the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles and update of the MISEV2014 guidelines

The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of scientific publications describing physiological and pathological functions of extracellular vesicles (EVs), a collective term covering various subtypes of cell-released, membranous structures, called exosomes, microvesicles, microparticles, ectosomes, oncosomes, apoptotic bodies, and many other names. However, specific issues arise when working with these entities, whose size and amount often make them difficult to obtain as relatively pure preparations, and to characterize properly. The International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) proposed Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles (“MISEV”) guidelines for the field in 2014. We now update these “MISEV2014” guidelines based on evolution of the collective knowledge in the last four years. An important point to consider is that ascribing a specific function to EVs in general, or to subtypes of EVs, requires reporting of specific information beyond mere description of function in a crude, potentially contaminated, and heterogeneous preparation. For example, claims that exosomes are endowed with exquisite and specific activities remain difficult to support experimentally, given our still limited knowledge of their specific molecular machineries of biogenesis and release, as compared with other biophysically similar EVs. The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV-associated functional activities. Finally, a checklist is provided with summaries of key points

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose

Youth co-authorship as public engagement with geoengineering

Large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system (‘geoengineering’ or ‘climate engineering’) is increasingly present in discussions about possible responses to climate change. Research has tended to focus on the acceptability of geoengineering proposals to adults, with youth perspectives under-represented despite the intergenerational consequences of policy in this field. We report on a novel participatory approach to research and practice, resulting in the co-creation of a youth guide and policy brief by participants (aged 17-26) and facilitators. Findings fall into two categories: those pertaining to youth priorities for geoengineering and those in relation to authorial responsibility as an approach to engagement and advancing youth voices. We argue that co-creative and participatory approaches avoid polarisation and build reciprocity into the research process, promoting rational discourse about geoengineering and climate change and its intersection with ethics, politics and society. The model is potentially valuable for engaging youth at the early stages of technoscientific innovations. Tentative conclusions from youth participants are that mitigation efforts must be prioritised, i.e. action is needed now to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and there is a need for proactive international cooperation on the governance of geoengineering and for investment in research to understand potential environmental and social consequences of geoengineering for people at different temporal and spatial scales. Greater public dialogue on geoengineering and its governance is needed, particularly involving young people. The youth guide and policy brief co-authored by participants and facilitators, and the dialogic methods used in their production, can contribute to this dialogue

An introduction to the co-creation of policy briefs with youth and academic teams

Drawing on insights from a four-day online workshop which explored geoengineering and policy making with 13 youth participants, a staff and student authorial team provide an introductory guide to writing research summaries for policy makers. We set out four stages including, (1) Identifying the key message and audience, (2) Reading and critically engaging with examples of policy briefs during the drafting process, (3) Developing the policy brief text, and (4) Reviewing and revising the policy brief. We have developed this guidance with a co-creative, group work approach in mind but suggest that this is also helpful for those working on individual projects in and beyond the discipline of geograph