Can science writing collectives overcome barriers to more democratic communication and collaboration? Lessons from environmental communication praxis in southern Appalachia

Despite compelling reasons to involve nonscientists in the production of ecological knowledge, cultural and institutional factors often dis-incentivize engagement between scientists and nonscientists. This paper details our efforts to develop a biweekly newspaper column to increase communication between ecological scientists, social scientists, and the communities within which they work. Addressing community-generated topics and written by a collective of social and natural scientists, the column is meant to foster public dialog about socio-environmental issues and to lay the groundwork for the coproduction of environmental knowledge. Our collective approach to writing addresses some major barriers to public engagement by scientists, but the need to insert ourselves as intermediaries limits these gains. Overall, our efforts at environmental communication praxis have not generated significant public debate, but they have supported future coproduction by making scientists a more visible presence in the community and providing easy pathways for them to begin engaging the public. Finally, this research highlights an underappreciated barrier to public engagement: scientists are not merely disconnected from the public, but also connected in ways that may be functional for their research. Many field scientists, for example, seek out neutral and narrowly defined connections that permit research access but are largely incompatible with efforts to address controversial issues of environmental governance

Vulnerable people, vulnerable resources? Exploring the relationship between people's vulnerability and the sustainability of community-managed natural resources

Participatory approaches to the management of common-pool resources (CPRs) are built on the premise that resource-users are dependent on the productivity of the resource and therefore have the incentive to act as resource stewards if empowered to do so. Yet many CPR users have only temporary interest in using the resources. Moreover, they are vulnerable to a range of stressors and risks unrelated to resource access and sustainability concerns. Both of these may undermine such incentives. Furthermore, discounting theory posits that high vulnerability shortens time horizons so that vulnerable CPR users might be expected to heavily discount future benefits from resource conservation. We present an ethnographic study carried out in two communities on Lake Victoria, Uganda, where fisher folk face a range of elevated risks to health and security. These immediate risks undermine participatory fishery management but this does not necessarily indicate inherently short time-horizons; for many, fishing and fish-trading are not perceived as a life-long occupation but as a means to generate capital for investment in other businesses. Thus, whether they are vulnerable or not, it cannot simply be assumed that current CPR users will have a long-term interest in participating in resource management. Incentivizing participation in CPR management for long-term sustainability may have to address both people’s wider vulnerabilities and aspirations

Global Patterns of Bacterial Beta-Diversity in Seafloor and Seawater Ecosystems

Background Marine microbial communities have been essential contributors to global biomass, nutrient cycling, and biodiversity since the early history of Earth, but so far their community distribution patterns remain unknown in most marine ecosystems. Methodology/Principal Findings The synthesis of 9.6 million bacterial V6-rRNA amplicons for 509 samples that span the global ocean's surface to the deep-sea floor shows that pelagic and benthic communities greatly differ, at all taxonomic levels, and share <10% bacterial types defined at 3% sequence similarity level. Surface and deep water, coastal and open ocean, and anoxic and oxic ecosystems host distinct communities that reflect productivity, land influences and other environmental constraints such as oxygen availability. The high variability of bacterial community composition specific to vent and coastal ecosystems reflects the heterogeneity and dynamic nature of these habitats. Both pelagic and benthic bacterial community distributions correlate with surface water productivity, reflecting the coupling between both realms by particle export. Also, differences in physical mixing may play a fundamental role in the distribution patterns of marine bacteria, as benthic communities showed a higher dissimilarity with increasing distance than pelagic communities. Conclusions/Significance This first synthesis of global bacterial distribution across different ecosystems of the World's oceans shows remarkable horizontal and vertical large-scale patterns in bacterial communities. This opens interesting perspectives for the definition of biogeographical biomes for bacteria of ocean waters and the seabed

Effects of antiplatelet therapy on stroke risk by brain imaging features of intracerebral haemorrhage and cerebral small vessel diseases: subgroup analyses of the RESTART randomised, open-label trial

Background Findings from the RESTART trial suggest that starting antiplatelet therapy might reduce the risk of recurrent symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage compared with avoiding antiplatelet therapy. Brain imaging features of intracerebral haemorrhage and cerebral small vessel diseases (such as cerebral microbleeds) are associated with greater risks of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage. We did subgroup analyses of the RESTART trial to explore whether these brain imaging features modify the effects of antiplatelet therapy

Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

Background Results of small trials indicate that fluoxetine might improve functional outcomes after stroke. The FOCUS trial aimed to provide a precise estimate of these effects. Methods FOCUS was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 103 hospitals in the UK. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, were enrolled and randomly assigned between 2 days and 15 days after onset, and had focal neurological deficits. Patients were randomly allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo orally once daily for 6 months via a web-based system by use of a minimisation algorithm. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff, and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Functional status was assessed at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83290762. Findings Between Sept 10, 2012, and March 31, 2017, 3127 patients were recruited. 1564 patients were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 allocated placebo. mRS data at 6 months were available for 1553 (99·3%) patients in each treatment group. The distribution across mRS categories at 6 months was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0·951 [95% CI 0·839–1·079]; p=0·439). Patients allocated fluoxetine were less likely than those allocated placebo to develop new depression by 6 months (210 [13·43%] patients vs 269 [17·21%]; difference 3·78% [95% CI 1·26–6·30]; p=0·0033), but they had more bone fractures (45 [2·88%] vs 23 [1·47%]; difference 1·41% [95% CI 0·38–2·43]; p=0·0070). There were no significant differences in any other event at 6 or 12 months. Interpretation Fluoxetine 20 mg given daily for 6 months after acute stroke does not seem to improve functional outcomes. Although the treatment reduced the occurrence of depression, it increased the frequency of bone fractures. These results do not support the routine use of fluoxetine either for the prevention of post-stroke depression or to promote recovery of function. Funding UK Stroke Association and NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme

A global reference for human genetic variation

The 1000 Genomes Project set out to provide a comprehensive description of common human genetic variation by applying whole-genome sequencing to a diverse set of individuals from multiple populations. Here we report completion of the project, having reconstructed the genomes of 2,504 individuals from 26 populations using a combination of low-coverage whole-genome sequencing, deep exome sequencing, and dense microarray genotyping. We characterized a broad spectrum of genetic variation, in total over 88 million variants (84.7 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), 3.6 million short insertions/deletions (indels), and 60,000 structural variants), all phased onto high-quality haplotypes. This resource includes >99% of SNP variants with a frequency of >1% for a variety of ancestries. We describe the distribution of genetic variation across the global sample, and discuss the implications for common disease studies.We thank the many people who were generous with contributing their samples to the project: the African Caribbean in Barbados; Bengali in Bangladesh; British in England and Scotland; Chinese Dai in Xishuangbanna, China; Colombians in Medellin, Colombia; Esan in Nigeria; Finnish in Finland; Gambian in Western Division – Mandinka; Gujarati Indians in Houston, Texas, USA; Han Chinese in Beijing, China; Iberian populations in Spain; Indian Telugu in the UK; Japanese in Tokyo, Japan; Kinh in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; Luhya in Webuye, Kenya; Mende in Sierra Leone; people with African ancestry in the southwest USA; people with Mexican ancestry in Los Angeles, California, USA; Peruvians in Lima, Peru; Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico; Punjabi in Lahore, Pakistan; southern Han Chinese; Sri Lankan Tamil in the UK; Toscani in Italia; Utah residents (CEPH) with northern and western European ancestry; and Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria. Many thanks to the people who contributed to this project: P. Maul, T. Maul, and C. Foster; Z. Chong, X. Fan, W. Zhou, and T. Chen; N. Sengamalay, S. Ott, L. Sadzewicz, J. Liu, and L. Tallon; L. Merson; O. Folarin, D. Asogun, O. Ikpwonmosa, E. Philomena, G. Akpede, S. Okhobgenin, and O. Omoniwa; the staff of the Institute of Lassa Fever Research and Control (ILFRC), Irrua Specialist Teaching Hospital, Irrua, Edo State, Nigeria; A. Schlattl and T. Zichner; S. Lewis, E. Appelbaum, and L. Fulton; A. Yurovsky and I. Padioleau; N. Kaelin and F. Laplace; E. Drury and H. Arbery; A. Naranjo, M. Victoria Parra, and C. Duque; S. Däkel, B. Lenz, and S. Schrinner; S. Bumpstead; and C. Fletcher-Hoppe. Funding for this work was from the Wellcome Trust Core Award 090532/Z/09/Z and Senior Investigator Award 095552/Z/11/Z (P.D.), and grants WT098051 (R.D.), WT095908 and WT109497 (P.F.), WT086084/Z/08/Z and WT100956/Z/13/Z (G.M.), WT097307 (W.K.), WT0855322/Z/08/Z (R.L.), WT090770/Z/09/Z (D.K.), the Wellcome Trust Major Overseas program in Vietnam grant 089276/Z.09/Z (S.D.), the Medical Research Council UK grant G0801823 (J.L.M.), the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council grants BB/I02593X/1 (G.M.) and BB/I021213/1 (A.R.L.), the British Heart Foundation (C.A.A.), the Monument Trust (J.H.), the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (P.F.), the European Research Council grant 617306 (J.L.M.), the Chinese 863 Program 2012AA02A201, the National Basic Research program of China 973 program no. 2011CB809201, 2011CB809202 and 2011CB809203, Natural Science Foundation of China 31161130357, the Shenzhen Municipal Government of China grant ZYC201105170397A (J.W.), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Operating grant 136855 and Canada Research Chair (S.G.), Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (M.K.D.), a Le Fonds de Recherche duQuébec-Santé (FRQS) research fellowship (A.H.), Genome Quebec (P.A.), the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation – Ontario Institute for Cancer Research Investigator Award (P.A., J.S.), the Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation, and Exports grant PSR-SIIRI-195 (P.A.), the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) grants 0315428A and 01GS08201 (R.H.), the Max Planck Society (H.L., G.M., R.S.), BMBF-EPITREAT grant 0316190A (R.H., M.L.), the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) Emmy Noether Grant KO4037/1-1 (J.O.K.), the Beatriu de Pinos Program grants 2006 BP-A 10144 and 2009 BP-B 00274 (M.V.), the Spanish National Institute for Health Research grant PRB2 IPT13/0001-ISCIII-SGEFI/FEDER (A.O.), Ewha Womans University (C.L.), the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship number PE13075 (N.P.), the Louis Jeantet Foundation (E.T.D.), the Marie Curie Actions Career Integration grant 303772 (C.A.), the Swiss National Science Foundation 31003A_130342 and NCCR “Frontiers in Genetics” (E.T.D.), the University of Geneva (E.T.D., T.L., G.M.), the US National Institutes of Health National Center for Biotechnology Information (S.S.) and grants U54HG3067 (E.S.L.), U54HG3273 and U01HG5211 (R.A.G.), U54HG3079 (R.K.W., E.R.M.), R01HG2898 (S.E.D.), R01HG2385 (E.E.E.), RC2HG5552 and U01HG6513 (G.T.M., G.R.A.), U01HG5214 (A.C.), U01HG5715 (C.D.B.), U01HG5718 (M.G.), U01HG5728 (Y.X.F.), U41HG7635 (R.K.W., E.E.E., P.H.S.), U41HG7497 (C.L., M.A.B., K.C., L.D., E.E.E., M.G., J.O.K., G.T.M., S.A.M., R.E.M., J.L.S., K.Y.), R01HG4960 and R01HG5701 (B.L.B.), R01HG5214 (G.A.), R01HG6855 (S.M.), R01HG7068 (R.E.M.), R01HG7644 (R.D.H.), DP2OD6514 (P.S.), DP5OD9154 (J.K.), R01CA166661 (S.E.D.), R01CA172652 (K.C.), P01GM99568 (S.R.B.), R01GM59290 (L.B.J., M.A.B.), R01GM104390 (L.B.J., M.Y.Y.), T32GM7790 (C.D.B., A.R.M.), P01GM99568 (S.R.B.), R01HL87699 and R01HL104608 (K.C.B.), T32HL94284 (J.L.R.F.), and contracts HHSN268201100040C (A.M.R.) and HHSN272201000025C (P.S.), Harvard Medical School Eleanor and Miles Shore Fellowship (K.L.), Lundbeck Foundation Grant R170-2014-1039 (K.L.), NIJ Grant 2014-DN-BX-K089 (Y.E.), the Mary Beryl Patch Turnbull Scholar Program (K.C.B.), NSF Graduate Research Fellowship DGE-1147470 (G.D.P.), the Simons Foundation SFARI award SF51 (M.W.), and a Sloan Foundation Fellowship (R.D.H.). E.E.E. is an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Macroecological patterns of marine bacteria on a global scale

Aim To test whether within-species and among-species patterns of abundance and latitudinal range in marine bacteria resemble those found for macro-organisms, and whether these patterns differ along latitudinal clines. Location Global pelagic marine environments. Methods Taxon-specific sequence abundance and location were retrieved from the open-access V6-rRNA pyrotag sequence data base VAMPS (http://vamps.mbl.edu/), which holds a massive collection of marine bacterial community data sets from the International Census of Marine Microbes sampling effort of global ocean water masses. Data were randomly subsampled to correct for spatial bias and for differences in sampling effort. Results We show that bacterial latitudinal ranges are narrower than expected by chance. When present in both Northern and Southern hemispheres, taxa occupy restricted ranges at similar latitudes on both sides of the equator. A significant and positive relationship exists between sequence abundance and latitudinal range, although this pattern contains a large amount of variance. Abundant taxa in the tropics and in the Northern Hemisphere generally have smaller ranges than those in the Southern Hemisphere. We show that the mean latitudinal range of bacterial taxa increases with latitude, supporting the existence of a Rapoport effect in marine bacterioplankton. Finally, we show that bacterioplankton communities contain a higher proportion of abundant taxa as they approach the poles. Main conclusions Macroecological patterns such as the abundancerange relationship, in general, extend to marine bacteria. However, differences in the shape of these relationships between bacteria and macro-organisms call into question whether the processes and their relative importance in shaping global marine bacteria and macro-organism distributions are the same

Global Patterns of Bacterial Beta-Diversity in Seafloor and Seawater Ecosystems

BackgroundMarine microbial communities have been essential contributors to global biomass, nutrient cycling, and biodiversity since the early history of Earth, but so far their community distribution patterns remain unknown in most marine ecosystems.Methodology/Principal FindingsThe synthesis of 9.6 million bacterial V6-rRNA amplicons for 509 samples that span the global ocean's surface to the deep-sea floor shows that pelagic and benthic communities greatly differ, at all taxonomic levels, and share &lt;10% bacterial types defined at 3% sequence similarity level. Surface and deep water, coastal and open ocean, and anoxic and oxic ecosystems host distinct communities that reflect productivity, land influences and other environmental constraints such as oxygen availability. The high variability of bacterial community composition specific to vent and coastal ecosystems reflects the heterogeneity and dynamic nature of these habitats. Both pelagic and benthic bacterial community distributions correlate with surface water productivity, reflecting the coupling between both realms by particle export. Also, differences in physical mixing may play a fundamental role in the distribution patterns of marine bacteria, as benthic communities showed a higher dissimilarity with increasing distance than pelagic communities.Conclusions/SignificanceThis first synthesis of global bacterial distribution across different ecosystems of the World's oceans shows remarkable horizontal and vertical large-scale patterns in bacterial communities. This opens interesting perspectives for the definition of biogeographical biomes for bacteria of ocean waters and the seabed