Negotiating conservation: the construction of meaningful spaces in a world heritage debate

According to one’s personal biography, social background and the resultant degree of affectedness, a person has certain ideas about the meaning of, in our example, a World Heritage Site (WHS), what he or she can expect from it and what his or her relation to it can and should be. The handling of potentially different meaningful spaces is decisive, when it comes to the negotiation of pathways towards the sustainable development of a WHS region. Due to the fact that – in a pluralistic world – multiple realities exist, they have to be taken seriously and adequately addressed. In this article we identified the ways the Jungfrau-Aletsch- WHS was constructed by exploring the visual and verbal representations of the WHS during the decision-making process (1998-2001). The results demonstrate that in the visual representations (images), the WHS was to a large extent presented as an unspoiled natural environment similar to a touristy promotion brochure. Such a ‘picture-book’-like portrait has no direct link to the population’s daily needs, their questions and anxieties about the consequences of a WHS label. By contrast, the verbal representations (articles, letters-to-the-editor, comments) were dominated by issues concerning the economic development of the region, fears of disappropriation, and different views on nature. Whereas visual and verbal representations to a large extent differ significantly, their combination might have contributed to the final decision of the majority of people concerned to support the application for inscription of the Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn region into the World Heritage list. The prominence of economic arguments and narratives about intergenerational responsibility in the verbal representations and their combination with the aesthetic appeal of the natural environment in the visual representations might have built a common meaningful space for one part of the population.

Two new rapid SNP-typing methods for classifying Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex into the main phylogenetic lineages

There is increasing evidence that strain variation in Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) might influence the outcome of tuberculosis infection and disease. To assess genotype-phenotype associations, phylogenetically robust molecular markers and appropriate genotyping tools are required. Most current genotyping methods for MTBC are based on mobile or repetitive DNA elements. Because these elements are prone to convergent evolution, the corresponding genotyping techniques are suboptimal for phylogenetic studies and strain classification. By contrast, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) are ideal markers for classifying MTBC into phylogenetic lineages, as they exhibit very low degrees of homoplasy. In this study, we developed two complementary SNP-based genotyping methods to classify strains into the six main human-associated lineages of MTBC, the "Beijing" sublineage, and the clade comprising Mycobacterium bovis and Mycobacterium caprae. Phylogenetically informative SNPs were obtained from 22 MTBC whole-genome sequences. The first assay, referred to as MOL-PCR, is a ligation-dependent PCR with signal detection by fluorescent microspheres and a Luminex flow cytometer, which simultaneously interrogates eight SNPs. The second assay is based on six individual TaqMan real-time PCR assays for singleplex SNP-typing. We compared MOL-PCR and TaqMan results in two panels of clinical MTBC isolates. Both methods agreed fully when assigning 36 well-characterized strains into the main phylogenetic lineages. The sensitivity in allele-calling was 98.6% and 98.8% for MOL-PCR and TaqMan, respectively. Typing of an additional panel of 78 unknown clinical isolates revealed 99.2% and 100% sensitivity in allele-calling, respectively, and 100% agreement in lineage assignment between both methods. While MOL-PCR and TaqMan are both highly sensitive and specific, MOL-PCR is ideal for classification of isolates with no previous information, whereas TaqMan is faster for confirmation. Furthermore, both methods are rapid, flexible and comparably inexpensive.