Making modelling count - increasing the contribution of shelf-seas community and ecosystem models to policy development and management

Marine legislation is becoming more complex and marine ecosystem-based management is specified in national and regional legislative frameworks. Shelf-seas community and ecosystem models (hereafter termed ecosystem models) are central to the delivery of ecosystem-based management, but there is limited uptake and use of model products by decision makers in Europe and the UK in comparison with other countries. In this study, the challenges to the uptake and use of ecosystem models in support of marine environmental management are assessed using the UK capability as an example. The UK has a broad capability in marine ecosystem modelling, with at least 14 different models that support management, but few examples exist of ecosystem modelling that underpin policy or management decisions. To improve understanding of policy and management issues that can be addressed using ecosystem models, a workshop was convened that brought together advisors, assessors, biologists, social scientists, economists, modellers, statisticians, policy makers, and funders. Some policy requirements were identified that can be addressed without further model development including: attribution of environmental change to underlying drivers, integration of models and observations to develop more efficient monitoring programmes, assessment of indicator performance for different management goals, and the costs and benefit of legislation. Multi-model ensembles are being developed in cases where many models exist, but model structures are very diverse making a standardised approach of combining outputs a significant challenge, and there is a need for new methodologies for describing, analysing, and visualising uncertainties. A stronger link to social and economic systems is needed to increase the range of policy-related questions that can be addressed. It is also important to improve communication between policy and modelling communities so that there is a shared understanding of the strengths and limitations of ecosystem models.

Rapid tryptophan depletion improves decision-making cognition in healthy humans without affecting reversal learning or set shifting

Rapid tryptophan (Trp) depletion (RTD) has been reported to cause deterioration in the quality of decision making and impaired reversal learning, while leaving attentional set shifting relatively unimpaired. These findings have been attributed to a more powerful neuromodulatory effect of reduced 5-HT on ventral prefrontal cortex (PFC) than on dorsolateral PFC. In view of the limited number of reports, the aim of this study was to independently replicate these findings using the same test paradigms. Healthy human subjects without a personal or family history of affective disorder were assessed using a computerized decision making/gambling task and the CANTAB ID/ED attentional set-shifting task under Trp-depleted (n=17; nine males and eight females) or control (n=15; seven males and eight females) conditions, in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group design. There was no significant effect of RTD on set shifting, reversal learning, risk taking, impulsivity, or subjective mood. However, RTD significantly altered decision making such that depleted subjects chose the more likely of two possible outcomes significantly more often than controls. This is in direct contrast to the previous report that subjects chose the more likely outcome significantly less often following RTD. In the terminology of that report, our result may be interpreted as improvement in the quality of decision making following RTD. This contrast between studies highlights the variability in the cognitive effects of RTD between apparently similar groups of healthy subjects, and suggests the need for future RTD studies to control for a range of personality, family history, and genetic factors that may be associated with 5-HT function.

What is a reasonable time from decision to delivery by Caesarean section? Evidence from 533 deliveries.

Objective To determine how long it takes from the decision to achieve delivery by non-elective caesarean section (DDI), the influence on this interval, and the impact on neonatal condition at birth. Design Twelve months prospective data collection on all non-elective caesarean sections. Methods Prospective collection of data relating to all caesarean sections in 1996 in a major teaching hospital obstetric unit was conducted, without the knowledge of the other clinicians providing clinical care. Details of the indication for section, the day and time of the decision and the interval till delivery were recorded as well as the seniority of the surgeon, and condition of the baby at birth. Results The mean time from decision-to-delivery for 100 emergency intrapartum caesarean sections was 42.9 minutes for fetal distress and 71.1 minutes for 230 without fetal distress (P<0.0001). For 22 'crash' sections the mean time from decision-to-delivery was 27.4 minutes; for 13 urgent antepartum deliveries for fetal reasons it was 124.7 minutes and for 21 with maternal reasons it was 97.4 minutes. The seniority of the surgeon managing the patient did not appear to influence the interval, nor did the time of day or day of the week when the delivery occurred. Intrapartum sections were quicker the more advanced the labour, and general anaesthesia was associated with shorter intervals than regional anaesthesia for emergency caesarean section for fetal distress (P<0.001). Babies born within one hour of the decision tended to be more acidaemic than those born later, irrespective of the indication for delivery. Babies tended to be in better condition when a time from decision-to-delivery was not recorded than those for whom the information had been recorded. Conclusion Fewer than 40% intrapartum deliveries by caesarean section for fetal distress were achieved within 30 minutes of the decision, despite that being the unit standard. There was, however, no evidence to indicate that overall an interval up to 120 minutes was detrimental to the neonate unless the delivery was a 'crash' caesarean section. These data thus do not provide evidence to sustain the recommendation of a standard of 30 minutes for intrapartum delivery by caesarean section.