Deconstructing compassionate conservation

Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public

Epigenetic differences at the HTR2A locus in progressive multiple sclerosis patients

The pathology of progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) is poorly understood. We have previously assessed DNA methylation in the CD4+ T cells of relapsing–remitting (RR) MS patients compared to healthy controls and identified differentially methylated regions (DMRs) in HLA-DRB1 and RNF39. This study aimed to investigate the DNA methylation profiles of the CD4+ T cells of progressive MS patients. DNA methylation was measured in two separate case/control cohorts using the Illumina 450K/EPIC arrays and data was analysed with the Chip Analysis Methylation Pipeline (ChAMP). Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were assessed using the Illumina Human OmniExpress24 arrays and analysed using PLINK. Expression was assessed using the Illumina HT12 array and analysed in R using a combination of Limma and Illuminaio. We identified three DMRs at HTR2A, SLC17A9 and HDAC4 that were consistent across both cohorts. The DMR at HTR2A is located within the bounds of a haplotype block; however, the DMR remained significant after accounting for SNPs in the region. No expression changes were detected in any DMRs. HTR2A is differentially methylated in progressive MS independent of genotype. This differential methylation is not evident in RRMS, making it a potential biomarker of progressive disease.</p

Deconstructing compassionate conservation

Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public

Reintroducing rewilding to restoration – a search for novelty

Rewilding is emerging as a major issue in conservation. However, there are currently a dozen definitions of rewilding that include Pleistocene rewilding, island rewilding, trophic rewilding, functional rewilding and passive rewilding, and these remain fuzzy, lack clarity and, hence, hinder scientific discourse. Based on current definitions, it is unclear how the interventions described under the rewilding umbrella differ from those framed within the long-standing term 'restoration'. Even projects held up as iconic rewilding endeavours invariably began as restoration projects (e.g., Oostvaaderplassen; Pleistocene Park; the return of wolves to Yellowstone, etc.). Similarly, rewilding organisations (e.g., Rewilding Europe) typically began with a restoration focus. Scientific discourse requires precise language. The fuzziness of existing definitions of rewilding and lack of distinction from restoration practices means that scientific messages cannot be transferred accurately to a policy or practice framework. We suggest that the utility of 'rewilding' as a term is obsolete, and hence recommend scientists and practitioners use 'restoration' instead233255259MWH and MJS are funded by the Australia-Africa Universities Network - Partnership Research & Development Fund 201