The degree to which such deregulation should happen is a fair question that science 🧪 can inform, but society has to decide. Opportunity for open public comment is part of that process, so if you’re inclined to weigh in, you can do so at www.federalregister.gov/documents/20...

This seems significant given broad consensus that habitat destruction is a primary cause of extinction (which as best we understand is happening at one of the highest, if not the highest rate in history). The change ultimately works toward reducing regulations - a current political priority…

The new proposal is to narrow the definition of “harm” going forward to apply only to actions targeting a specific individual (i.e. hunting, capturing an animal, etc - seeming to effectively synonymize it with those), meaning impacts to a listed species’ habitat would no longer be considered.

In this context, harm has long been understood and interpreted, including in multiple Supreme Court cases, as including the destruction of habitat of an endangered species.

The ESA defines the term “take” as…

‘(19) The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct’. The proposed change focuses on the word “harm” in that definition…

Indeed - the breeding colors can get especially vivid! But also easy to overlook. Lots of folks might have them in a stream in their backyard and not even know it.

NCBI Genbank went down around 10am (Eastern) for me and as of now seems to still be offline😔.

Those include both the well-being of this and future generations, and your own finances. I’m a fan of the ecological footprint tool as a way to start to think about this. If you haven’t before, consider checking it out here… www.footprintcalculator.org/home/en

Hi Eryn, can I get added to the Evolutionary Bio/Science feed? Thanks!

scholar.google.com/citations?us...

Also, are we expecting other #research granting agencies to follow suit with how F&A will be handled? i.e. #NSF #DOD #USDA 🧪

More likely that funding just goes away, but that’s a bit hard to square with the text.

I guess a probably overly optimistic view is that at least the individual researchers would come out ahead in that scenario (at the expense of the institutions), though admittedly this seems unlikely…

“vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead”. This statement from the guidance suggests maintained levels of investment, and a shift in allocation of #research funding from F&A toward individual researchers…