Developing the Ethical Delphi

A number of EU institutions and government committees across Europe have expressed interest in developing methods and decision-support tools to facilitate consideration of the ethical dimensions of biotechnology assessment. As part of the work conducted in the EC supported project on ethical tools (Ethical Bio-TA Tools), a number of ethical frameworks with the potential to support the work of public policy decision-makers has been characterized and evaluated. One of these potential tools is the Delphi method. The Delphi method was originally developed to assess variables that are intangible and/or shrouded in uncertainty by drawing on the knowledge and abilities of a diverse group of experts through a form of anonymous and iterative consultation. The method has hitherto been used by a diversity of practitioners to explore issues such as technology assessment, environmental planning, and public health measures. From the original (classical) Delphi, a family of Delphi-related processes has emerged. As a result of the evaluation of the various Delphi processes, it is proposed that the classical method can be further developed and applied as a form of ethical framework to assist policy-makers. Through a series of exercises and trials, an Ethical Delphi has been developed as a potential approach for characterizing ethical issues raised by the use of novel biotechnologies. Advantages and disadvantages of the method are discussed. Further work is needed to develop the procedural aspects of the Ethical Delphi method and to test its use in different cultural contexts. However, utilizing an ethical framework of this type combines the advantages of a methodical approach to capture ethical aspects with the democratic virtues of transparency and openness to criticism. Ethical frameworks such as the Ethical Delphi should contribute to better understanding of and decision-making on issues that involve decisive ethical dimensions.     

Effects of crop diversification and low pesticide inputs on bird populations on arable land

This 6-year experimental study measured the response of bird populations and abundance to combinations of mixed cropping and low pesticide regimes associated with a commercial crop rotation. The results show a rapid and sustained population increase among a wide range of bird species, in contrast to local regional trends for the same species. Seventy percent of the increase occurred within the first 3 years of the experiment, with species of high conservation concern, and those monitored as environmental indicators on lowland farmland in the UK, increasing on average, by 30% and 20% respectively (reaching respective peaks of 44% and 33% after 4 years). For some individual species, the increase was higher still, i.e., 300% (1–4 pairs) for grey partridge (Perdix perdix) and 46% (13–19 pairs) for skylarks (Alauda arvensis) in peak years. The results demonstrate that bird species typical of lowland arable farmland in the UK are responsive to suitable farm-scale changes in habitat and food provision (roughly, manipulation within less than 1-km²). They show that the carrying capacity of modern, commercially viable, arable farmland can be increased significantly for birds, in this case, mainly by using crops mosaics to create habitats alongside the appropriate use of herbicides on non-cropped habitats.     

Spatial predictions of phylogenetic diversity in conservation decision making

Considering genetic relatedness among species has long been argued as an important step toward measuring biological diversity more accurately, rather than relying solely on species richness. Some researchers have correlated measures of phylogenetic diversity and species richness across a series of sites and suggest that values of phylogenetic diversity do not differ enough from those of species richness to justify their inclusion in conservation planning. We compared predictions of species richness and 10 measures of phylogenetic diversity by creating distribution models for 168 individual species of a species-rich plant family, the Cape Proteaceae. When we used average amounts of land set aside for conservation to compare areas selected on the basis of species richness with areas selected on the basis of phylogenetic diversity, correlations between species richness and different measures of phylogenetic diversity varied considerably. Correlations between species richness and measures that were based on the length of phylogenetic tree branches and tree shape were weaker than those that were based on tree shape alone. Elevation explained up to 31% of the segregation of species rich versus phylogenetically rich areas. Given these results, the increased availability of molecular data, and the known ecological effect of phylogenetically rich communities, consideration of phylogenetic diversity in conservation decision making may be feasible and informative.