The European Ecological Federation has today launched the website for its 12th Congress, taking place in Avila, Spain, on 25 – 29 September 2011. The meeting is being organised jointly by the Spanish Association of Terrestrial Ecology (AEET) and Portuguese Ecological Society (SPECO), on behalf of the EEF.

The EEF plan to organise a workshop as part of this meeting, engaging policy-makers from the European Commission. Further details will appear on the EEF website when available.

The European Ecological Federation encourages all ecological societies and colleagues to develop topics for symposia and/or workshops for the 12th EEF Congress: Deadline 12th November.

Selective fishing is widely encourages as part of ecosystem-based fisheries management. It aims to regulate the exploitation of target species whilst protecting non-target (bycatch) species. However, recent suggested that a selective approach may also result in “undesirable impacts both to fisheries and marine ecosystems”.

Writing in PNAS, Shijie Zhou and colleagues argue that selective fishing alters ecosystem functions, and may in turn affect fishery production. Instead, they propose that a “balanced exploitation”, which avoids the intensive removal of particular components of the ecosystem, and recognises that most species would be able to accommodate some level of exploitation. Society, the authors argue, may even benefit because “a greater proportion of the entire suite of harvested species is used.”

Article: Ecosystem-based fisheries management requires a change to the selective fishing philosophy

Dr Nathalie Pettorelli, a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Zoology, a member of the BES and Associate Editor of the Journal of Applied Ecology – is one of this year’s four winners of the L’Oreal-UNESCO UK and Ireland For Women in Science Fellowship awards. Dr Pettorelli won the award in recognition of her research into the effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in conserving the world’s major ecosystems.

The Fellowships have been designed to provide practical help for the winners to undertake research in their chosen fields. In total, over 900 women in 90 countries have been recognized for their research and received funding to further their studies. Past awardees include Professor Ada Yonath and Professor Elizabeth Blackburn who recieved Nobel Prizes in 2009 for their work in Chemistry and Medicine respectively.

Professor Dame Athene Donald, FRS, 2009 For Women in Science Laureate for Europe, who was recently made a Dame for her services to Physics, commented: “It is vitally important for aspiring scientists to have visible role models in science…I strongly believe that acknowledging and highlighting the pioneering work of female scientists will help encourage more and more women into science, which is why programmes like the L’Oreal-UNESCO For Women in Science awards that celebrate inspirational women in science, are so important.”

Julie McManus, Head of Scientific and Technical-Regulatory Affairs, L’Oréal UK and Ireland and 2010 jury member continues: “With the For Women in Science programme we hope to draw attention to the excellent work being undertaken by female scientists across the UK and Ireland, while also providing the financial support necessary to support women’s careers in science. Past recipients of the awards have gone on to make important scientific discoveries and win Nobel Prizes; we hope that seeing the success of these truly inspirational women will provide motivation for the next generation of UK’s female scientists.”

The Sense About Science Annual Lecture 2010 (Monday 21 June 2010) by Dr Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief of the BMJ, is now available as a podcast from the Guardian

See pictures from the event and access information about the Sense About Science lectures at the Sense about Science website.

Building public trust in science should be the scientific community’s top priority. That is the conclusion of an editorial in this week’s Nature (Vol 466: 1 July 2010), which should act as a rallying cry to researchers to engage with the public and policy-makers. Another editorial feature highlights the potential of science blogs to allow researchers to do this.

The stimulus for the editorial is a news feature (p24-25) examining the erosion of public trust in science in the wake of the ‘climategate’ controversies (leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at UEA and contention over reporting of glacial melting in the latest IPCC report). Despite concerns that public belief in the reality of climate change has taken a nosedive in recent months, the article suggests that the situation isn’t as dire as many researchers believe: a survey at Cardiff University this year indicated that 78% of UK residents believed that the climate was changing, compared to 91% in 2005. More than three quarters of respondents ascribed climate change at least in part to human activity. A recent BBC poll showed that although there was a drop from November 2009 to February 2010 in the proportion of those believing climate change is caused by human actions, those who had heard about the ‘climategate’ controversies had not shifted their opinion as a result. In fact, it’s more likely that the decline is attributable to the exceptionally cold winter experienced in the UK. In the words of one contributor to the article, Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist from Stanford, “the way people decide whether climate change is happening is by sticking their finger out the window”.

There’s no doubt that climate scientists are facing mounting attacks on the integrity of their research. What can the scientific community do to face these challenges robustly and ensure public support for action to tackle climate change? Sheila Jasanoff, a science-policy expert at Harvard (and a contributor to Monday night’s Royal Society Science Policy Centre Debate, covered on this blog) says that more communication is good, but warns against the simplistic ‘deficit model’ – that a problem can be solved simply by transferring more knowledge. Researchers should instead seek to include the public in decision-making, for example as members of advisory bodies.

The editorial piece urges scientists to recognise themselves as ‘public figures and honest brokers’, avoiding hype and over exaggeration and welcoming legitimate scepticism into debate. They must provide policy-makers and the public with clear, accurate and credible information, acknowledging uncertainties and nuances. Polls in the U.S. have consistently shown the public trust in scientists is second only to military leaders – and jointly tied with physicians. To maintain this level of trust scientists and scientific institutions must become more transparent and open about the scientific process and the current limitations of our knowledge.

The BES Policy Team attended yesterday’s launch of a POSTnote on Genetically Modified Insects (GMI), and their future potential benefits and possible risks for disease and pest control, with speakers higlighted several issues and challenges that may be faced by the use of GMI.

For example, Dr Jon Knight raised the issue of scale; if the release of GM insects were to be conducted at a national level, there would be several implications for regulations due to their likely spread across country borders. He did, however, point out that GMI methods can be very similar to existing pest control methods already in use, such as the release of alien biological control agents.

On a related issue, Dr Ricarda Steinbrecher pointed out that whilst those involved in developing GMI’s can learn from the problems faced in the development of GM crops, there are several important differences, such as in mobility, the degree of domestication of the two, and the fact that GM insects are specifically designed to spread genes. She also highlighted the importance of the precautionary principle on the issue, stressing the importance of not pressing the GMI issue before the science suggests the technology is ready to be used, and risks have been adequately assessed.