What progress has been made in fertility preservation (FP) over the last decade? FP techniques have been widely adopted over the last decade and therefore the establishment of international registries on their short- and long-term outcomes is strongly recommended. FP is a fundamental issue for both males and females whose future fertility may be compromised. Reproductive capacity may be seriously affected by age, different medical conditions and also by treatments, especially those with gonadal toxicity. There is general consensus on the need to provide counselling about currently available FP options to all individuals wishing to preserve their fertility. An international meeting with representatives from expert scientific societies involved in FP was held in Barcelona, Spain, in June 2015. Twenty international FP experts belonging to the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, ESHRE and the International Society of Fertility Preservation reviewed the literature up to June 2015 to be discussed at the meeting, and approved the final manuscript. At the time this manuscript was being written, new evidence considered relevant for the debated topics was published, and was consequently included. Several oncological and non-oncological diseases may affect current or future fertility, either caused by the disease itself or the gonadotoxic treatment, and need an adequate FP approach. Women wishing to postpone maternity and transgender individuals before starting hormone therapy or undergoing surgery to remove/alter their reproductive organs should also be counselled accordingly. Embryo and oocyte cryopreservation are first-line FP methods in postpubertal women. Metaphase II oocyte cryopreservation (vitrification) is the preferred option. Cumulative evidence of restoration of ovarian function and spontaneous pregnancies after ART following orthotopic transplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue supports its future consideration as an open clinical application. Semen cryopreservation is the only established method for FP in men. Testicular tissue cryopreservation should be recommended in pre-pubertal boys even though fertility restoration strategies by autotransplantation of cryopreserved testicular tissue have not yet been tested for safe clinical use in humans. The establishment of international registries on the short- and long-term outcomes of FP techniques is strongly recommended. Given the lack of studies in large cohorts or with a randomized design, the level of evidence for most of the evidence reviewed was 3 or below. Further high quality studies are needed to study the long-term outcomes of FP techniques. None. N/A.
Nature™ Inc. describes the increasingly dominant way of thinking about environmental policy and biodiversity conservation in the early twenty‐first century. Nature is, and of course has long been, ‘big business’, especially through the dynamics of extracting from, polluting and conserving it. As each of these dynamics seems to have become more intense and urgent, the capitalist mainstream is seeking ways to off‐set extraction and pollution and find (better) methods of conservation, while increasing opportunities for the accumulation of capital and profits. This has taken Nature™ Inc. to new levels, in turn triggering renewed attention from critical scholarship. The contributions to this Debate section all come from a critical perspective and have something important to say about the construction, workings and future of Nature™ Inc. By discussing the incorporation of trademarked nature and connecting what insights the contributions bring to the debate, we find that there might be what we call an intensifying dialectic between change and limits influencing the relations between capitalism and nature. Our conclusion briefly points to some of the issues and questions that this dialectic might lead to in future research on neoliberal conservation and market‐based environmental policy.
In 1985, Michael Soulé asked, “What is conservation biology?” We revisit this question more than 25 years later and offer a revised set of core principles in light of the changed global context for conservation. Most notably, scientists now widely acknowledge that we live in a world dominated by humans, and therefore, the scientific underpinnings of conservation must include a consideration of the role of humans. Today's conservation science incorporates conservation biology into a broader interdisciplinary field that explicitly recognizes the tight coupling of social and natural systems. Emerging priorities include pursuing conservation within working landscapes, rebuilding public support, working with the corporate sector, and paying better attention to human rights and equity. We argue that in conservation, strategies must be promoted that simultaneously maximize the preservation of biodiversity and the improvement of human well-being.
Culturomics is an emerging field of study that seeks to understand human culture through the quantitative analysis of changes in word frequencies in large bodies of digital texts. Culturomics research can help practitioners in nature conservation respond to cultural trends, building and reinvigorating its societal relevance. We identify five areas where culturomics can be used to advance the practice and science of conservation: (1) recognizing conservation-oriented constituencies and demonstrating public interest in nature, (2) identifying conservation emblems, (3) providing new metrics and tools for near-real-time environmental monitoring and to support conservation decision making, (4) assessing the cultural impact of conservation interventions, and (5) framing conservation issues and promoting public understanding. More generally, culturomics opens up an exciting new area of research, equipping conservationists with novel tools to explore and shape human interactions with the natural world.
We are failing to protect the biosphere. Novel views of conservation, preservation, and sustainability are surfacing in the wake of consensus about our failures to prevent extinction or slow climate change. We argue that the interests and well-being of non-humans, youth, and future generations of both human and non-human beings (futurity) have too long been ignored in consensus-based, anthropocentric conservation. Consensus-based stakeholder-driven processes disadvantage those absent or without a voice and allow current adult humans and narrow, exploitative interests to dominate decisions about the use of nature over its preservation for futurity of all life. We propose that authentically non-anthropocentric worldviews that incorporate multispecies justice are needed for a legitimate, deliberative, and truly democratic process of adjudication between competing interests in balancing the preservation and use of nature. Legitimate arenas for such adjudication would be courts that can defend intergenerational equity, which is envisioned by many nations' constitutions, and can consider current and future generations of non-human life. We urge practitioners and scholars to disavow implicit anthropocentric value judgments in their work – or make these transparent and explicit – and embrace a more comprehensive worldview that grants future life on earth fair representation in humanity's decisions and actions today.
An essential foundation of any science is a standard lexicon. Any given conservation project can be described in terms of the biodiversity targets, direct threats, contributing factors at the project site, and the conservation actions that the project team is employing to change the situation. These common elements can be linked in a causal chain, which represents a theory of change about how the conservation actions are intended to bring about desired project outcomes. If project teams want to describe and share their work and learn from one another, they need a standard and precise lexicon to specifically describe each node along this chain. To date, there have been several independent efforts to develop standard classifications for the direct threats that affect biodiversity and the conservation actions required to counteract these threats. Recognizing that it is far more effective to have only one accepted global scheme, we merged these separate efforts into unified classifications of threats and actions, which we present here. Each classification is a hierarchical listing of terms and associated definitions. The classifications are comprehensive and exclusive at the upper levels of the hierarchy, expandable at the lower levels, and simple, consistent, and scalable at all levels. We tested these classifications by applying them post hoc to 1191 threatened bird species and 737 conservation projects. Almost all threats and actions could be assigned to the new classification systems, save for some cases lacking detailed information. Furthermore, the new classification systems provided an improved way of analyzing and comparing information across projects when compared with earlier systems. We believe that widespread adoption of these classifications will help practitioners more systematically identify threats and appropriate actions, managers to more efficiently set priorities and allocate resources, and most important, facilitate cross-project learning and the development of a systematic science of conservation. /// Un fundamento esencial de cualquier ciencia es un lexicón estándar. Cualquier proyecto de conservación puede ser descrito en términos de los objectivos de biodiversidad, directas amenazas, factores subyacentes en el sitio del proyecto y las acciones de conservación que el equipo está empleando para cambiar la situación. Estos elementos comunes se pueden eslabonar en una cadena causal, que representa una teoría de cambio de cómo las acciones de conservación alcanzarán los resultados deseados. Si los equipos de los proyectos quieren describir y compartir su trabajo y aprender uno de otro, se requiere un lexicón estándar y preciso para describir específicamente cada nodo a lo largo de esta cadena. A la fecha, ha habido varios esfuerzos independientes para desarrollar clasificaciones estándar para las amenazas directas que afectan la biodiversidad y las acciones de conservación requeridas para contrarrestar estas amenazas. Reconociendo que es mucho más efectivo tener solo un esquema global aceptado, combinamos estos esfuerzos separados en clasificaciones unificadas de amenazas y acciones, que presentamos aquí. Cada clasificación es un listado jerárquico de términos y definiciones asociadas. Las clasificaciones son integrales y exclusivas de los niveles superiores de la jerarquía, expandibles en los niveles inferiores y simples, consistentes y escalables en todos los niveles. Probamos estas clasificaciones aplicándolas post hoc a 1191 especies amenazadas de aves y 737 proyectos de conservación. Casi todas las amenazas y acciones podrían ser asignadas a los nuevos sistemas de clasificación, salvo algunos casos que carecen de información detallada. Más aun, los nuevos sistemas de clasificación proporcionaron una mejor manera de analizar y comparar información en proyectos cuando son comparados con sistemas previos. Consideramos que la adopción generalizada de estas clasificaciones ayudará que practicantes identifiquen amenazas y acciones apropiadas más sistemáticamente, manejadores definan prioridades y asignen recursos más eficientemente y, más importante, facilitar el aprendizaje y el desarrollo de una ciencia de la conservación sistemática.