Terms of broader impact

In 1997, the US National Science Foundation mandated that proposals go beyond the focus of the intellectual merit to include how the research might benefit society. The impetus was to share discovery with the public and, by doing so, increase the US competitive edge in research by promoting STEM research and careers, including among members of underrepresented groups—a.k.a., broader impacts (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu092). Ironically, this focus has now become a doubled headed arrow aimed at the National Science Foundation, because many of the initiatives employed by researchers are focused on increasing participation in STEM from underrepresented groups: If we are seeking to increase participation, aim for the groups with the least participation. It seems logical to me, and hopefully, the public will come to a similar conclusion. But if one is going to spend taxpayer money on good deeds, then we can all agree that such expenditures should be efficient and effective. Renoe, in a Special Report (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaf004), “An insider perspective on broader impacts,” provides clear and realistic suggestions to institutions and individual faculty on how maximize investment in broader impacts. This is a great contribution from someone who, for decades, has had national level leadership roles guiding the implementation of broader impacts.

On information synthesis, the Forum contribution by Turvey and McClune, “Expanding the historical baseline: Using premodern archives to inform conservation from ecological and human perspectives” (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae127) emphasize that collaboration between science and the humanities can maximize our understanding of premodern documents in terms of providing insights on “human–environment interactions, including biotic states and change, cultural interactions with nature, and human dimensions of social–ecological systems that involved rural communities closely dependent on biodiversity” and can be used to “track the long-term consequences of human activities.” Whether you are a prehistoric cave or rock painter in Africa, France, South America, or Australia or a modern field ecologist, your records of biodiversity, past and present, will be important sources of information for future biologists and policymakers. On the topic of synthesis, Alofs and colleagues, in their Citizen Science contribution “Community science brings together natural history collections and historical survey data to understand changing ecological patterns” (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae131) “outline a process to join collections and associated data using data science workflows in tandem with community science tools.”

We can only hope that swimming in the Paris Seine without risk will soon become a reality. Frantzeskaki and Malamis, in their Viewpoint, “The missing piece in restoring Europe's ecosystems: Urban riverscapes” (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae116), concur, and they argue that the recent adoption of the Nature Restoration Law of the European Union should include in its focus urban riverscapes, which, because of the highly urbanized nature of Europe, are extremely important features of the landscape. Another important feature of the landscape are cemeteries, as was noted by Dybas in her Feature contribution “Sentinels of biodiversity: In cemeteries around the world, the dead protect the living” (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae121), where many examples are presented of cemeteries providing safe haven for biodiversity. In my meanderings around the awe inspiring landscape of the Prairie Coteau (think pickup and dogs ears pinned back by the wind), I often see small family and church cemeteries that date back to the first European settlement (1870–1880). It is unmistakably clear that they sit 10–30 centimeters above the surrounding farm fields, likely a metric of the soil erosion and a silent call for regenerative agricultural practices. (Oops! Is there a banned term somewhere in there?)

In their Forum article, “Understanding the environmental and social risks from the international trade in ornamental plants” Hinsley and colleagues (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae124) highlight the risks of the multibillion-dollar ornamental plant trade—“biodiversity loss, aquifer depletion, pollution, undermined access and benefit sharing, and food security”—and call for improved production standards and that “data on specific risks from trade are collected and shared to allow for mitigation.” Somewhat timely, given Valentine's Day is just a few days away as I write this. Instead of roses, think local and native. In an Overview contribution, “Why not all productivity leads to carbon sequestration: the role of plant carbon surplus, allocation, and the Gadgil effect,” Noormets (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaf018) elucidates the soil processes that influence the relationship between plant productivity and carbon sequestration, which should inform policymakers as governments seek to offset carbon production with carbon capture through forests.

Who says biologists have no humor? In their Thinking of Biology contribution “Rethinking nomenclatural acts: Questions in taxonomy by the dedications to mythology and fictional monsters,” Hayashi and colleagues (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae113) comment on the “practice of deriving new species names from celebrities, mythology, and popular culture,” which can “potentially enhance public interest in taxonomy and conservation” but also raises important questions about biological nomenclatural systems.” This is a must-read resource for any class covering nomenclature. As editor in chief, I can attest that the reviewers thoroughly enjoyed their assignments (but also gave great advice on how to improve the manuscript).

And to be intentionally repetitive, this month's issue, as do all issues of BioScience, reflects contributions from an incredibly diverse community of authors, reviewers, and editors. The editorial board is accessible to all enquiries, and we make every attempt at treating authors equally, although we cannot guarantee acceptance.