Impact case study database
Search and filter
Filter by
- The University of Sheffield
- 5 - Biological Sciences
- Submitting institution
- The University of Sheffield
- Unit of assessment
- 5 - Biological Sciences
- Summary impact type
- Environmental
- Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
- No
1. Summary of the impact
The uncontrolled spread of non-native invasive species costs the UK environment and economy an estimated £1.8 billion per year. Sheffield research has provided critical theory underpinning the assessment of risks associated with invasive plants in the UK through the Non-Native Risk Analysis Panel (NNRAP) which contributed to the decision to ban the sale of seven plant species in England and Wales. The work of NNRAP shapes eradication programmes and the work of community groups key to the monitoring and management of the UK countryside. The research has had significant impact on EU policy and practice as NNRAP protocols have provided the foundation for EU risk assessments on invasives.
2. Underpinning research
Assessment of the threat of invasive species, and measures of the efficacy of control, requires the use of mathematical models to predict the growth and spread of those species. However, conventional models based on size structure create problems by dividing a population into a set of arbitrary classes or “stages” whereas in reality population size is a continuous variable. To overcome this problem, Rees and colleagues have developed “integral projection models” (IPMs). These models can be applied to any population, determining the rate of population growth or spatial spread. These have been particularly useful in the study of invasive species and in the assessment of effectiveness of different management strategies to control their spread.
Underpinning theory for modelling invasive species
Work by Rees and Ellner showed how integral projection models (IPMs) can avoid some of the limitations of matrix models when looking at species where individual demography is affected by multiple attributes that vary over the life cycle. They developed IPMs to take into account complex demographic attributes such as dormant and active life stages, changes between discrete and continuous structure over the life cycle, and cross-classification by several attributes including size, age, and condition [R1]. Rees and Ellner also developed methods for creating and analysing IPMs that encompass interannual variability in survival, growth rate, and fecundity. By exploiting the close correspondence between stochastic IPMs and statistical analysis of trait-fate relationships in a ‘hierarchical’ or ‘mixed’ models framework, Rees and Ellner demonstrated that IPMs can be parameterized in a straightforward way from data using conventional statistical methods and software [R2].
Application of theory to provide knowledge on invasive species population dynamics
It was very apparent that such models are readily applicable to situations involving invasive plant species. For example, Rees and colleagues used the IPM approach to explore how habitat disturbance and propagule pressure (a measure of number of invasive species) determined the success of invasion, using two highly invasive species as exemplars ( Lantana and Mimosa). When disturbance rates in both invasive occupied and unoccupied sites are the same, recruitment and mortality effects are exactly balanced, and successful invasion is independent of the disturbance. When disturbance rates between invasive occupied and unoccupied sites differ a novel mechanism occurs where the invasive can promote disturbance in sites it already occupies. This provided the insight that single large-scale disturbances can result in permanent, dramatic shifts in invasive abundance. Conversely, reducing the population below a critical threshold can cause extinction. This work (with [R1] and [R2]) provides a critical theoretical framework for the more effective and nuanced management of invasive species- an increasingly important point when considering the effects of human action and climate change on disturbance regimes [R3].
Use of theory to model specific invasive populations nationally and internationally
In addition to this general underpinning theory, Rees has also investigated the management methods of specific invasive non-native species. For example, his team developed a mathematical model of water hyacinth growth which can be used to assess the impact of a reduction in nutrients on plant dynamics and for planning population control [R4]. At an international level, Rees helped develop a model for pine expansion in ungrazed and grazed grassland in New Zealand. Pine invasion is a major problem in this country and by incorporating uncertainty into the modelling process the confidence in the management strategies recommended was greatly increased [R5].
3. References to the research
Ellner, S. P., & Rees, M. (2006). Integral Projection Models for Species with Complex Demography. The American Naturalist, 167(3), 410–428. https://doi.org/10.1086/499438
Rees, M., & Ellner, S. P. (2009). Integral projection models for populations in temporally varying environments. Ecological Monographs, 79(4), 575–594. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1474.1
Buckley, Y. M., Bolker, B. M., & Rees, M. (2007). Disturbance, invasion and re-invasion: managing the weed-shaped hole in disturbed ecosystems. Ecology Letters, 10(9), 809–817. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01067.x
Wilson, J. R., Holst, N., & Rees, M. (2005). Determinants and patterns of population growth in water hyacinth. Aquatic Botany, 81(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2004.11.002
Buckley, Y.M., Brockerhoff, E., Langer, L., Ledgrad, N., North, H. and Rees, M. (2005). Slowing down a pine invasion despite uncertainty in demography and dispersal. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(6), 1020–1030. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01100.x
4. Details of the impact
Invasive non-native species (INNS) represent a major threat to the UK environment and cost the UK economy on average £1.8 billion per year, mainly affecting agriculture, forestry, horticulture, utilities, construction, and transport infrastructure [S1]. They have detrimental effects on the native species they supplant, as well as on human health and business. Their presence has accelerated with the expansion of global trade. Research at Sheffield has shaped national and international environmental policy and practice to combat INNS.
The Non-Native Species Secretariat (NNSS) acts as the central hub in Great Britain for the collection and dissemination of information regarding INNSs, with the Non-Native Risk Assessment Panel (NNRAP) the principle body informing the NNSS of the risks that different species pose. This evidence directly informs the Great Britain Programme Board which consists of senior representatives of several major agencies (including Defra, Scottish and Welsh Governments, the Forestry Commission, HMRC, and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee) who use the evidence to prioritise activities and fulfil legislated commitments.
Rees was invited to join the NNRAP in 2007. His research on modelling invasive species has impacted their work via both the insight provided into specific species and, at a wider level, by providing the general critical theory required to judge whether the risk assessments implemented for a spectrum of invasive species are appropriate. As the sole plant scientist on the panel, ‘Professor Rees’s work on the NNRAP has had ‘an important impact on the strategic approach to dealing with invasive non-native species in GB’ [S2], as detailed below.
Plant species have been banned and eradication protocols implemented at a national level
Under the auspices of Defra, the code of practice in England dictates that ‘the environmental authority must consider available information on its likely impacts, in particular any risk assessment carried out by the Great Britain Non-Native Species Secretariat’ [S3]. This authority encompasses the Secretary of State, the Environment Agency, Natural England, and the Forestry Commissioners. Although Rees aids in analysing all species risk assessments, the application of the modelling approach developed in his research, coupled with his botanical expertise, has in particular ensured that the assessments of Parrot’s Feather, Water Fern, Floating Water Primrose, Floating Pennywort, two species of Water Primrose, and Australian Swamp Stonecrop were fit-for-purpose. As a result of these assessments , The Wildlife and Countryside Act was updated in 2014 and these species were banned from sale in England and Wales [S2][S4]. In addition, the assessments have underpinned actions to eradicate selected invasive species. For example, in 2010, based on NNRAP advice, NNSS identified a high risk of establishment of water primrose (an economic pest due to clogged waterways and drainage streams, and increased the risk of flooding) and initiated an eradication programme . As stated by the Senior Technical Advisor, Environment Agency **“ I have no doubt that the 2014 ban was crucial to the potential success of our eradication programme” and “if our [the UK’s] intervention had been left any later I doubt we would still be aspiring to achieving eradication” [S5].
The UK has seen a decrease in the area of surviving water primrose coverage from 858.5m2 in 2017 to less than 100m2 in 2019 [S5]. This has been achieved at a cost of just £10,000 [S5] per year instead of the project cost of £241,908,000 if the risk was left unchecked for longer [S6]. The programme has resulted in greater success in eradicating water primrose in England than can be seen in other countries that have been invaded by the species, such as France and Japan [S7].
Improved management of the threat of non-native species by local communities
Local Action Groups (LAGS) have played a key role in the control of widespread non-native species, but also for awareness raising in communities [S5]. NNRAP (via NNSS) provides vital support for these groups. For example, all NNRAP risk assessments are available online, with detailed fact sheets on identification, impacts, and control methods for 300 INNS ( http://www.nonnativespecies.org/factsheet/index.cfm). This resource has enhanced the knowledge of more than 50 LAGs who report that “ the work of the NNSS and NNRAP are vital for our operations” to target species and inform management guidance. Representatives from these LAGs have stressed the importance of the information on the website and the NNSS workshops to enable them to train volunteers and raise awareness with landowners to tackle INNS [S8].
Critical theory from plant population dynamics has influenced EU legislation and regulatory practice.
Non-native species invasions are an international problem, costing the EU an estimated €12 billion per year. The work of NNRAP has guided international standards in this area, informing EU risk-assessment templates, and the modelling methods used to ensure that risk assessments are appropriate. Consequently, many species have been banned in the EU based on NNRAP findings [S2, S9]. In addition, Rees was appointed to an EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) working group on non-target terrestrial plant risk assessment in 2013, resulting in the publication “Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for non-target terrestrial plants” in 2014 [S9]. These assessments are used to develop and implement new concepts and approaches in EFSA’s risk assessment practices, thus “ Rees’ work has resulted in critical theory from plant population dynamics being used to underpin scientific advice used at both European and international levels” [S10].
5. Sources to corroborate the impact
House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Invasive species First Report of Session 2019 ( https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmselect/cmenvaud/88/88.pdf).
Letter from Deputy Chief Non-native Species Officer (England) of the GB Non-native Species Secretariat (18 March 2019), corroborating Rees’s role within NNRAP
Defra, July 2017. Species Control Provisions: Code of Practice for England (2.4.3)
Wildlife England. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Prohibition on Sale etc. of Invasive Non-native Plants) (England) Order 2014. No. 538, list of banned plants.
Combined: confirmation of contribution of work of NNRAP to the water primrose eradication programme, programme progress and associated cost. The GB Water Primrose Ludwigia grandiflora eradication programme: 2019 progress report. Environment Agency (2020) and factual statement from Senior Technical Advisor, Invasive Species, Environment Agency.
Williams et al (2010) The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain. CABI Project No VM10066. This report details the estimated cost of an early-stage eradication programme for water primrose against the cost of late-stage eradication programme.
Kamigawara, K., Nakai, K., Noma, N., Hieda, S., Sarat, E., Dutartre, A., Renals, T., Bullock, R., Haury, J., Bottner, B., & Damien, J.-P. (2020). What kind of legislation can contribute to on-site management?: Comparative case studies on legislative developments in managing aquatic invasive alien plants in France, England, and Japan. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 23(2), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2020.1788778
Emails from Local Action Groups (Norfolk non-native Species Initiative, Isle of Wight Non-native Plants Project, Medway Valley Countryside Partnership, and Bollin Valley Partnership) describing how they use information from NNSS and how it impacts their work controlling INNS.
EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues) (2014). Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for non-target terrestrial plants. (2014). EFSA Journal, 12(7), 3800. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3800
Letter from a member of Biosecurity Ministerial Advisory Committee, NZ, detailing Rees’s work with NNRAP and EFSA. February 2020.
- Submitting institution
- The University of Sheffield
- Unit of assessment
- 5 - Biological Sciences
- Summary impact type
- Political
- Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
- No
1. Summary of the impact
Pesticides are a vital element of modern agriculture, yet they can pose significant environmental risks. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which is responsible for developing scientific regulatory guidance for pesticides, drew on Professor Maltby’s research on environmental risk assessments (ERAs) to provide guidance for the protection of aquatic ecosystems to support EU directive No 1107/2009. As a result since 2015, any company wishing to register a pesticide in the EU has conducted a risk assessment according to this guidance. Maltby also designed and delivered a series of training events for EFSA staff and regulators from across the EU to ensure effective implementation of the guidance and approval of applications under the new directive. Maltby’s research has thus had impact on the production and use of pesticides across Europe.
2. Underpinning research
Pesticides are a vital element of modern agriculture, and in 2018, 370,000 tonnes of pesticide with a value of more than €10 billion were applied in the EU. However, pesticides are designed to have biological activity and can adversely affect non-target organisms and, hence, biodiversity, putting the benefits that people derive from ecosystems services at risk.
As such, all pesticides must undergo a regulatory ERA before they can be authorised for marketing and use in the EU. The purpose of the ERA is to provide the scientific evidence necessary for risk managers to decide whether the environmental impacts of the use of the pesticide are acceptable and, if so, under what conditions. However, these ERAs are often based on toxicity data measuring a very limited number of responses, using very few species that are exposed to pesticides under highly standardised conditions. The ability of such data to provide the information necessary to protect complex and variable natural communities has been questioned, and the need for improved ERAs with greater ecological relevance has been identified by scientists and policymakers. Research conducted by Maltby has contributed to a deeper understanding of pesticide impacts and ERAs by demonstrating the following:
The drivers and consequences of interspecific variation in species sensitivity to toxicants
Maltby’s work showed that species sensitivity distributions (SSDs) can inform on the adverse ecosystem effects arising from the use of insecticides and fungicides if they are based on the most sensitive taxonomic group, which is dependent on the mode of action of the pesticide, with species habitat and geographical distribution being less important factors. This work validated the use of SSDs in the regulatory assessment of pesticide risk [ R1, R2].
A conceptual framework for setting ecologically based protection goals for risk assessment
Maltby proposed a framework for spatiotemporal differentiation in ecological protection goals and, building on experimental studies, proposed a tiered approach for assessing the ecological risk of chemicals to freshwater ecosystems. This research had direct relevance to how risk assessment can be harmonised across major EU environmental legislation [ R3].
The development and validation of a tiered approach to ERAs
This research provided experimental evidence that lower-tier approaches for the assessment of acute effects were sufficiently protective of ecosystem-level effects for the majority of insecticides investigated. Situations were also identified where further evaluation was necessary (i.e., compounds with novel chemistries or delayed effects). This work [ R4] validated the tiered risk assessment approach proposed in [ R3]
The ecological implications of chemical effects on non-tested organisms
Maltby’s work demonstrated the urgent need for ecologically relevant regulatory risk assessment tools and approaches and proposed a roadmap for addressing the major knowledge gaps [ R5]. In addition, it demonstrated the greater sensitivity of aquatic fungi to some agricultural fungicides than others, as well as the potential implications for ecosystem processes and food web dynamics [ R6].
3. References to the research
Maltby, L., Blake, N., Brock, T. C. M., & Van den Brink, P. J. (2005). Insecticide species sensitivity distributions: the importance of test species selection and relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24(2), 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1897/04-025r.1
Maltby, L., Brock, T. C. M., & van den Brink, P. J. (2009). Fungicide Risk Assessment for Aquatic Ecosystems: Importance of Interspecific Variation, Toxic Mode of Action, and Exposure Regime. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(19), 7556–7563. https://doi.org/10.1021/es901461c
Brock, T. C. M., Arts, G. H. P., Maltby, L., & Van den Brink, P. J. (2006). Aquatic risks of pesticides, ecological protection goals, and common aims in European Union legislation. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2(4), e20–e46. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.5630020402
van Wijngaarden, R. P. A., Maltby, L., & Brock, T. C. M. (2014). Acute tier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Document: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? Pest Management Science, 71(8), 1059–1067. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3937
Maltby, L., Arnold, D., Arts, G., Davies, J., Heimbach, F., Pickl, C. and Poulsen, V. (eds.) (2010). Aquatic macrophyte risk assessment for pesticides. SETAC Press & CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. Available on request.
Lin, R., Buijse, L., Dimitrov, M. R., Dohmen, P., Kosol, S., Maltby, L., Roessink, I., Sinkeldam, J. A., Smidt, H., Van Wijngaarden, R. P. A., & Brock, T. C. M. (2012). Effects of the fungicide metiram in outdoor freshwater microcosms: responses of invertebrates, primary producers and microbes. Ecotoxicology, 21(5), 1550–1569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-012-0909-0
4. Details of the impact
Maltby’s research has contributed to the scientific basis for decision-making activities regarding the approval of pesticides across the EU since August 2013 and, in particular, the process incorporated for the assessment of all new pesticides since 2015.
Pathway to impact
Maltby’s body of research provided new insights into ERAs that were of direct relevance to EU legislation on pesticide use and were incorporated into guidance on pesticide use.
The research provided understanding and evaluation methods for the environmental risks that pesticides pose to aquatic ecosystems and was incorporated into a major regulatory guidance document published by the EFSA in July 2013, citing nine of Maltby’s publications [S1]. This EFSA guidance aimed to improve the robustness, ecological relevance and effectiveness of pesticide ERAs for European pesticide approval in light of an EU change from prescriptive to risk-based environmental legislation.
With regard to the foundation EFSA guidance document, [S1], research by Maltby was used to justify:
The use of SSDs to derive regulatory acceptable pesticide concentrations.
The importance of interspecific variation in toxicological sensitivity.
The selection of toxicity data for use in SSDs.
The recommendation of test species for fungicide risk assessment.
In addition, Maltby’s research [R3-R6] was:
Used to provide the scientific underpinning linking specific protection goals and reference tiers in a tiered risk assessment scheme and to define effect classes for evaluating micro-/mesocosm studies (experimental systems that examine the natural environment under controlled conditions).
Used to validate the tiered approach and, in particular, the use of geomean and SSD approaches.
Cited as one of the main reasons why revision of the guidance was necessary. R5 was used for setting specific protection goals for aquatic vascular plants and was used to justify the testing methods.
Used to highlight the need for ERAs to consider the impact of pesticides on aquatic microorganisms (which was not the case at that time, i.e., in 2011–2012) and provided the justification for fungicide SSDs.
Impact on pesticide approval and use in the EU
In 2014, the EFSA guidance document [S1] informed the implementation of EU Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 [S2] (2015) [S2] concerning the placement of plant protection products on the market (products considered pesticides that protect crops or desirable or useful plants). EU Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 was implemented by all EU Members States, including the UK, for all applications relating to pesticides submitted from 01/01/2015 onwards [S2].
As of March 2020, ERAs encompassing 76% of the 90 pesticides evaluated by the EU since 2016 have directly cited the EFSA guidance [ S3]. The use of the EFSA guidance has resulted in 22% of these pesticide registrations not being approved for use in the EU due to unacceptable environmental impacts [S3].
Impact on EU regulatory practice
To ensure robust adoption, the EFSA required a means of strengthening the dissemination of its new ERA guidance and modelling practices [S1]. In 2014, the EFSA commissioned Maltby, along with colleagues from Wageningen University, the Netherlands, to deliver a series of 3-day specialised training courses. Maltby was chosen based on her scientific standing, expertise, and key contributions to the development of the EFSA guidance. The aim of these courses was to explain the scientific principles and key research underpinning the EFSA guidance and to communicate the scientific opinions underpinning the practical implementation of ERAs. These invitation-only courses were offered to people who were responsible for implementing the guidance across the EU, including EFSA staff (46% of attendees), EU Member State Pesticides and Residues regulators (44% of attendees) and scientific panel/committee members (9% of attendees). 108 people attended the first six courses [S4]. A further course was delivered in 2019, with another planned for 2021. So far, more than 150 participants have attended the training courses, and over 90% of participants agreed that the courses facilitated their regulatory work [S4].
Maltby’s research has strongly influenced the ERAs conducted since the 2015 implementation of a regulation based on the guidance for the assessment of all new pesticides in the EU. Her research contribution was recognised in December 2020 when she was awarded an OBE for services to Environmental Biology, Animal and Plant Sciences [S5].
5. Sources to corroborate the impact
EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2013. Guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products for aquatic organisms in edge-of-field surface waters EFSA Journal 2013; 11(7):3290, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3290. (sections: 2.1.4.2; 5.6.2; 8.4; 7.1; 7.2.5.1; 4.2.2; 9.3.3; 4.2.2; 8.4.4; 3.5; 5.5.2; 7.2.7; 8.4.3; 9.3.2; 8.4.2 and 9.3.2)
EU 2015. Guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products for aquatic organisms in edge-of-field surface waters in the context of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/pesticides_ppp_app-proc_guide_ecotox_aquatic.pdf
List of all European pesticide applications and approvals. EFSA. ‘Conclusion on Pesticides’. Database of EU pesticides risk assessment peer review ( https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/publications?f%5B0%5D=date%3Acustom%3A2015-01-01%3A2020-03-01&f%5B1%5D=type%3A331).
Specialised training courses on certain aspects of food safety risk assessment for members of EFSA’s Scientific Committee/Panels and their working groups, open to EFSA staff –final report https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN-1346.
New Year’s Honours List 2021 announced December 2020.
- Submitting institution
- The University of Sheffield
- Unit of assessment
- 5 - Biological Sciences
- Summary impact type
- Technological
- Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
- No
1. Summary of the impact
Sheffield research has contributed to the development of a novel tailored therapy for multiple forms of cancer. The selective killing of a tumour using an inhibitor of a DNA repair enzyme (PARP) to induce synthetic lethality was a milestone of personalised cancer therapy. The discovery was patent protected and development rights sold to AstraZeneca. Following a successful clinical trial, the resultant drug was licenced worldwide. Disclosure of the findings stimulated intense investment by Merck and GSK. It has become AstraZeneca’s 4th most profitable treatment, generating over £1 billion in sales. Currently four PARP inhibitors are clinically approved for cancers that previously had few treatment options and have increased progression-free survival time for patients in 73 countries.
2. Underpinning research
BRCA2, PARP inhibition and Synthetic Lethality
Cancer remains one of the major challenges in global healthcare. In 2005, Dr Bryant and colleagues discovered that cells that had a loss of function in BRCA2 (a gene associated with a spectrum of cancers) were susceptible to inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), leading to cell death [ R1]. Since both PARP and BRCA are DNA repair enzymes, the team proposed that cancer cells are dependent upon two DNA repair pathways in order to continue to replicate and grow. One pathway requires the PARP enzyme and the second depends upon BRCA2, with the pathways providing redundancy in case one of the pathways fails. By treating BRCA-deficient cells with PARP inhibitors, both pathways are lost and the cancer cell dies, a concept known as synthetic lethality. Using a mouse model, the work in [ R1] demonstrated this proof of principle. This was the first evidence of synthetic lethality as a therapeutic agent and has led to multiple drugs based around PARP-inhibitors being developed for use in multiple types of cancer.
Mechanistic studies
To underpin the impact of their breakthrough discovery, the Sheffield team performed a series of investigations to understand the mechanism of action of PARP inhibitors.
It was known that BRCA2 is required for the process of homologous recombination (HR). In [ R1] it was demonstrated that loss of other HR genes also led to synthetic lethality with PARP inhibitors, pointing to a general relationship between PARP and HR. [ R3] revealed that, in the absence of any exogenous DNA damage, a cell relies on HR to survive when DNA replication forks collapse. This collapse can be caused by disruption of single strand break repair (SSBR) and PARP is required for SSBR, thus providing insight into the potential mechanism of action of PARP inhibitors.
Bryant also demonstrated that PARP is required for stabilising DNA replication forks [ R4]. Therefore, inhibiting PARP leads to fork instability and a greater requirement for HR, indicating a further mechanism by which PARP inhibitors induce synthetic lethality. The trapping of PARP at replication forks provides an important insight into the mechanism of PARP inhibitors.
In [ R5] Bryant showed that HR defective cells have hyperactivated PARP, a finding that has led to studies on PARP as a biomarker in cancer treatment. Other synthetic lethal relationships with PARP have also been demonstrated. For example, Ataxia-Telangiectasia Mutated (ATM) was shown to be activated in PARP inhibited cells, with ATM-deficient cells dying upon PARP inhibition [R6]. ATM has been linked to T-cell prolymphocytic leukaemia, mantle cell lymphoma, and B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, suggesting that these might also be suitable targets for PARP inhibitor therapy [ R6].
Patenting PARP inhibitors
The University of Sheffield filed a patent application in July 2003 for the use of PARP inhibitors as a targeted therapy for tumours occurring in individuals with BRCA2 mutations [ R2]. The patent has been granted in 32 countries including the UK, US and Japan. Initially licensed to KUDOS therapeutics who developed the PARP inhibitor Olaparib, the area was subsequently developed by AstraZeneca after acquiring KUDOS therapeutics in 2006.
3. References to the research
University of Sheffield researchers from this unit in bold
Bryant, H. E., Schultz, N., Thomas, H. D., Parker, K. M., Flower, D., Lopez, E., Kyle, S., Meuth, M., Curtin, N. J., & Helleday, T. (2005). Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature, 434(7035), 913–917. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03443
Patent: WO/2005/012524. Use of RNAi inhibiting PARP activity for the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of cancer, The University of Sheffield. Publication date, 10/02/2005.
In order to prevent disclosure of the invention, a large amount of this research was embargoed and publication delayed until after the relevant patent [R2] was finalised.
Saleh-Gohari, N., Bryant, H. E., Schultz, N., Parker, K. M., Cassel, T. N., & Helleday, T. (2005). Spontaneous Homologous Recombination Is Induced by Collapsed Replication Forks That Are Caused by Endogenous DNA Single-Strand Breaks. Molecular and Cellular Biology, 25(16), 7158–7169. https://doi.org/10.1128/mcb.25.16.7158-7169.2005
Bryant, H. E., Petermann, E., Schultz, N., Jemth, A.-S., Loseva, O., Issaeva, N., Johansson, F., Fernandez, S., McGlynn, P., & Helleday, T. (2009). PARP is activated at stalled forks to mediate Mre11-dependent replication restart and recombination. The EMBO Journal, 28(17), 2601–2615. https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2009.206
Gottipati, P., Vischioni, B., Schultz, N., Solomons, J., Bryant, H. E., Djureinovic, T., Issaeva, N., Sleeth, K., Sharma, R. A., & Helleday, T. (2010). Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Is Hyperactivated in Homologous Recombination–Defective Cells. Cancer Research, 70(13), 5389–5398. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-09-4716
Bryant, H. E. & Helleday, T. (2006). Inhibition of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase activates ATM which is required for subsequent homologous recombination repair. *Nucleic Acids Research, 34(*6), 1685–1691. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkl108
4. Details of the impact
Following successful phase II and III clinical trial completion using PARP inhibitor research from Sheffield, AstraZeneca was granted first in class drug status for Olaparib ( Lynparza®). Since then, the status has been applied to eighteen versions of the PARP inhibitor, four of which are directly attributed to the Sheffield Patent: Lynparza®, Niraparib, Rucaparib and Talazaparib [ S1]. [Text removed for publication].
Building on those initial applications of PARP inhibitors, this work has led to a step-change in the development and accessibility of treatments for cancers with few options. In 2020 Nature Milestones cited R1 as a milestone in cancer research for personalised therapeutics [ S3].
In 2014, Lynparza® became the world’s first PARP inhibitor approved for use in America and Europe [ S4]. This success led to further AstraZeneca investment, launching a collaboration with Merck (MSD UK) to develop treatments for additional cancers with a BRCA mutation. Lynparza® has now had positive phase III trial results in four different tumour types: pancreatic and prostate, as well as ovarian and breast [ S5].
Initially indicated for the treatment of ovarian cancer, the successful trials led to Lynparza® expanding to further patient groups in 2017. It is now being prescribed by physicians in 73 countries for the treatment of multiple cancer types. This has increased progression-free survival time for an additional 15,000 patients [ S6].
Economic impact
Sales of Lynparza® in the census period have continued to increase each year and have exceeded $1.2 billion in 2020 [ S6]. AstraZeneca developed a strategic oncology collaboration with MSD UK to expand the uses of Lynparza® to other forms of cancer [ S7]. This collaboration, which involved MSD UK buying 50% of Lynparza® for $8.5 billion, has achieved phase III clinical trial success in BRCA-mutated pancreatic cancer, which has the worst survival rate of all common cancers [ S5]. The collaboration went on to work with Myriad Genetics Inc on their BRACAnalysis CDx test to identify BRCA mutations in patients. This test is now used in the USA and Japan to better target PARP inhibitor treatment [ S7].
The sublicensed patent enabled other companies to produce PARP inhibitors for additional cancer types. Tesaro’s agreement with AstraZeneca contributed to the development of Niraparib launched in 2016 for the treatment of ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancers [S9]. In January 2019, GSK bought Tesaro, for $5.1 billion, to strengthen their commercial oncology capability [ S8].
Increased survival of cancer patients worldwide
Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for 72% and 69% breast cancers in women by the age of 80. The BRCA1 mutation increases the risk of ovarian cancer from 1.3% to 44%, and for BRCA2 mutations the risk increases to 17%. BRCA mutations also increase the risk of breast cancer in men as well as increasing the risk of prostate and pancreatic cancer. Clinical trials with PARP inhibitors have been shown to delay progression by an average of 3 months compared to chemotherapy [ S5].
Olaparib ( Lynparza®) was approved for use in Europe (EMA) and the USA (FDA) in December 2014 and Japan in July 2018. In 2015, NICE approved the use of Olaparib and Niraparib for NHS ovarian cancer patients, who had had three or more courses of chemotherapy, through the National Cancer Drug Fund [ S4].
In 2018, Olaparib became available through NHS prescription as a first-line maintenance therapy in BRCA-mutated, advanced ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer. Olaparib also became the first FDA-approved treatment for patients with gBRCAm HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer [ S4].
The phase III POLO trial explored the efficacy of Lynparza® as 1st-line maintenance monotherapy in patients with gBRCAm metastatic pancreatic cancer whose disease has not progressed on platinum-based chemotherapy. The trial determined that the median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the treatment group. POLO is the first positive phase III trial of any PARP inhibitor in a disease where there is a critical unmet medical need [S5] and has resulted in FDA approval for Lynparza® in the US for the maintenance treatment of adult patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated pancreatic cancer [ S4].
The AstraZeneca sublicensing of the Sheffield patent has led to the development of PARP inhibitors from other pharmaceutical companies for use as treatment of BRCA-mutated ovarian, fallopian tube, primary peritoneal and BRCA mutated breast cancers. Niraparib (GSK) and Talazoparib (Pfizer) have been approved for use in America since 2018 and Rucaparib (Clovis Oncology) was approved for use in America and Europe in 2019 [S1].
In Europe, the use of PARP inhibitors has been extended to ovarian, fallopian tube or peritoneal cancers to delay the next cycle of platinum chemotherapy, as well as to increase survival [S4].
5. Sources to corroborate the impact
Drug approvals report 2014-2020.
[Text removed for publication].
Nature Milestones 2005 cited R1 as a milestone in cancer research for personalised therapeutics ( https://www.nature.com/immersive/d42859-020-00083-8/index.html).
Regulatory approvals: UK NICE Guidance (TA598), Aug 2019 ( https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta598); USA FDA approvals for Lynparza® from Dec 2014 to May 2020 ( https://bit.ly/38yxkIu) and Europe EMA list of approval from Dec 2014 to May 2020 ( http://bit.ly/30EoVPp).
List of Lynparza® trials and results showing increased progressions free survival ( http://bit.ly/38AYhLI); SOLO Trial Results (Moore, K., et. al. (2018). Maintenance Olaparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 379(26), 2495–2505. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1810858) and POLO Trial Results (Golan, T. et. al. (2019). Maintenance Olaparib for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 381(4), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1903387).
Annual report of sales for AstraZeneca which contains Lynparza® sales to Q3 2020 ( https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/dam/az/PDF/2020/q3/Year-to-date_and_Q3_2020_results_announcement.pdf).
AstraZeneca and Merch (MSD UK) with Myiad sponsored the POLO trial and BRACAnalysis CDx testing to be used in selecting patients for treatment ( http://bit.ly/30EpwAD and http://bit.ly/2OsjwIL).
GSK Press release about buying Tesaro ( http://bit.ly/3rWd8rX).
Statement on the licensing agreement and payment conditions with AstraZeneca, page 87 under technology licenses ( http://ir.tesarobio.com/node/10061/html).
- Submitting institution
- The University of Sheffield
- Unit of assessment
- 5 - Biological Sciences
- Summary impact type
- Environmental
- Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
- No
1. Summary of the impact
Over 400 million hectares of tropical forest are selectively logged, while forests in Southeast Asia and Africa are threatened by conversion to natural rubber agroforests, with concurrent major detriment to global biodiversity. University of Sheffield research in Borneo has helped to protect over 400,000 hectares of selectively logged forest from conversion and drive more biodiversity-friendly methods of forest restoration. Edwards’ research and direct involvement has highlighted limited potential for carbon-market payments to halt rubber-driven deforestation. He has been instrumental in the development of the Global Platform for Sustainable Natural Rubber (GPSNR), representing ~70% of natural rubber purchasers and including forest sustainability as a core principle.
2. Underpinning research
Degradation and conversion of tropical forests is a major driver of the biodiversity extinction crisis and global climate change. Sheffield research across Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Neotropics has quantified the impacts of selective logging and agriculture on biodiversity and carbon stocks, and identified economically viable management strategies to protect biodiversity. The research has highlighted how conservationists and policymakers can work with loggers and farmers to incentivise protection and recovery of hyperdiverse tropical forests.
Selectively logged forests need improved management to maintain high biodiversity levels. Over 400 million hectares of tropical forest worldwide (an area the size of the E.U.) is presently designated for selective logging. Current policies often promote low-intensity logging across large concessions, overlooking the potential for higher-intensity logging restricted to smaller areas within concessions whilst protecting some old-growth blocks. Edwards and his team previously found the latter harvesting strategy would retain more avian and insect species at higher abundances. After the first harvest, logged forests are threatened by early re-entry logging and, ultimately, by conversion to agriculture, as governments and loggers seek further profit. Focusing on Borneo, Edwards and colleagues determined that forests previously logged once and twice still retain high biodiversity, on average supporting over 70% of species found in primary forest, including many at risk of extinction [R1]. Logged forest conversion to agriculture drives catastrophic losses of biodiversity [R1] and severs vital forest connectivity that allows species to move under climate change [R2], underscoring their importance for protection.
To enhance future timber yields and recover carbon stocks that attract carbon-market payments, the cutting of climbing vines and bamboos that overshadow future harvest trees has been adopted across millions of hectares of logged tropical forest. Edwards’ research has revealed that such blanket climber cutting has unintended negative impacts on the phylogenetic and functional diversity of birds, reducing species that eat vine fruits or need dense vine tangles for foraging and nesting [R3]. This underscores the need for climber-cutting strategies that retain some dense climbing vegetation, which occurs in natural tree-fall gaps.
The rubber industry drives deforestation and biodiversity loss, necessitating a sustainability initiative. The expansion of rubber into tropical landscapes in Southeast Asia and Africa is creating similar problems as oil palm. To meet growing rubber demand, production must increase 69% to 18 million tonnes per year between 2010 and 2024, requiring an additional 4.3-8.5 million hectares of land [R4]. Tropical forest conversion to rubber agroforest or monoculture plantations poses a huge threat to wildlife across several biodiversity hotspots [R4]. Edwards’ research thus highlights the need for the development of a robust sustainability initiative in the rubber industry [R4].
Different strategies have been proposed to mitigate forest loss to rubber, including carbon-market payments. However, research by Edwards and colleagues in Cambodia revealed that while logging revenues are sufficiently low to make carbon finance a competitively priced alternative, high rubber profits make carbon financing unfeasible [R5]. Carbon prices would need to rise from $5-$13 to $30-$51 t-1 CO2 to safeguard forests from rubber. Therefore, producers, purchasers, and governments need to recognise the uncosted social and environmental benefits of forests, and forgo economic revenues from unsustainable rubber to prevent further environmental losses [R5].
3. References to the research
Edwards, D. P., Magrach, A., Woodcock, P., Ji, Y., Lim, N. T.-L., Edwards, F. A., Larsen, T. H., Hsu, W. W., Benedick, S., Khen, C. V., Chung, A. Y. C., Reynolds, G., Fisher, B., Laurance, W. F., Wilcove, D. S., Hamer, K. C., & Yu, D. W. (2014). Selective-logging and oil palm: multitaxon impacts, biodiversity indicators, and trade-offs for conservation planning. Ecological Applications, 24(8), 2029–2049. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0010.1. (47 citations)
Senior, R. A., Hill, J. K., & Edwards, D. P. (2019). Global loss of climate connectivity in tropical forests. Nature Climate Change, 9(8), 623–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0529-2. (12 citations).
Cosset, C. C. P., & Edwards, D. P. (2017). The effects of restoring logged tropical forests on avian phylogenetic and functional diversity. Ecological Applications, 27(6), 1932–1945. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1578. (7 citations)
Warren-Thomas, E., Dolman, P. M., & Edwards, D. P. (2015). Increasing Demand for Natural Rubber Necessitates a Robust Sustainability Initiative to Mitigate Impacts on Tropical Biodiversity. Conservation Letters, 8(4), 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12170. (97 citations).
Warren-Thomas, E. M., Edwards, D. P., Bebber, D. P., Chhang, P., Diment, A. N., Evans, T. D., Lambrick, F. H., Maxwell, J. F., Nut, M., O’Kelly, H. J., Theilade, I., & Dolman, P. M. (2018). Protecting tropical forests from the rapid expansion of rubber using carbon payments. Nature Communications, 9(1), 911. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03287-9. (27 citations).
4. Details of the impact
Balancing maintained biodiversity in tropical regions which underpin ecosystem services vital for our sustained well-being, while allowing economic development, is a major element of the global climate challenge. Sheffield research has contributed solutions to this problem by extensively studying optimal forest land-management practices for the protection of tropical biodiversity. [Text removed for publication] [S1, S2].
In addition, several of Edwards’ articles are cited in the 2018 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Asia and the Pacific report [S3], and 2020 Parliamentary POSTNOTE on Climate Change-Biodiversity Interactions [S4], particularly the conservation value of logged forests, agricultural threats to biodiversity, and roles of carbon funding. Stemming from long-term fieldwork in threatened tropical forests, Edwards has built relationships with national land management departments and global business stakeholders, enabling his research to influence current and future land-use practices.
Impact on forest protection policies
The Sabah Forestry Department, which regulates forestry activities in the second largest state in Malaysia, upgraded over 400,000 hectares of logged forest to Class 1 protected status, equating to ~6% of the state [S1]. [Text removed for publication].
Their protection ensures a permanent buffer around, and connectivity between, the old-growth Danum Valley, Maliau Basin, and Imbak Canyon Conservation Areas. In combination, this block of 679,157 hectares of protected forest ‘represents the most important stretch of forest that remains intact on the island of Borneo’ [S1] and is now the largest Totally Protected Area block in Malaysia. This connectivity between protected landscapes is vital for species conservation under climate change [R2].
Impact on local forest-restoration practices
To enhance recovery of Sabah’s selectively logged forests, a wide-scale programme of climber cutting has been implemented across 10,000 hectares to reduce competition faced by late successional trees. Following Edwards’ suggestion that the intensity of vine cutting should be reduced to minimize biodiversity harm [R3], [Text removed for publication].
Saving vines above this threshold benefits bird groups that rely on vines for foraging, nesting or fruit [R3].
[Text removed for publication].
Impact on rubber industry practices
Following research by Edwards and colleagues [R4], rubber industry stakeholders were increasingly aware of the need to integrate sustainable practices to meet growing demand without irreparable environmental harm. [Text removed for publication].
Edwards has been instrumental in building momentum towards greater incorporation of scientific research into industry-wide initiatives. In November 2017, as the sole academic delegate, he chaired a workshop session at the Business and Nature Forum in Singapore, entitled ‘ Sustainability in Natural Rubber: Progress since Singapore IRSG Focus Forum on sustainability (May 2016) and next steps’, which was attended by major businesses along the supply chain and NGOs. Consequently, the Global Platform for Sustainable Natural Rubber (GPSNR) was established in November 2018 to “ improve respect for human rights, prevent land-grabbing, protect biodiversity and water resources, improve yields, and increase supply chain transparency and traceability” [S6].
[Text removed for publication]. Sumitomo Rubber (the world’s fifth largest tyre producer) has produced a Sustainable Natural Rubber Policy resulting from cooperation with GPSNR, seeking to “ eliminate deforestation and reduce damage to the environment” [S7].
Edwards has since addressed a workshop in March 2019 involving the 27 GPSNR Founding Members and key stakeholders, including General Motors, Ford, BMW, Bridgestone, Continental, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, Michelin, Sumitomo Rubber, Halcyon Agri, Socfin, and WWF. [Text removed for publication].
As the tyre industry consumes over 70% of natural rubber globally [S6], Edwards’ has contributed to the development of scientifically sound sustainability standards through GPSNR’s Strategy and Objectives Working Group. The group has identified effective strategies to mitigate the root causes preventing sustainability [S8, S9] and [Text removed for publication].
5. Sources to corroborate the impact
South East Asia Rainforest Research Partnership (SEARRP) statement about impacts of scientific research in Sabah forests ( http://www.searrp.org/2016/12/31/local-scientists-redraft-malaysias-commitment-to-biodiversity/).
[Text removed for publication].
2018 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Asia and the Pacific ( https://ipbes.net/assessment-reports/asia-pacific).
Climate Change-Biodiversity Interactions, POSTNOTE Number 617, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Houses of Parliament, February 2020 ( https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0617/).
[Text removed for publication].
Global Platform on Sustainable Natural Rubber launch press release, 2018 ( https://www.wbcsd.org/Sector-Projects/Tire-Industry-Project/News/Stakeholders-launch-Global-Platform-for-Sustainable-Natural-Rubber).
Sumitomo Rubber Group, Sustainable Natural Rubber Policy, 2018 ( https://www.tyrepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SRI-natural-rubber-policy.pdf).
GPSNR Desired State document Sept 2020, Strategy and Objectives Working Group [Edwards is a co-author].
GPSNR Theory of Change, Strategy and Objectives Working Group, January 2020 [Edwards is a member] ( https://gpsnr.org/news-publications/strategy-and-objectives-working-group-update-january-2020).
- Submitting institution
- The University of Sheffield
- Unit of assessment
- 5 - Biological Sciences
- Summary impact type
- Environmental
- Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
- No
1. Summary of the impact
Sheffield-based researchers have been at the forefront of climate change research in the Arctic for decades. In addition to their contributions to the scientific community, their ability to bring together researchers from diverse fields, policy makers, and stakeholders including indigenous people has changed the ways in which these groups interact, share, and use knowledge. The creation of these networks has influenced national and international environmental policy, the ability of arctic populations to adapt to and mitigate ecological change, and the general public’s understanding of the role of the Arctic in issues related to global climate change.
2. Underpinning research
Since 2000, Professors Terry Callaghan and Gareth Phoenix have produced over 230 publications related to the study of arctic ecology and the effects of climate change. Their prolific and extensive research backgrounds have allowed them to bring together historic and long-term data, field simulations, and local, indigenous knowledge from across the Arctic to create a more complete picture of the impacts of climate change in the Arctic.
Callaghan and an international team have determined that greater plant growth and biomass due to global warming (“arctic greening”) has accelerated from the mid-1990s to the late 2000s. They have predicted that by the final decade of the 21st century the annual temperature profile for the Arctic will be comparable to that of lands north of 42.4° N (roughly the latitude of Corsica) during the mid-20th century [R1]. While a greening arctic has become the prevailing dogma, Callaghan and Phoenix have highlighted the importance of using historic data and local indigenous knowledge to study the unique climatic and land-use impacts at local and regional scales, which reveals complexities of climate- and human-driven ecosystem change that are challenging to recognise at large scales, thus hindering scientists’ ability to accurately predict future changes. For example, using the area of Abisko, Sweden, Sheffield researchers demonstrated that climate change was not the only driver of vegetation change in the Arctic, and instead the effects of herbivore and human disturbance and short-term extreme weather events are strong drivers of ecosystem change [R2]. This was further explored by an international team led by Phoenix (including Callaghan) that combined in-field simulations with landscape observational data to demonstrate the severe damage to arctic ecosystems caused by extreme winter warming events [R3]. This damage is in stark contrast to arctic greening caused by summer warming, and can also interact with other climatic and biotic extreme events (including population explosions of herbivores), which in turn significantly damage ecosystems. Phoenix and Callaghan have therefore led the step change in understanding away from one of a ‘simple’ greening arctic to an understanding of ecosystem change that is much more spatially and temporally complex, as recently recognised by the international community [R4].
Callaghan and Phoenix have illustrated how comparison of different sites within the Arctic region using diverse types of information collected from existing and projected snow datasets is vital for the future of climate change research. Arctic snow cover is one of the most rapidly changing indicators of ongoing climate change. Callaghan, leading an international team of experts, has predicted that the duration of snow cover will decrease by 10-20% over most of the Arctic by 2050 [R5]. This is of particular concern for the preservation of the permafrost, native plants that rely on snow to insulate them, and herbivores that will have difficulty accessing food underneath layers of ice formed by additional thawing and freezing. Critically, these changes, along with the ecosystem damage referred to above, are also of direct importance to humans who rely on these landscapes, including indigenous peoples such as reindeer herders and decision makers [R6].
3. References to the research
Xu, L., Myneni, R. B., Chapin III, F. S., Callaghan, T. V., Pinzon, J. E., Tucker, C. J., Zhu, Z., Bi, J., Ciais, P., Tømmervik, H., Euskirchen, E. S., Forbes, B. C., Piao, S. L., Anderson, B. T., Ganguly, S., Nemani, R. R., Goetz, S. J., Beck, P. S. A., Bunn, A. G., Cao, C., Stroeve, J. C. (2013). Temperature and vegetation seasonality diminishment over northern lands. Nature Climate Change, 3(6), 581–586. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1836
Callaghan, T. V., Jonasson, C., Thierfelder, T., Yang, Z., Hedenås, H., Johansson, M., Molau, U., Van Bogaert, R., Michelsen, A., Olofsson, J., Gwynn-Jones, D., Bokhorst, S., Phoenix, G., Bjerke, J. W., Tømmervik, H., Christensen, T. R., Hanna, E., Koller, E. K., & Sloan, V. L. (2013). Ecosystem change and stability over multiple decades in the Swedish subarctic: complex processes and multiple drivers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1624), 20120488. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0488
Bokhorst, S. F., Bjerke, J. W., Tømmervik, H., Callaghan, T. V., & Phoenix, G. K. (2009). Winter warming events damage sub-Arctic vegetation: consistent evidence from an experimental manipulation and a natural event. Journal of Ecology, 97(6), 1408–1415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01554.x
Myers-Smith, I. H., Kerby, J. T., Phoenix, G. K., Bjerke, J. W., Epstein, H. E., Assmann, J. J., John, C., Andreu-Hayles, L., Angers-Blondin, S., Beck, P. S. A., Berner, L. T., Bhatt, U. S., Bjorkman, A. D., Blok, D., Bryn, A., Christiansen, C. T., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Cunliffe, A. M., Elmendorf, S. C., … Wipf, S. (2020). Complexity revealed in the greening of the Arctic. Nature Climate Change, 10(2), 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0688-1
Callaghan, T. V., Johansson, M., Brown, R. D., Groisman, P. Y., Labba, N., Radionov, V., Barry, R. G., Bulygina, O. N., Essery, R. L. H., Frolov, D. M., Golubev, V. N., Grenfell, T. C., Petrushina, M. N., Razuvaev, V. N., Robinson, D. A., Romanov, P., Shindell, D., Shmakin, A. B., Sokratov, S. A., Warren, S., Yang, D. (2011). The Changing Face of Arctic Snow Cover: A Synthesis of Observed and Projected Changes. AMBIO, 40(S1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0212-y
Callaghan, T. V., Kulikova, O., Rakhmanova, L., Topp-Jørgensen, E., Labba, N., Kuhmanen, L.-A., Kirpotin, S., Shaduyko, O., Burgess, H., Rautio, A., Hindshaw, R. S., Golubyatnikov, L. L., Marshall, G. J., Lobanov, A., Soromotin, A., Sokolov, A., Sokolova, N., Filant, P., & Johansson, M. (2019). Improving dialogue among researchers, local and indigenous peoples and decision-makers to address issues of climate change in the North. Ambio, 49(6), 1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01277-9
4. Details of the impact
International policy and science diplomacy through science evidence and networks
In 2014, Callaghan was a contributing author on the ‘Polar Regions; chapter for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report (AR5) [S1] which included 21 of Callaghan’s and Phoenix’s publications which were cited 45 times (including R1, R2, R3). The Polar chapter of IPCC was ‘ discussed at national and international political levels [...] facilitating political discussion and actions on climate change’ [S2]. This includes AR5 being used to inform negotiations and policy formulation in the Paris Agreement, COP21, 2015 [S3].
The House of Lords’ Select Committee on the Arctic invited Callaghan to provide evidence for their 2014-15 session ‘ to consider recent and expected changes in the Arctic and their implications for the UK and its international relations’. They frequently cited Callaghan’s evidence regarding arctic science and the UK’s role in intergovernmental diplomacy [S4]. This session led to recommendations including that the government should (i) appoint a UK Ambassador for the Arctic, (ii) work to insulate Arctic co-operation from non-Arctic disputes, (iii) establish a substantial and better coordinated long-term programme of Arctic research, and (iv) ensure fully effective UK representation on Arctic Council bodies [S4].
Sheffield researchers have brought together disparate Arctic communities and researchers, culminating in the creation of INTERACT by Callaghan (EU-funded, €30M). This pan-arctic network of terrestrial field bases was built by Callaghan from 9 Scandinavian stations in 2013 to now 86 stations across 18 countries. By facilitating and funding access to these stations (900 researchers as of 2019), INTERACT has changed the way research is conducted. Data monitoring, collection, analysis, and communication has been standardised and protocols developed to improve updates on Arctic hazards. Callaghan has created ‘ an essential service to local communities, national governments and international agencies’ [S5] and as a result INTERACT ‘ has received attention and support from various government embassies and has improved relationships between Russian and Western researchers and infrastructures’ [S5].
Callaghan also helped to establish the Siberian Environmental Change Network (SecNet). The British Embassy in Moscow funds SecNet’s workshops, bringing together scientists, policy makers, and indigenous stakeholders from Siberia and worldwide. The 2017 SecNet workshop published resolutions to ensure involvement of these groups in review of existing and new legislation regarding conflict in land-use due to environmental change, for example developing regulations to prevent uncontrolled business activities in the Arctic due to climate change. These resolutions are already being used by Saami reindeer herders in Swedish Lapland to indicate how local people, local authorities and researchers should work together to explore the impacts of increased mining activities on reindeer pasture land [S6].
Callaghan’s role in facilitating international cooperation has been commended through several awards, including the International Arctic Science Committee Medal (2017), for his ‘networking and ability to connect large project teams internationally’ [S7], and his appointment of CMG of the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George (2018) in recognition of his ‘ services to advancing knowledge and international collaboration in Arctic science’ [S8].
Working with Arctic communities to make their voices heard in international policy
For many years, Sheffield researchers have collaborated with the Arctic indigenous communities, through joint workshops, research, and involving indigenous representatives in high-level science meetings. Callaghan has been particularly instrumental in the development of shared indigenous knowledge amongst scientists, politicians, and industrialists, and strengthening “ the respect and understanding for traditional knowledge in its context” [S9]. This has allowed indigenous communities to use their “ traditional knowledge to communicate on equal terms with the extractive industries, decision makers and growing businesses such as tourism” [S9].
In Russia, ‘Through meeting with, and helping to unite, indigenous peoples, researchers, health workers, industrial workers, and other relevant groups, Professor Callaghan has helped to establish citizen science in the region, an innovative approach in Russia with substantial potential’ [S9]. In Scandinavia, Callaghan has worked with Saami communities and has included them as leaders of work packages in INTERACT so indigenous communities are able to engage with researchers and policy makers more actively and build capacity to adapt to climate change. Scientists and policy makers have also benefited from indigenous knowledge, a joint meeting in Salekhard, Russia in 2017 resulted ‘ in a paper submitted for publication in an international journal including Indigenous People as co-authors, and the Conference Resolution has already been useful in policy discussions between Saami and local government in Norway’ [S9].
5. Sources to corroborate the impact
Polar regions. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-Chap28_FINAL.pdf).
Letter from Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and Building describing use of IPCC, ACIA, and SWIPA reports in international climate change policy.
Report of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice on its forty-first session, held in Lima from 1 to 6 December 2014, VIII.A.2.27 S1 ‘International network impacts Arctic research and monitoring’ 30.11.2018 European Commission (Horizon 2020 Related Stories) http://ec.europa.eu/research/infocentre/article_en.cfm?artid=49809
House of Lords, Select Committee on the Arctic (2015). Report of Session 2014-15: Responding to a changing Arctic ( https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldarctic/118/118.pdf).
‘International network impacts Arctic research and monitoring’ 30.11.2018 European Commission (Horizon 2020 Related Stories) http://ec.europa.eu/research/infocentre/article_en.cfm?artid=49809
Report on 2017 SecNet workshop resolutions
International Arctic Science Committee, list of medal recipients ( https://iasc.info/medal).
New Year 2018 Honours Diplomatic Service and Overseas List, Order of St Michael and St George, CMG. ( https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/670945/DS_O_NY18_M_G_HMTQ_FINAL.pdf).
Combined source: Letters from Chairman of Gabna Sámi village, Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug Governor and Director of the Saami Institute of the University of Tromsø and Siida leading Saami reindeer herder describing contribution of Callaghan’s research to indigenous community engagement and citizen science.