Increasingly, fisheries researchers and managers seek or are compelled to “bridge” Indigenous knowledge systems with Western scientific approaches to understanding and governing fisheries. Here, we ...move beyond the all‐too‐common narrative about integrating or incorporating (too often used as euphemisms for assimilating) other knowledge systems into Western science, instead of building an ethic of knowledge coexistence and complementarity in knowledge generation using Two‐Eyed Seeing as a guiding framework. Two‐Eyed Seeing (Etuaptmumk in Mi’kmaw) embraces “learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing, and to use both these eyes together, for the benefit of all,” as envisaged by Elder Dr. Albert Marshall. In this paper, we examine the notion of knowledge dichotomies and imperatives for knowledge coexistence and draw parallels between Two‐Eyed Seeing and other analogous Indigenous frameworks from around the world. It is set apart from other Indigenous frameworks in its explicit action imperative—central to Two‐Eyed Seeing is the notion that knowledge transforms the holder and that the holder bears a responsibility to act on that knowledge. We explore its operationalization through three Canadian aquatic and fisheries case‐studies that co‐develop questions, document and mobilize knowledge, and co‐produce insights and decisions. We argue that Two‐Eyed Seeing provides a pathway to a plural coexistence, where time‐tested Indigenous knowledge systems can be paired with, not subsumed by, Western scientific insights for an equitable and sustainable future.
The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) published the second edition of its International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in 2019. We conducted a pan‐Canadian ...study using semi‐structured interviews with restoration professionals to explore the extent to which restoration practitioners are aware of the document and use it. Overall, we found that direct uptake of the document by practitioners was lower than expected, with approximately 37.7% of all participants that were both aware of and consulting the publication for guidance in their practice of ecological restoration. This is due in part to low awareness of the document itself, with only a small majority (56.5%) of interviewees being aware of it. Other reasons listed by practitioners such as the structure of the publication, its added value, and its suitability for on‐the‐ground work revealed why some individuals aware of the existence of the document still failed to consult it. Here, we present a more nuanced assessment of these observations and share our findings with the ecological restoration community to address this disconnection. With intensifying pressures to achieve restoration success internationally, SER's guidance is critical. We analyze why it seems guidance from SER is not being taken up as fully as it might, and ways in which future versions may be improved.
Environmental decision-makers and practitioners need and deserve high-quality environmental evidence for effective decision-making. We collate and share a suite of best practices for applied ...environmental researchers to support their capacity to inform such decision-making processes. This raises a number of important questions: What does “relevant” and informative evidence look like? How do we know when evidence has been applied? We assembled an experienced team of knowledge generators and users in Canada to identify insights that have emerged from their work and that could serve as guideposts for others who seek to apply environmental research to policy challenges. By reflecting on successes and failures, we define “success” in applied environmental science as respectfully conducted, partner-relevant research that is accessible, understandable, and shared and that can create opportunities for change (e.g., in policy, behaviour, management). Next, we generated a list of best practices for delivering “successful” applied environmental research. Our guidance emphasizes the importance of engaging early and often, in a respectful manner, with partners, generating high-quality, relevant research (which requires flexibility), having a plan for communicating and sharing outputs, and being transparent about uncertainties and limitations. Other important considerations include acknowledging partners for involvement and training early career researchers in applied partnership research. Finally, we generated a list of specific, measurable indicators for evaluating success, including quality and quantity of scientific outputs, the relationship with the partner(s), relevance and connectedness of the research, accessibility and availability of outputs to users, provision of outputs that are digestible and usable by different audiences,training and capacity building, and ultimate outcomes (e.g., including social, environmental, and economic outcomes, as well as partner satisfaction). We encourage those embarking on applied environmental research to consider embracing the strategies, to continuously reflect on progress toward shared research goals, and to be flexible. Doing so will increase the likelihood of delivering research that is “successful” and in doing so contribute to overcoming and addressing environmental issues and problems.
Les décideurs et les praticiens de l’environnement ont besoin de données environnementales de haute qualité pour prendre des décisions efficaces et ils le méritent. Les auteurs colligent et partagent un ensemble des meilleures pratiques à l’intention des personnes qui réalisent de la recherche appliquée en environnement afin de soutenir leur capacité à éclairer la prise de décisions. Cela soulève un certain nombre de questions importantes. À quoi ressemblent une preuve « pertinente » et informative? Quand savons-nous qu’une preuve a été appliquée? Ils ont réuni une équipe expérimentée de producteurs et d’utilisateurs de connaissances au Canada afin d’identifier les idées qui ont émané de leurs travaux et qui pourraient servir de guide à d’autres qui cherchent à appliquer la recherche environnementale aux enjeux politiques. En réfléchissant sur les succès et les échecs, les auteurs définissent la notion de « succès » en science environnementale appliquée comme étant une recherche respectueuse, pertinente pour les partenaires, accessible, compréhensible et partagée, et qui peut créer des occasions de changement (par exemple en matière de politique, de comportement, de gestion). Ils ont ensuite établi une liste des meilleures pratiques pour mener à bien une recherche environnementale appliquée « réussie ». Leurs orientations soulignent l’importance de s’engager tôt et souvent, de manière respectueuse, avec les partenaires, de générer une recherche de haute qualité et pertinente (ce qui nécessite de la flexibilité), d’avoir un plan de communication et de partage des résultats, et d’être transparent sur les incertitudes et les limites. D’autres considérations importantes comprennent la reconnaissance des partenaires pour leur participation et la formation des chercheurs en début de carrière à la recherche appliquée en partenariat. Enfin, ils ont établi une liste d’indicateurs spécifiques et mesurables pour évaluer la réussite, dont : la qualité et la quantité des résultats scientifiques, la relation avec le ou les partenaires, la pertinence et la connectivité de la recherche, l’accessibilité et la disponibilité des résultats pour les utilisateurs, la diffusion de résultats digestes et utilisables par différents publics, la formation et le renforcement des capacités, et les résultats finaux (y compris les résultats sociaux, environnementaux et économiques, ainsi que la satisfaction des partenaires). Les auteurs encouragent les personnes qui se lancent dans la recherche environnementale appliquée à envisager d’adopter ces stratégies, à réfléchir en permanence aux progrès réalisés vers des objectifs de recherche communs et à faire preuve de souplesse. Cela augmentera la probabilité de mener des recherches « fructueuses » et, ce faisant, contribuera à surmonter et à traiter les questions et les problèmes environnementaux.
Successful incorporation of scientific knowledge into environmental policy and decisions is a significant challenge. Although studies on how to bridge the knowledge-action gap have proliferated over ...the last decade, few have investigated the roles, responsibilities, and opportunities for funding bodies to meet this challenge. In this study we present a set of criteria gleaned from interviews with experts across Canada that can be used by funding bodies to evaluate the potential for proposed research to produce actionable knowledge for environmental policy and practice. We also provide recommendations for how funding bodies can design funding calls and foster the skills required to bridge the knowledge-action gap. We interviewed 84 individuals with extensive experience as knowledge users at the science-policy interface who work for environmentally-focused federal and provincial/territorial government bodies and non-governmental organizations. Respondents were asked to describe elements of research proposals that indicate that the resulting research is likely to be useful in a policy context, and what advice they would give to funding bodies to increase the potential impact of sponsored research. Twenty-five individuals also completed a closed-ended survey that followed up on these questions. Research proposals that demonstrated (1) a team with diverse expertise and experience in co-production, (2) a flexible research plan that aligns timelines and spatial scale with policy needs, (3) a clear and demonstrable link to a policy issue, and (4) a detailed and diverse knowledge exchange plan for reaching relevant stakeholders were seen as more promising for producing actionable knowledge. Suggested changes to funding models to enhance utility of funded research included (1) using diverse expertise to adjudicate awards, (2) supporting co-production and interdisciplinary research through longer grant durations and integrated reward structures, and (3) following-up on and rewarding knowledge exchange by conducting impact evaluation. The set of recommendations presented here can guide both funding agencies and research teams who wish to change how applied environmental science is conducted and improve its connection to policy and practice.
Hyper-CVAD is a dose-intensive regimen which has been employed in the last decade to treat patients with a range of hematologic malignancies, with impressive efficacy. This regimen has been ...associated with considerable short-term hematologic toxicity, which has been mostly described as transient and reversible. However, recent reports have highlighted a concerning early rate of MDS or AML on medium-term follow-up. While cases of MDS/AML may be the most extreme end of the spectrum of hematopoietic stem cell damage, in the current retrospective study we describe other prolonged hematologic sequelae of this regimen. All patients were previously untreated and received Hyper-CVAD for the treatment of NHL or ALL. 125 patients (pts) with a median age of 47 (range, 15–76) were followed up for a median of 23 months (range, 1–84). The median number of Hyper-CVAD cycles was 6 (range, 2–9). Follow-up for blood counts was censored at the next cytotoxic therapy. At 3 months post therapy, 78 patients were evaluable. Thirty-two (41%) had achieved full blood count recovery and 45 (59%) had persisting cytopenias. Dose intensity delivered was significantly associated with persisting cytopenias (p = 0.028), but age (p = 0.61), underlying disease (0.49) and bone marrow involvement at diagnosis (p = 0.81) were not. Of the patients who had not normalised all counts by 3 months, anemia was present in 56% (median 106 g/L, range 76–119), neutropenia in 47% (median 1.27 × 109/L, range 0.03–1.75) and thrombocytopenia in 76% (median 96 × 109/L, range 9–120). One, two and three lineage cytopenias were present in 42%, 42% and 16% of pts, respectively. The median time to normalisation of counts for those with post-treatment cytopenias in the respective lineages was 9 months (range, 6–12) for Hb, 6 months (range, 6–30) for neutrophils, and 6 months (range, 6–30) for platelets. The median time to normalisation of the lowered counts was 9 months (n = 18) in those with multi-lineage cytopenias and 6 months (n = 12) in those with one lineage cytopenia. At 1 year following Hyper-CVAD with no further therapy, 49 patients were evaluable and 3 (6%), 7 (14%), and 9 (18%) still had anemia, neutropenia or thrombocytopenia respectively. MDS/AML was diagnosed in 3 patients at 4, 21, and 21 months after therapy. Of these patients, one received an autologous stem cell transplant 2 months after Hyper-CVAD, one was cytopenic at 3 months, and one was lost to follow-up until re-presenting with AML. These results indicate a considerable rate of prolonged hematologic toxicity after Hyper-CVAD, and a minor rate of MDS at this limited follow-up. These findings likely reflect cumulative damage to hematopoietic stem cells.
Background: CBF AML, with t(8;21)(q22;q22), inv(16)(p13q22) or t(16;16)(p13;q22) and the associated fusion proteins AML1/ETO or CBFβ/MYH11, has a favourable clinical prognosis although significant ...numbers of patients still relapse. We examined the prognostic utility of MRD monitoring by RQ-PCR and propose a simple model for prediction of impending haematological relapse.
Methods: Patients with CBF AML had samples collected at diagnosis, after induction and consolidation chemotherapy and at routine regular intervals thereafter. RQ-PCR, using the Applied Biosystems 7700 Sequence Detection System, was performed in triplicate and the final result was calculated by averaging 3 values, expressed relative to PGK levels. Stratified Cox regression was used to assess the impact of predictor variables (diagnostic, post-induction, post-consolidation RQ-PCR levels and presence of a 1 log10 increase in sequential RQ-PCR levels) on leukaemia-free survival (LFS).
Results: Of 46 patients identified with CBF AML, 29 had diagnostic, regular longitudinal samples and clinical follow up allowing further evaluation; 12 AML1-ETO and 17 CBFβ-MYH11. The median age was 39 years (range 7–68) with 52% male. Median follow up was 34 months (range 1–106) and median sample number was 6 (2–15). Twelve relapses occurred at a median of 11 months (range 4–17) from diagnosis. There were significant differences between transcript levels at diagnosis (median 1.9), post-induction (8.96*10−04), post-consolidation (5.01*10−05), in remission (1*10−06) or relapse (0.15) (p=0.01). Diagnostic, post-induction and post-consolidation RQ-PCR levels did not predict outcome. A log10 rise in a remission bone marrow sample correlated with adverse LFS and imminent risk of haematological relapse (HR 8.6). Relapses occurred a median of 60 days (range 45–272) after a log10 rise.
RQ-PCR levelsHazard Ratio (HR) LFS95% CIP-valueDiagnosis0.220.02–2.90.25Post-induction1.30.8–2.10.36Post-consolidation0.80.5–1.20.271 log10 increase8.61.8–420.008
Conclusions: A 1 log10 rise in transcript levels was a highly significant predictor of haematological relapse. Transcript levels at early post-treatment time points did not predict long term outcome, cautioning against de-escalation protocols based on these results. Prospective identification of high risk patients will enable clinical trials to address the efficacy of treatment initiated at molecular progression.
PDF
