DOCSLIB.ORG

Genetically Modified Inscets Evidence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Genetically Modified Inscets Evidence SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SELECT COMMITTEE Genetically Modified Insects Oral and Written evidence Contents Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) – Written evidence (GMI0014) 4 Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), Dr Jeremy Sweet, Sweet Environmental Consultants, and Oxitec Limited – Oral evidence (QQ 26-38)......................... 11 Agricultural Biotechnology Council (abc) – Written evidence (GMI0018) ............................... 26 Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board (AHDB) – Written evidence (GMI0015) .. 32 Dr Marcia Almeida de Melo, Federal University of Campina Grande, Dr Professor Paulo Paes de Andrade, Federal University of Pernambuco and Dr Amaro de Castro Lira Neto, State Institute for Agronomy (IPA) – Written evidence (GMI0006) .................................................. 37 Professor Luke Alphey, The Pirbright Institute, Professor Paul Eggleston, Keele University, and Professor Austin Burt, Imperial College London – Oral evidence (QQ 48-55) .................. 38 BioIndustry Association (BIA) – Written evidence (GMI0026) ................................................. 54 British Ecological Society (BES) – Written evidence (GMI0024) .............................................. 58 British Ecological Society (BES), Dr Sarah Hartley, University of Nottingham, and Sciencewise – Oral evidence (QQ 16-25) ...................................................................................................... 67 Buglife, The Invertebrate Conservation Trust – Written evidence (GMI0011) ....................... 68 Buglife, The Invertebrate Conservation Trust and Nuffield Council on Bioethics – Oral evidence (QQ 56-64) ................................................................................................................ 71 Buglife, The Invertebrate Conservation Trust – Supplementary written evidence (GMI0031) .................................................................................................................................................. 87 Professor Austin Burt, Imperial College London, Professor Luke Alphey, The Pirbright Institute, and Professor Paul Eggleston, Keele University – Oral evidence (QQ 48-55) .......... 93 Professor Tim Dafforn, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), Innovate UK, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)—Research Council UK – Oral evidence (QQ 1-15) ........................................................................................................... 94 Dr Amaro de Castro Lira Neto, State Institute for Agronomy (IPA), Dr Marcia Almeida de Melo, Federal University of Campina Grande and Dr Professor Paulo Paes de Andrade, Federal University of Pernambuco – Written evidence (GMI0006) ....................................... 95 Professor Paul Eggleston, Keele University, Professor Austin Burt, Imperial College London, and Professor Luke Alphey, The Pirbright Institute – Oral evidence (QQ 48-55) .................... 96 European Commission – Oral evidence (QQ 87-99) ................................................................ 97 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – Written evidence (GMI0027)...................................... 110 1 Government – The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) – Written evidence (GMI0022) ......... 113 Government – Mr George Eustice MP, Minister of State for Farming, Food and the Marine Environment, Defra, and Mr George Freeman MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences, BIS and DH – Oral evidence (QQ 75-86) ..................................................... 117 Government – Mr George Freeman MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences, BIS and DH, and Mr George Eustice MP, Minister of State for Farming, Food and the Marine Environment, Defra – Oral evidence (QQ 75-86) ................................................ 134 Sarah Hartley BSc, PhD, University of Nottingham – Written evidence (GMI0023) .............. 135 Dr Sarah Hartley, University of Nottingham, Sciencewise, and the British Ecological Society (BES) – Oral evidence (QQ 16-25) .......................................................................................... 142 Innovate UK – Written evidence (GMI0008) .......................................................................... 143 Innovate UK, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)—Research Council UK, and Professor Tim Dafforn, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) – Oral evidence (QQ 1-15) ......................................................................................................... 148 Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS) – Written evidence (GMI0030) ........... 149 Professor Anthony James, University of California – Written evidence (GMI0004).............. 153 Professor John Mumford, Imperial College London, Dr Jack Stilgoe, University College London, and Professor Paulo Paes de Andrade, Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil – Oral evidence (QQ 39-47) ....................................................................................................... 156 National Institutes of Bioscience (NIB) – Written evidence (GMI0012) ................................ 157 Nuffield Council on Bioethics – Written evidence (GMI0020) ............................................... 169 Nuffield Council on Bioethics and Buglife, The Invertebrate Conservation Trust – Oral evidence (QQ 56-64) .............................................................................................................. 173 Oxitec Ltd – Written evidence (GMI0016) ............................................................................. 174 Oxitec Limited, Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), and Dr Jeremy Sweet, Sweet Environmental Consultants – Oral evidence (QQ 26-38) ................................ 193 Oxitec Ltd – Supplementary written evidence (GMI0029) .................................................... 194 Oxitec Ltd – Further supplementary written evidence (GMI0033) ....................................... 197 Dr Professor Paulo Paes de Andrade, Federal University of Pernambuco, Dr Amaro de Castro Lira Neto, State Institute for Agronomy (IPA) and Dr Marcia Almeida de Melo, Federal University of Campina Grande – Written evidence (GMI0006) ............................................. 199 Professor Paulo Paes de Andrade, Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil, Professor John Mumford, Imperial College London, and Dr Jack Stilgoe, University College London – Oral evidence (QQ 39-47) .............................................................................................................. 204 The Pirbright Institute – Written evidence (GMI0019) .......................................................... 218 Dr Rupert Read, University of East Anglia – Written evidence (GMI0002) ........................... 220 Research Councils UK (RCUK) – Written evidence (GMI0017) .............................................. 222 2 Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)—Research Council UK, Professor Tim Dafforn, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), and Innovate UK – Oral evidence (QQ 1-15) ...................................................................................................... 238 Rothamsted Research – Written evidence (GMI0007) .......................................................... 255 The Royal Entomological Society (RES) – Written evidence (GMI0021) ................................ 258 Sciencewise – Written evidence (GMI0005) .......................................................................... 264 Sciencewise, the British Ecological Society (BES), and Dr Sarah Hartley, University of Nottingham – Oral evidence (QQ 16-25) ............................................................................... 270 Sciencewise – Supplementary written evidence (GMI0028) ................................................. 283 Dr Jack Stilgoe, University College London, Professor Paulo Paes de Andrade, Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil, and Professor John Mumford, Imperial College London – Oral evidence (QQ 39-47) ....................................................................................................... 285 Dr Jeremy Sweet, Sweet Environmental Consultants, Oxitec Limited, and Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) – Oral evidence (QQ 26-38) ................ 286 Target Malaria – Written evidence (GMI0013) ...................................................................... 287 James Thackery, student at University of Sheffield – Written evidence (GMI0003) ............. 293 Wellcome Trust – Written evidence (GMI0025) .................................................................... 297 Professor Christopher Whitty, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine – Oral evidence (QQ 65-74) .............................................................................................................. 302 Professor Christopher Whitty, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine – Supplementary written evidence (GMI0032) ........................................................................ 317 3 Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) – Written evidence (GMI0014) Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) – Written evidence (GMI0014) Summary Our response to this inquiry reflects ACRE’s remit i.e. GMO regulation and environmental
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IB Process Plant Study Page 2 of 107
    Industrial Biotechnology Process Plant Study March 2015 A report for: The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Innovate UK and The Industrial Biotechnology Leadership Forum (IBLF). Authors: David Turley1, Adrian Higson1, Michael Goldsworthy1, Steve Martin2, David Hough2, Davide De Maio1 1 NNFCC 2 Inspire Biotech Approval for release: Adrian Higson Disclaimer While NNFCC and Inspire biotech considers that the information and opinions given in this work are sound, all parties must rely on their own skill and judgement when making use of it. NNFCC will not assume any liability to anyone for any loss or damage arising out of the provision of this report. NNFCC NNFCC is a leading international consultancy with expertise on the conversion of biomass to bioenergy, biofuels and bio-based products. NNFCC, Biocentre, Phone: +44 (0)1904 435182 York Science Park, Fax: +44 (0)1904 435345 Innovation Way, E: [email protected] Heslington, York, Web: www.nnfcc.co.uk YO10 5DG. IB Process Plant Study Page 2 of 107 Acknowledgement NNFCC wishes to acknowledge the input of the many stakeholders who provided information on the pilot scale equipment present in their respective facilities and more specifically the following stakeholders who gave of their time and experience, either in the workshop, or in one-to-one discussions with the project team. We would like to thank all for their valued input. Sohail Ali Plymouth Marine Laboratory Mike Allen Plymouth Marine Laboratory
    [Show full text]
  • First Draft of an Epidemic: How Key Media Players Framed Zika
    Reuters Institute Fellowship Paper University of Oxford First draft of an epidemic: how key media players framed Zika by Maria Cleidejane Esperidião Hilary Term, 2018 Sponsor: Thomson Reuters Foundation 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………… …4 Abstract………………………………………………………………………………5 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………6. Chapter One: Covering Epidemics……………………………………………….9 1.1 Understanding a framework……………………………………………….9 1.2 Fear, risk and threat………………………………………………………..12. Chapter Two: Zika: Examining national and global context………………. 15 2.1 Zika Virus: links to microcephaly and other neurological disorders..15 2.2 Science in transition………………………………………………..………16. 2.3 Brazil and the world in transition……………………………………..…18 Chapter Three: Framing Zika…………………………………………………....25. 3.1 Methodology and theoretical framework……………………………… 25. 3.2 How did we collected the data?..................................................................27. 3.3 Findings: from global threat to regional disaster………………………29 3.3.1 The case of Al-Jazeera………………………………………………….29 3.3.2 The case of BBC…………………………………………………………33 3.3.3 The case of CNN………………………………………………………..40 Conclusions, Limitations and Recommendations…………………………… 51 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………….54 Appendixes………………………………………………………………………...58 2 I suppose, in the end, we journalists try—or should try—to be the first impartial witnesses to history. If we have any reason for our existence, the least must be our ability to report history as it happens so that no one can say: “We
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Support for Successful Implementation of the Natura 2000 Network
    Scientific support for successful implementation of the Natura 2000 network Focus Area B Guidance on the application of existing scientific approaches, methods, tools and knowledge for a better implementation of the Birds and Habitat Directives Environment FOCUS AREA B SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR SUCCESSFUL i IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATURA 2000 NETWORK Imprint Disclaimer This document has been prepared for the European Commis- sion. The information and views set out in the handbook are Citation those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the Van der Sluis, T. & Schmidt, A.M. (2021). E-BIND Handbook (Part B): Scientific support for successful official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not implementation of the Natura 2000 network. Wageningen Environmental Research/ Ecologic Institute /Milieu guarantee the accuracy of the data included. The Commission Ltd. Wageningen, The Netherlands. or any person acting on the Commission’s behalf cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information Authors contained therein. Lead authors: This handbook has been prepared under a contract with the Anne Schmidt, Chris van Swaay (Monitoring of species and habitats within and beyond Natura 2000 sites) European Commission, in cooperation with relevant stakehold- Sander Mücher, Gerard Hazeu (Remote sensing techniques for the monitoring of Natura 2000 sites) ers. (EU Service contract Nr. 07.027740/2018/783031/ENV.D.3 Anne Schmidt, Chris van Swaay, Rene Henkens, Peter Verweij (Access to data and information) for evidence-based improvements in the Birds and Habitat Kris Decleer, Rienk-Jan Bijlsma (Guidance and tools for effective restoration measures for species and habitats) directives (BHD) implementation: systematic review and meta- Theo van der Sluis, Rob Jongman (Green Infrastructure and network coherence) analysis).
    [Show full text]
  • Ninth Meeting of the WHO Vector Control Advisory Group
    MEETING REPORT 12-14 November 2018 Ninth meeting of the WHO Vector Control Advisory Group MEETING REPORT 12-14 November 2018 Ninth meeting of the WHO Vector Control Advisory Group WHO/CDS/VCAG/2018.05 © World Health Organization 2018 Some rights reserved. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo). Under the terms of this licence, you may copy, redistribute and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes, provided the work is appropriately cited, as indicated below. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organization, products or ervics es. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. If you adapt the work, then you must license your work under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If you create a translation of this work, you should add the following disclaimer along with the suggested citation: “This translation was not created by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the binding and authentic edition”. Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Suggested citation. Ninth meeting of the WHO Vector Control Advisory Group. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018 (WHO/CDS/VCAG/2018.05). Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Cataloguing-in-Publication (CIP) data.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Experiments
    ROTHAMSTED LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTS Guide to the Classical and other Long-term experiments, Datasets and Sample Archive Edited by A. J. Macdonald Contributors Andy Macdonald, Paul Poulton, Ian Clark, Tony Scott, Margaret Glendining, Sarah Perryman, Jonathan Storkey, James Bell, Ian Shield, Vanessa McMillan and Jane Hawkins. Rothamsted Research Harpenden, Herts, AL5 2JQ, UK Tel +44 (0) 1582 763133 Fax +44 (0) 1582 760981 www.rothamsted.ac.uk 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 THE CLASSICAL EXPERIMENTS 7 Broadbalk Winter Wheat 7 Broadbalk and Geescroft Wildernesses 19 Park Grass 20 Hoosfield Spring Barley 31 Exhaustion Land 34 Garden Clover 36 OTHER LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTS 37 At Rothamsted 37 At Woburn 39 RESERVED AND DISCONTINUED EXPERIMENTS 41 Barnfield 41 Hoosfield Alternate Wheat and Fallow 41 Woburn Market Garden 42 Agdell 42 The Woburn Intensive Cereals Experiments 43 Saxmundham, Rotations I & II 43 Amounts of Straw and Continuous Maize Experiments 44 (Rothamsted and Woburn) METEOROLOGICAL DATA 45 LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTS AS A RESOURCE 45 THE ROTHAMSTED SAMPLE ARCHIVE 47 ELECTRONIC ROTHAMSTED ARCHIVE (e-RA) 49 THE ROTHAMSTED INSECT SURVEY (RIS) 50 UK ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE NETWORK (ECN) 52 NORTH WYKE FARM PLATFORM 53 MAP OF ROTHAMSTED FARM 28 REFERENCES 56 The Rothamsted Long-term Experiments are supported by the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Front cover under the National Capabilities programme Broadbalk from the air, 2015 2018 © Rothamsted Research grant (BBS/E/C/000J0300), and by the Back cover ISBN 978-1-9996750-0-4 (Print) Lawes Agricultural Trust. Park Grass from the air, 2015 ISBN 978-1-9996750-1-1 (Online) 2 FOREWORD It is a testament to the foresight and Managing and documenting these experiments commitment of Sir John Lawes and Sir Henry and their associated data and archives is Gilbert, as well as others who have come after not a trivial task.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Edition 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    Revised Edition 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Written and researched by: Ian Fitzpatrick, Richard Young and Robert Barbour with Megan Perry, Emma Rose and Aron Marshall. We would like to thank: Kath Dalmeny Adele Jones Christopher Stopes David Gould Stuart Meikle Marie Christine Mehrens Anil Graves Dominic Moran Thomas Harttung Jules Pretty Patrick Holden Hannah Steenbergen for helpful comments on draft versions or sections of the report. All interpretation, opinion and error is the responsibility of the authors alone. Designed by: Alan Carmody, Midas Design Consultants Ltd. and Blue Moon Creative Production Coordinator: Hannah Steenbergen Printed by Vale Press Ltd. First published November 2017 Revised and corrected July 2019 We would like to thank the following organisations for their invaluable support for our work on True Cost Accounting, as well as the Brunswick Group, who kindly hosted our report launch in November 2017: THE HIDDEN COST OF UK FOOD FOREWORD 3 PREFACE TO THE 2019 EDITION 5 PREFACE 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 Hidden costs in 2015 ............................................................................................................................................8 Challenges to be overcome .............................................................................................................................10 Addressing the challenges ..............................................................................................................................10 The purpose of this report ...............................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Children's Perceptions of Rainforest Biodiversity
    Children’s Perceptions of Rainforest Biodiversity: Which Animals Have the Lion’s Share of Environmental Awareness? Jake L. Snaddon1., Edgar C. Turner1,2.*, William A. Foster1 1 Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom, 2 Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire and Peterborough Wildlife Trusts, Bedford, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom Abstract Globally, natural ecosystems are being lost to agricultural land at an unprecedented rate. This land-use often results in significant reductions in abundance and diversity of the flora and fauna as well as alterations in their composition. Despite this, there is little public perception of which taxa are most important in terms of their total biomass, biodiversity or the ecosystem services they perform. Such awareness is important for conservation, as without appreciation of their value and conservation status, species are unlikely to receive adequate conservation protection. We investigated children’s perceptions of rainforest biodiversity by asking primary-age children, visiting the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge to draw their ideal rainforest. By recording the frequency at which children drew different climatic, structural, vegetative and faunal components of the rainforest, we were able to quantify children’s understanding of a rainforest environment. We investigated children’s perceptions of rainforest biodiversity by comparing the relative numbers of the taxa drawn with the actual contributions made by these taxa to total rainforest biomass and global biodiversity. We found that children have a sophisticated view of the rainforest, incorporating many habitat features and a diverse range of animals. However, some taxa were over-represented (particularly mammals, birds and reptiles) and others under-represented (particularly insects and annelids) relative to their contribution to total biomass and species richness.
    [Show full text]
  • Agrochemicals - the Silent Killers Case Histories
    Case histories Agrochemicals - the Silent Killers Rosemary Mason MB, ChB, FRCA and Palle Uhd Jepsen former Conservation Adviser to the Danish Forest and Nature Agency JUSTIFICATION The purpose of this document is to highlight the problems of the current and future use of agrochemical products, using a series of case studies. Have we forgotten Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring from 1962? Many of these chemicals are far more toxic (and persistent) than DDT. They are the silent destroyers of human health and the environment. CONTENTS CASE HISTORIES 2 Honeybees 2 Bumblebees 3 Super-weeds 5 The controversial BBC Countryfile programme 6 Why are the European authorities determined to get GM crops into Europe? 7 EFSA has recently given positive opinions on old herbicides at the request of industry 8 Another GM, herbicide tolerant seed in the pipeline 9 What is the role of the Commissioner of the Health and Consumers Directorate? 9 The effects of GM crops on humans in Latin America 10 Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling 13 Danish farmers report side effects with GM Soya fed to pigs 14 Desiccation of crops with glyphosate to dry them 15 Scientists complain that the EC has ignored independent scientific advice about Roundup® 15 RMS (DAR) studies on glyphosate 16 Other EFSA reasoned opinions for modification of MRLs in food 17 Lack of ecological knowledge from industry and governments 17 Humans are bearing the brunt of these genotoxic chemicals and will do so even more 18 The Faroes Statement: Human Health Effects of Developmental Exposure to Chemicals in Our Environment 2007 19 The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal 19 Peoples’ Submission 19 The Verdict 23 Summary of Verdict by members of the Jury 23 1 Summary of complaints to the Ombudsman 1360/2012/BEH about the EC and EFSA CASE HISTORIES Honeybees Dead queens and workers.
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 48 (2014) 51E62
    Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 48 (2014) 51e62 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ibmb Identification of pheromone components and their binding affinity to the odorant binding protein CcapOBP83a-2 of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata P. Siciliano a,b, X.L. He a, C. Woodcock a, J.A. Pickett a, L.M. Field a, M.A. Birkett a, B. Kalinova c, L.M. Gomulski b, F. Scolari b, G. Gasperi b, A.R. Malacrida b, J.J. Zhou a,* a Department of Biological Chemistry and Crop Protection, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Herts. AL5 2JQ, United Kingdom b Dipartimento di Biologia e Biotecnologie, Università di Pavia, Via Ferrata 9, 27100 Pavia, Italia c Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the AS CR, v.v.i., Flemingovo nám. 2, CZ-166 10 Prague 6, Czech Republic article info abstract Article history: The Mediterranean fruit fly (or medfly), Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann; Diptera: Tephritidae), is a serious Received 30 July 2013 pest of agriculture worldwide, displaying a very wide larval host range with more than 250 different Received in revised form species of fruit and vegetables. Olfaction plays a key role in the invasive potential of this species. Un- 17 February 2014 fortunately, the pheromone communication system of the medfly is complex and still not well estab- Accepted 18 February 2014 lished. In this study, we report the isolation of chemicals emitted by sexually mature individuals during the “calling” period and the electrophysiological responses that these compounds elicit on the antennae Keywords: fl fl of male and female ies.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Nighthawk Chordeiles Minor
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2018 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2018. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 50 pp. (http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=24F7211B-1). Previous report(s): COSEWIC 2007. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 25 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Andrew Gregg Horn for writing the status report on Common Nighthawk, Chordeiles minor, prepared under contract with Environment and Climate Change Canada. This report was overseen and edited by Richard Elliot, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Birds Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment and Climate Change Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-938-4125 Fax: 819-938-3984 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur L’engoulevent d’Amérique (Chordeiles minor) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Common Nighthawk, copyright by Ronnie d'Entremont. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2018. Catalogue No. CW69-14/515-2018E-PDF ISBN 978-0-660-27850-6 COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – April 2018 Common name Common Nighthawk Scientific name Chordeiles minor Status Special Concern Reason for designation This aerial insectivore is a widespread breeding bird across southern and boreal Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Educator Materials
    Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Scientists at Work Educator Materials OVERVIEW This document provides background information, discussion questions, and responses that complement the short video “Genetically Modified Mosquitoes” from the Scientists at Work series. The Scientists at Work series is intended to provide insights into the daily work of scientists that builds toward discoveries. The series focuses especially on scientists in the field and what motivates their work. This 8-minute 35-second video is appropriate for any life science student audience. It can be used as a review of the nature of science or to enhance a discussion on transgenic technology. Classroom implementation of the material in this document might include assigning select discussion questions to small groups of students or selecting the top five questions to discuss as a class. KEY CONCEPTS • Researchers genetically modified mosquitoes to help prevent the spread of a virus. • Male GM mosquitoes pass on a lethality gene to the offspring when they mate with non-GM females in the wild. CURRICULUM CONNECTIONS Standards Curriculum Connection NGSS (2013) HS-LS1.A, HS-LS3.A AP Bio (2015) 3.A.1 IB Bio (2016) 3.1, 3.5 Vision and Change (2009) CC1, CC2, CC3 PRIOR KNOWLEDGE Students should • be familiar with the idea that genes code for proteins and that genetic information can be passed to offspring. • have some understanding of transgenic technology and what it means for an organism to be genetically modified. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Mosquitoes can transmit pathogens that cause many human diseases, such as malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, chikungunya, and Zika fever.
    [Show full text]
  • Revision and Updating of the Strategic Plan: Possible Outline and Elements of the New Strategic Plan from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
    Revision and updating of the strategic plan: possible outline and elements of the new strategic plan from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) A response by Wildlife and Countryside Link Wildlife and Countryside Link (Link) brings together 35 voluntary organisations concerned with the conservation and protection of wildlife and the countryside. Our members practise and advocate environmentally sensitive land management, and encourage respect for and enjoyment of natural landscapes and features, the historic and marine environment and biodiversity. Taken together our members have the support of over 8 million people in the UK and manage over 690,000 hectares of land. This document is supported by the following 15 organisations; • Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust • Badger Trust • Bat Conservation Trust • Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust • Butterfly Conservation • Campaign to Protect Rural England • Friends of the Earth England • The Grasslands Trust • The Mammal Society • Marine Conservation Society • Plantlife International • Royal Society for the Protection of Birds • Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust • The Wildlife Trusts • Woodland Trust 1. Overview Link agrees that the new CBD strategic plan should provide a framework for establishing national targets. In the UK, we should seek to ensure that the targets in the strategic plan are robust and challenging enough to drive cross-sectoral delivery and push us on to achieving the ultimate aims of halting and reversing the biodiversity loss we continue to observe. We support the suggested strategic plan title “Sustaining Life on Earth” since this accurately places biodiversity at the heart of sustainable living. Our comments relate to the position statement developed by Link throughout 2009 (Annex1) in respect of a post-2010 biodiversity target and possible sub-targets.
    [Show full text]