Active afforestation of drained peatlands is not a viable option under the EU Nature Restoration Law

The EU Nature Restoration Law (NRL) is critical in restoring degraded ecosystems. However, active afforestation of degraded peatlands has been suggested by some as a restoration measure under the NRL. Here, we discuss the current state of scientific evidence on the climate mitigation effects of peatlands under forestry and its limitations, uncertainties and evidence gaps. Based on this discussion we conclude: Afforestation of drained peatlands, while maintaining their drained state, is not equivalent to ecosystem restoration. This approach will not restore the peatland ecosystem's flora, fauna, and functions. There is insufficient evidence to support the long-term climate change mitigation benefits of active afforestation of drained peatlands. Most studies only focus on the short-term gains in standing biomass and rarely explore the full life cycle emissions associated with afforestation of drained peatlands. Thus, it is unclear whether the CO2 sequestration of a forest on drained peatland can offset the carbon loss from the peat over the long term. In some ecosystems, such as abandoned or certain cutaway peatlands, afforestation may provide short-term benefits for climate change mitigation compared to taking no action. However, this approach violates the concept of sustainability by sacrificing the most space-effective carbon store of the terrestrial biosphere, the long-term peat store, for a shorter-term, less space-effective, and more vulnerable carbon store, namely tree biomass. Consequently, active afforestation of drained peatlands is not a viable option for climate mitigation under the EU Nature Restoration Law and might even impede future rewetting/restoration efforts. To restore degraded peatlands, hydrological conditions must first be improved, primarily through rewetting

Anonymous sperm donors' attitude towards donation and the release of identifying information

Introduction Belgian legislation allows only strictly anonymous gamete donation and known donation (donation to a recipient known by the donor). Recently, an amendment of the legislation was proposed to grant donor offspring, as of 18 years old, the right to claim identifying information about their donor. Purpose The aim is to explore the attitude of actual sperm donors towards donation and the release of identifying information and to investigate which donors would be willing to donate when anonymity would be prohibited by law. Methods All men who were accepted as sperm donors (n = 242) by AZ Jan Palfijn Hospital (Ghent, Belgium) were invited to complete an anonymous online survey. The response rate was 65.5%. Results One in five (20.1%; n = 30) would continue sperm donation upon a legislation change towards identifiable donation. Three in four donors (75.2%) would agree to provide basic non-identifiable information about themselves and one in three (32.9%) would provide extra non-identifiable information such as a baby photo or a personal letter. Almost half of the donors (45.6%) would agree to donate in a system where the hospital can trace the donor at the child's request and contact the donor, leaving it to the donor to decide whether or not to have contact with the requesting donor child. Conclusion These findings show that only one in five current donors would continue to donate when identifiable. The study also demonstrates that current donors think more positive about alternative options and that nearly half of them are willing to be contacted by the hospital at the donor child's request, providing the donor can decide at that time whether or not to release his identity

The effect of human papilloma virus vaccination on embryo yield and clinical <i>in vitro</i> fertilisation outcomes: a matched retrospective cohort study.

Ince, Onur/0000-0003-2263-8956; Yilmaz, Bulent/0000-0002-9458-2253WOS: 000548957600001PubMed: 32662316The effects of HPV vaccination on embryo yield and pregnancy outcomes in IVF cycles with fresh embryo transfer (ET) were investigated. First, embryo yielding rates (EYR) in 2795 cycles with and without HPV vaccination were compared by retrospective cohort study design. EYR of HPV vaccinated and non-vaccinated patients were not significantly different (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.76-3.63). Second, ET outcomes were compared for 155 HPV vaccine + cycles and 465 HPV vaccine - cycles after matching for ages and cycle attempt number. the differences in the number of retrieved oocytes (10.2 +/- 6.1, 11.2 +/- 6.7;p = .161), mature (MII) oocytes (8.7 +/- 5.7, 9.8 +/- 6.3;p = .088), two pronuclear zygotes (2PN) (5.4 +/- 4.1, 6.1 +/- 4.6;p = .110) and fertilisation rates (0.62 +/- 0.23, 0.62 +/- 0.23;p = .539) were insignificant between the two groups. Moreover, positive (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.47-1.16), clinical (0.60; 0.36-1.01) and the ongoing pregnancy (0.55; 0.30-1.01) rates were lower in the HPV vaccinated group but the difference was not statistically significant.IMPACT STATEMENT What is already known on this subject?There are recent case studies that report premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) following a post-vaccination autoimmune response against the HPV vaccine. These studies suggest that the possible trigger for the immune reaction might be the immunogen content of the vaccine. However, the number of clinical studies investigating the effects of the HPV vaccine on reproductive function andinvitrofertilisation outcomes is limited. What do the results of this study add?In contrast to the case reports suggesting impaired reproductive and ovarian functions in HPV vaccinated patients, this study finds that in IVF patients HPV vaccinated and non-vaccinated women have similar EYR, MII, 2PN, oocyte counts, fertilisation rates, positive, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research?The results suggest the HPV vaccine does not have a negative impact on embryo yielding rates oocyte counts and fertilisation rates, positive, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates in IVF treatments. Hence, they can be safely used for primary prevention against cervical cancer