Integrating agentic risk signalling in trusted research environments: Automating VEX with Agent2Agent protocols and model context protocol (MCP) in SACRO and TREvolution pipelines

The North American Great Lakes Basin is the homeland for many First Nations, Métis and Native American Tribes. The terrestrial and aquatic ecological systems within this multinational region, which is of spiritual, cultural and subsistence significance to a diversity of Indigenous Peoples, are facing several natural and anthropogenic pressures. While there are many current and past research efforts and projects to address those pressures, the nature and range of environment‐related projects involving Indigenous Peoples or organizations remains unknown. This gap in knowledge presents a unique opportunity to identify and map past and current environmental and ecological research within the Great Lakes involving Indigenous Peoples. A systematic search strategy will be applied to identify and capture peer‐reviewed publications that pertain to past and current environmental research within the Great Lakes basin that involve or are connected to Indigenous Peoples, following the procedures outlined in this systematic mapping protocol. Publications that pertain to environmental and ecological research with, for and by Indigenous Peoples within the Great Lakes, as determined by the use of suitable keywords, will be retrieved from four proposed online bibliographic platforms and databases. Searches will only include peer‐reviewed publications in the English language. Final captures of the search results will be screened in two stages to identify potentially relevant papers. This will take place through (1) title and abstract screening and (2) full‐text analysis. Following the completion of the screening process, remaining papers will be coded and analysed through a narrative synthesis approach and descriptive statistics will be conducted. Environmental research captured through this systematic protocol will be geospatially mapped using the ArcGIS mapping software. It is anticipated that the information obtained from the resulting systematic map will be beneficial for identifying gaps in environmental research to support and inform future initiatives for environmental research planning, policy and decision‐making with, for and by Indigenous Communities within the Great Lakes basin.

Environmental science and research in China: A snapshot of the current state

GIScience and remote sensing in natural resource and environmental research: Status quo and future perspectives

ABSTRACTGenetic research has a potentially increasing impact on educational practices. This study investigated attitudes towards the utility of genetic and environmental research in personalising education, with comparisons between parents/non‐parents and educators/non‐educators, as well as how these attitudes may relate to heritability ratings of educationally relevant traits (N = 6,304). Data was collected using the International Genetic Literacy and Attitudes Survey (iGLAS). Overall, participants endorsed environmental research more than genetic research to personalising education. Parents were slightly less likely to endorse genetic (but not environmental) research than non‐parents. Educators tended to endorse environmental research over genetic research when compared to non‐educators; however, effect sizes were minimal. Participants ranking educational traits as more heritable were more likely to endorse genetic (but not environmental) research in education. Future work should focus on promoting the importance of genetic and environmental research in education.

Universities and policymakers increasingly use ‘research culture’ and ‘research environment’ to govern as well as describe research. Both terms help frame who is considered a research actor; how researchers interact with the contexts in which they make knowledge; and what is considered malleable when attempting to improve how research is done. There are very few conceptual‐critical analyses of either term, even as each is a complex abstraction with rich and contested histories and usage. I explore both, largely using the example of the United Kingdom (where improving ‘research culture’ is currently prioritised by many funders, and will be assessed by the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) in 2028). Research culture has a close relationship with the concept organisational culture, which emerged in the late 1970s and 1980s and prioritised particular – frequently psychological – constructs that focused on the norms, values, and attitudes of an organisation. ‘Research labour’ – the labour relations that underpin how people work together and shape organisational norms, values, and relational dependencies – tends to drop from view. Geographers have much to offer these debates, given how extensively the discipline has contributed to what culture and environment might mean. Institutional, national, and sectoral policies concerning research culture and environment significantly shape how knowledge‐making is understood and intervened on. The processes that ‘research culture’ and ‘research environment’ authorise and foreclose require greater examination.

Since 2005, advances in next-generation sequencing technologies have revolutionized biological science. The analysis of environmental DNA through the use of specific gene markers such as species-specific DNA barcodes has been a key application of next-generation sequencing technologies in ecological and environmental research. Access to parallel, massive amounts of sequencing data, as well as subsequent improvements in read length and throughput of different sequencing platforms, is leading to a better representation of sample diversity at a reasonable cost. New technologies are being developed rapidly and have the potential to dramatically accelerate ecological and environmental research. The fast pace of development and improvements in next-generation sequencing technologies can reflect on broader and more robust applications in environmental DNA research. Here, we review the advantages and limitations of current next-generation sequencing technologies in regard to their application for environmental DNA analysis.

<p>Environmental research is challenged by the question, how lilfe supporting systems (ecosystems, the critical zone) and their services will develop in the next decades. However, addressing changes in structure and function requires an integrated approach from the subsurface to the vegetation and atmosphere, across scales and ecosystems, and combining observation, ecosystem theories and modelling. Such integrated approach affects most aspects of how environmental research and monitoring are shaped, comprising seamless collaborations amongst involved disciplines, the interactions of actual research with other stakeholders, research insfrastructure design and operation and – as a key factor – the structures and rulesets of related funding mechanisms.</p><p>A common conceptual framework is highly relevant for catalyzing integration efforts and implementing complementary modules of research infrastructures serving various user groups and disciplines towards a fundamental understanding and improved predictions of how structure and functions of ecosystems and ecosystem services will evolve and adapt under global change, with climate change, land use and societal change as key drivers.</p><p>Triggered by the challenge to streamline the ecoystem, critical zone and socio-ecological reasearch infrastructure at the Pan-European level in close collaboration with other ongoing European environmental RIs like ICOS and LifeWatch, the eLTER Research Infrastructure (RI) therefore strives for a Whole system Approach for In-situ & Long-term environmental System research on life supporting systems (WAILS), combining humans-environment interactions at a given scale and cross-scale interactions and feed-back loops across scales, which will be presented.</p>

Health and the Environment after Hurricane Katrina

Final report: Testing a procedure for the identification of emerging chemical risks in the food chain. External Scientific Report. OC/EFSA/SCER/2014/03

Contact DermatitisVolume 21, Issue 5 p. 351-352 Trial of 0.5% versus 0.375% potassium dichromate D. Burrows, D. Burrows On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorK. E. Andersen, K. E. Andersen On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorJ. G. Camarasa, J. G. Camarasa On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorA Dooms-Goossens, A Dooms-Goossens On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorG. Ducomers, G. Ducomers On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorJ. M. Lachapelle, J. M. Lachapelle On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorT. Menne, T. Menne On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorR. J. G. Rycroft, R. J. G. Rycroft On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorJ. E. Wahlberg, J. E. Wahlberg On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorI. R. White, I. R. White On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorJ. D. Wilkinson, J. D. Wilkinson On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this author D. Burrows, D. Burrows On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorK. E. Andersen, K. E. Andersen On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorJ. G. Camarasa, J. G. Camarasa On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorA Dooms-Goossens, A Dooms-Goossens On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorG. Ducomers, G. Ducomers On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorJ. M. Lachapelle, J. M. Lachapelle On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorT. Menne, T. Menne On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorR. J. G. Rycroft, R. J. G. Rycroft On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorJ. E. Wahlberg, J. E. Wahlberg On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorI. R. White, I. R. White On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this authorJ. D. Wilkinson, J. D. Wilkinson On behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG)Search for more papers by this author First published: November 1989 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1989.tb04765.xCitations: 39AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume21, Issue5November 1989Pages 351-352 RelatedInformation

In the course of the 1990s, building upon isolated initial approaches leading back to the 1970s, a new field of research has emerged in the social sciences —environmental conflict research. The development of this field is the outcome of a confluence of quite disparate research interests: Traditional security studies have viewed the focus on environmental conflict as an opportunity to outline new dimensions of national security, the nuclear threat having subsided. For peace research it was a matter of overcoming the classic notion of security, with its military perspective and focus on the individual state. For developing country research the inclusion of environmental issues made sense because it promised a new approach towards analyzing violent conflicts in the Third World, and reference to environmental issues as factors of conflict provided a new line of argument for raising old demands for restructuring the global economy. Despite the early plea of Lester Brown for a redefinition of the concept of security from an ecological perspective (Brown 1977), environmental research in the narrower sense played a rather secondary role in the emergence of environmental conflict research in the early 1990s.

Hydrological ProcessesVolume 21, Issue 16 p. 2217-2221 Invited Commentary Genetically modified hydrographs: what can grass genetics do for temperate catchment hydrology? C. J. A. Macleod, Corresponding Author C. J. A. Macleod [email protected] Cross Institute Programme for Sustainable Soil Function (SoilCIP), Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke Research Station, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 2SB, UKCross Institute Programme for Sustainable Soil Function (SoilCIP), Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke Research Station, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 2SB, UK.===Search for more papers by this authorA. Binley, A. Binley Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK, LA1 4YW, UKSearch for more papers by this authorS. L. Hawkins, S. L. Hawkins Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3EB, UKSearch for more papers by this authorM. W. Humphreys, M. W. Humphreys Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3EB, UKSearch for more papers by this authorL. B. Turner, L. B. Turner Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3EB, UKSearch for more papers by this authorW. R. Whalley, W. R. Whalley Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL52JQ, UKSearch for more papers by this authorP. M. Haygarth, P. M. Haygarth Cross Institute Programme for Sustainable Soil Function (SoilCIP), Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke Research Station, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 2SB, UKSearch for more papers by this author C. J. A. Macleod, Corresponding Author C. J. A. Macleod [email protected] Cross Institute Programme for Sustainable Soil Function (SoilCIP), Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke Research Station, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 2SB, UKCross Institute Programme for Sustainable Soil Function (SoilCIP), Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke Research Station, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 2SB, UK.===Search for more papers by this authorA. Binley, A. Binley Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK, LA1 4YW, UKSearch for more papers by this authorS. L. Hawkins, S. L. Hawkins Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3EB, UKSearch for more papers by this authorM. W. Humphreys, M. W. Humphreys Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3EB, UKSearch for more papers by this authorL. B. Turner, L. B. Turner Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3EB, UKSearch for more papers by this authorW. R. Whalley, W. R. Whalley Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL52JQ, UKSearch for more papers by this authorP. M. Haygarth, P. M. Haygarth Cross Institute Programme for Sustainable Soil Function (SoilCIP), Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke Research Station, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 2SB, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 23 May 2007 https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6780Citations: 22AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume21, Issue1630 July 2007Pages 2217-2221 RelatedInformation

This report is the result of a review by a Panel on Hazardous Trace Substances, as part of a report to an ad hoc Committee on Environmental Health Research whose chairman was Dr. David Rall, Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH.

Environmental Impact of Cadmium: A Review by the Panel on Hazardous Trace Substances

The prevalence and pervasive nature of emerging chemicals of concern have created widespread environmental injustice apprehensions in vulnerable communities. To alleviate and address these concerns, identifying, engaging, and training a diverse environmental health research workforce will be critical and necessary steps to combat and prevent the consequences of environmental injustice. While there is an obvious need to enhance diversity in environmental health research, this process is hampered by facets of systemic racism that reduce access to educational resources needed to build interest and knowledge in students and teachers. We present here a historical perspective to offer a guide for building programs and relationships with underserved schools to help overcome limiting factors that have plagued certain public school systems. With the proper training and mentorship, the untapped workforce present within these schools will be empowered to understand and address current and emerging environmental health and safety threats. Through this transformative 8-week high school research program, we will develop well-prepared, ethical researchers committed to scientific inquiry, intensive fieldwork, and collaborative problem solving to address environmental health challenges. Following the four-step risk assessment process, students, teachers, and faculty mentors will work collaboratively to identify toxicants, potential hazards and risks, and environmental disparities in urban neighborhoods, which provides the necessary training to formulate critical thinking skills for use in academic or nonacademic careers.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The Engaging Multidisciplinary Professional Opportunities for Women in Environmental Research (EMPOWER) program is a one-of-a-kind research summer experience for minority female high school students in the state of Georgia. In addition, this program provides high school teachers with hands-on experiences that can be adapted to use in the classrooms. This combination of lab and field research immerses participants in understanding urban environmental exposures and their health effects. The EMPOWER program was established to meet the critical need for increasing diversity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.