This blog originally appeared on Emily Monosson's blog and is reposted here with permission. 

The New York Times article, Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops  rightly argues that herbicide resistant GMOs haven’t reduced the use of chemicals on the farm. But by equating genetic modification with herbicide resistant plants, this article is misleading. Many of us agree there are problems with herbicide resistant plants, and that misuse, overuse and eventually resistance in weeds has put users on a toxic herbicide treadmill.

But GMO technology isn’t just about herbicide resistance. It can also be deployed to reduce pesticide use and, there are new ways to engineer plants and animals that don’t mix and match genetic material from vastly different species. Take potatoes engineered to resist one of the most destructive potato pathogens, late blight, the disease that devastated Irish potato crops and kicked off the Great Famine. When blight strikes it can destroy crops so rapidly that growers often use multiple applications (sometimes more than a dozen a season) of toxic fungicides to prevent disease. A decade ago 2000 tons of fungicide were applied to potato crops just here in the states. In turn, blight has evolved to resist many of those pesticides. For such an aggressive disease, genetic engineering may be one of the few options for growers wishing to reduce their use of toxic chemicals. In this case rather than inserting genes from a totally foreign species, one approach is to insert disease resistance genes from a more resilient relative.

The potatoes recently engineered by scientists at The Wageningen University Research in the Netherlands for example are, they say, indistinguishable from the potatoes we love to bake and fry. Why use engineering when a grower might breed for resistance, an ages old practice? One reason is speed. Engineering enabled the production of a disease resistant crop in three yearsrather than three decades. And unlike transgenics like Roundup Ready and Bt crops which introduce foreign genes onto an unfamiliar “genetic landscape” of the target species – the GMO that everybody loves to hate – these so-called cisgenic potatoes introduce new traits into familiar territory, reducing concerns for unintended consequences. Additionally, Wageningen University Research retains the intellectual property and offers non-exclusive licenses to parties interested in working with the genes or resistant plants in an effort to thwart corporate control. The cisgenic process along with other techniques like gene editing are providing opportunities for genetic engineering that call for reevaluation. Genetic engineering is a technology, not a product.

Below: an image from the Hartsfield-Jackson airport. Couldn’t resist, check it out next time you’re there.

This blog originally appeared on Emily Monosson's blog and is reposted here with permission.

A toddler suddenly becomes deathly ill. In the ER she is diagnosed with dysentery, caused by a rare but particularly aggressive form of Salmonella. One antibiotic after another fails because the strain, picked up when her family was traveling across parts of Asia, resists multiple antibiotics; but there is an alternative new drug. Like a guided missile, the drug targets only the disease causing Salmonella. Not only that, but as long as Salmonella remains, the drug particles replicate, increasing in number until the infection subsides. Despite the carnage, the toddler’s gut microbiome remains unharmed – no need for probiotics or fear of complications like C. diff.  If Salmonella responds by evolving resistance, the drug may respond in turn engaging an ages old evolutionary dance. By the next morning the color returns to her cheeks. By evening, she is cured.

While still a fantasy here is the U.S., the scenario has been playing out in Eastern European hospitals and clinics for nearly a century. The “new” drug is a virus called a bacteriophage (or simply “phage”), that attacks bacteria. It is a cure nearly as old as life; at least as old as bacteria. Microbiologists have suggested that for every strain of bacteria on earth from the oceans to those populating our own microbiomes– there is at least one, if not multiple bacteriophages.

As diseases like TB, gonorrhea, E.coli, staph and other common infections increasingly evolve to resist our antibiotics, health care workers are fast becoming desperate for new antimicrobials that are both effective and cause minimal damage to our own microbiomes. Bacteriophages are potent antimicrobials. Once disparaged here in the U.S. and in western medicine in general, these bacteria infecting viruses are making their way back into academic and biotech laboratories. If all goes well, they may be coming to a pharmacy near you.

We now know that throughout our existence viruses have woven in and out of life – leaving their stamp on most if not all living things. By some accounts up to eight percent of our genetic material came to us by way of viruses. Yet for all the fear and harm we associate with viruses many (if not most) are phages, infecting bacteria, like those in our microbiome. Genomics is just beginning to reveal the diversity and representations of these entities in nature and within our bodies. But the role that phages can serve as potent antimicrobials is no mystery. As infectious agents of bacteria they are a normal and pervasive component of earth’s flora, and they have already saved countless lives. One day they just might save us or our loved ones.

This is only one solution. There are plenty of others in the works. Lets just hope they get the funding they need in the coming years.

Adapted from  Natural Defense: Enlisting Bugs and Germs to Protect Food and Health and posted in honor of  CDC’s "Get Smart About Antibiotics Week."

For the past couple of years, I’ve been wondering why the Vet can vaccinate our dog for Lyme*, but the best our doctor can offer is a dose of doxycyline, ex post facto. Why is it, despite the spraying and tucking and checking out the nooks and crannies post-walk, a simple stroll on a glorious summer day is more of a health risk for humans than for their best friend? (And here in Western MA, it’s a big risk.) Why isn’t there a human Lyme vaccine? In part, there isn’t a human vaccine thanks to the anti-vax movement.

There was once a vaccine. I recall when my mother-in-law participated in a Lyme vaccine trial, we were living in Long Island at time. A hot-bed of Lyme, I remember parading my husband down the hallway of the Marine Science Research Center at Stony Brook, showing our colleagues the text-book bulls-eye rash spreading across his back. And I remember being hopeful for a vaccine. But, as it turns out the vaccine wasn’t perfect. It was only about 80% effective and required boosters, but, scientists agree, it wasn’t harmful. I assumed that its relatively low efficacy (compared with say, the inactive polio vaccine which has an efficacy of over 99% after three doses) led to its demise. But it turns out that was only one factor. The vaccine was also under pressure from the antivax movement and lawsuits by those who believed they were harmed by the vaccine. The Lyme vaccine, first offered in 1998, was pulled by the developer (GlaxoSmithKline) in 2002.

Back then, in 2002, having moved north to western Massachusetts we were snooty about Lyme. It was a “southern” disease; Long Island, Rhode Island, Connecticut. We stopped taking our kids to Rhode Island in the summer (my husband’s home state) because of Lyme. And I’d forgotten about the vaccine. We didn’t need one anyway. Our kids ran though the tall grass field behind our house with little worry. At that time in the late 1990s there were a handful of reported cases in our rural county. But now, a bit over a decade later there are hundreds of confirmed cases; possibly thousands of cases including those that were not confirmed. Lyme has become our problem too as one neighbor after another downs the doxycycline. According to the CDC confirmed cases in the U.S. as a whole  have almost doubled since 1995. Concentrating along the mid-Atlantic coastal states, in 2015 it was declared an epidemic in our region. So, is there a vaccine in our near future?

Writes Gregory Poland, Director of the Mayo Vaccine Research Group about any hope for a new vaccine in a 2011 article: “it is important to note that few, if any, scientists believe the evidence points to any substantive safety concerns. Although multiple factors played a role, it appears that the anti-vaccine sentiment and class action lawsuits that resulted, will, in and of themselves, effectively hamper development of any further Lyme disease vaccine candidate in the United States.” *sigh*

For more about what happened with the vaccine, see here and here.

And while there are some really cool new strategies to control Lyme that don’t involve vaccinating humans, even if those make it through the gauntlet of testing and then public opinion (some involve genetic engineering) they are years away.

Vaccination along with other medical interventions like antibiotics and other drugs is not perfect. Sometimes they are pushed ahead and then pulled for safety. But, there is no question that they save lives, prevent disease and dramatically change how we live and die.

So, if you think that those celebrities like Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Trump who sow distrust of vaccines won’t affect you, think again. Yes, you can choose to vaccinate but those who choose not to, not only contribute to a loss of herd immunity (the immunity we gain as a population by agreeing to be vaccinated – thereby protecting those who cannot be vaccinated) but they also may give pause to vaccine developers. And that will be our loss.

(If you are curious about what’s been killing us over the past century check out this visualization of death in the 20th century here  And for more about the rise and fall of the human Lyme vaccine see here.)

*There is also plenty of controversy over the efficacy of the Lyme vaccine in dogs.

Emily Monosson, author of the forthcoming Natural Defense, marched at the DC Women's March on January 21, 2017. Inspired by the number of scientists that marched, she collected photos and a few words from scientists who marched around the country. This blog originall appeared on Monosson's blog and is reposted here with permission. 

Here’s a photo of 6 scientists marching in Helena, Montana (pop. 30,000) with 10,000 fellow marchers (1 of every 100 Montanans!), at 19 degrees F.  I am a hydrogeologist. With me in this photo are a wetland scientist/biologist, a fluvial geomorphologist, a restoration hydrologist, another hydrogeologist, and a freshwater researcher and educator.  We’re part of a larger Montana group called the Water Babes, which until now focused on mentoring and networking.  This is our first political action, and it happened organically.  No one declared, “the Water Babes must march.”  We just did.

This is a photo of me, Nicole Gasparini, a geomorphologist from New Orleans, LA, at the Washington, D.C. march. I am holding my 2 year old daughter Florence. I marched because I want my son and daughter to know- all children to know- that regardless of a person’s sex, sexual orientation, skin color, cultural background, religion, education, age, place of birth, ability or disability- all people deserve respect. All people deserve opportunities. All people deserve health care. We all need to stand up and support each other. Facts are facts. There are no alternative facts. Science is real, not a partisan agenda. Science makes our lives better, and I want a better world for all our children.

Judith S. Weis: Marine Biology and Ecotoxicology. I marched in Washington, D.C.

I marched because I am very concerned about the future with a climate-denying, webpage censoring, federal-scientist gagging, first amendment-ignoring, “alternative-fact”
supporting group running the country.

We marched in Chicago. I am an immunologist. My thoughts: I didn’t carry a sign. Instead, I carried my 5 year old daughter who wants to be a plant scientist and deserves to have dominion over her body. Her parents will fight like hell to make sure she gets those things.

E. LaPorte: Science Outreach Manager. Ann Arbor Women’s March.

Sarah Noble: I am a lunar geologist with a PhD in geological sciences. I marched in DC.

Here is an image of me (“Make America Think Again”) at the Women’s March. I am an evolutionary biologist at Colorado State University. We marched in Denver.

Emily Monosson, Toxicologist, with daughter Sophie, future scientist. I planned on marching shortly after the election, for women’s rights. But when making a sign, I wanted to say something about the lack of regard for science by this administration and its supporters which saddens and frustrates me. I had been feeling helpless, wondering what I could do. This was the first time I had ever attended anything like this. It will not be the last. Knowing so many are willing to speak out for a better future…is hopeful. We marched in DC.

Janice Bossart: Evolution and Ecology. Marched in Washington, D.C. Science is not a liberal conspiracy!

Jeannine Cavender-Bares: We marched in DC. My field is plant ecology and evolution; University of Minnesota, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior

I am thinking about how to train the next generation of citizens and scientists in a world where we all depend on science but its complexities are increasingly difficult to traverse. My students are discussing the issues of when science can change people’s behaviors and how we generate and communicate science that is credible, salient and legitimate. Despite the current Administration’s disregard for science and access to scientific information, it is is critical for managing a habitable planet. The other person in the photo is my daughter, who is very interested in science, particularly in how to generate clean water in remote areas.

See more pictures and continue reading the full post here. 

In a political age of "alternative facts," we need defenders of science to speak up now more than ever. We spoke with toxicologist Emily Monosson, author of Natural Defense: Enlisting Bugs and Germs to Protect our Food and Health, to discuss her new book, ecology, and the process of scientific innovation. Read her insights below, and don't forget to pick up your copy of Natural Defense for 20 percent off with the discount code 4DEFENSE. Science has called it "a lively, provactive consideration of more ecologically balanced approaches to a disease-free future." Have more questions for Monosson? Share them in the comments below.

Your last book, Unnatural Selection, looked at how humans are driving the rapid evolution of pests and pathogens through the use of toxic chemicals. In what ways is Natural Defense a response to that book?

Overuse of chemicals leads to the problem of resistance, from antibiotic resistant infections to pesticide resistant insects. Natural Defense is the answer to that problem, the so-what-can-we-do-about it part. It explores how physicians and farmers can manage pests and pathogens while reducing their dependence on broad spectrum, relatively non-specific chemical solutions.

The number of alternative solutions is growing, which is really exciting. From viruses that attack antibiotic resistant bacteria like MRSA, to encouraging healthy microbial communities (or microbiomes—both in us and on the farm), to using plant and insect chemical “scents” to reduce infestation on the farm. There are also more controversial solutions, like engineering disease resistant crops so that growers can lessen their reliance on fungicides, or engineering vaccines against viruses or bacteria to boost efficacy.

The solutions featured in Natural Defense are grounded in ecology. What is driving the shift away from chemical dependence? Will a sustainable future be totally chemical-free?

We’ve had about 100 years of experience trying to hammer infections and pests into submission with “chemical cures,” and we are learning that while that worked for a while, it’s not ideal. In addition to resistance, there is the problem of collateral damage: if you wipe out all the benign bacteria, opportunistic infections like C. diff—a very difficult to treat, potentially lethal infection—can take hold. Plus, there are concerns about pesticide contamination in food and the environment and effects on non-target species.

While there is no doubt we have benefitted from chemicals, we can do even better if we take a more ecological approach to managing disease. Part of this approach is to employ natural enemies of pests and pathogens. Some options, like mating disruption in crop-destroying moths, can reduce or even eliminate the need for pesticides. In medicine, phage therapy can employ viruses to eradicate bacterial infections—a strategy that has proven particularly useful for specific antibiotic resistant infections. We may still need our conventional chemicals, but more ecological approaches combined with better detection and prevention can help to reduce our dependence on conventional pesticides and antibiotics. 

You describe Natural Defense as a book of solutions, but acknowledge that some technologies featured in the book may fail. What is the value in featuring innovations that are not yet proven? Are scientific solutions ever truly “finished”?

Science is a process. It constantly builds upon earlier research. For every successful solution there were likely many more failures. This is important for all of us to understand. We’re used to seeing headlines about miracle cures, but there are very few miracles. Instead, most treatments trudges along, getting better or refined. If one strategy doesn’t work, maybe there is a part that is salvageable, or that inspires a scientist to try something different. Many of the solutions I describe in Natural Defense build upon earlier work to understand bacteria, or viruses, or soil communities, or the human microbiome. We need to celebrate and support this idea of science in motion, and the scientists who are doing this work, working towards solutions.

What’s the coolest technology you discovered while researching the book?

It’s hard to choose, but I would say either the machine learning cell-phone app that may someday diagnose plant disease anywhere in the world in seconds; or genetic sequencing using nanopore technology that enables researchers and maybe someday physicians and farmers to diagnose infection, right down to a particular strain in minutes.

In addition to interviewing scientists at the forefront of cutting edge technologies, you spoke with a number of non-scientists, including parents and farmers. What did you learn from these conversations? Why was it important to weave their voices into the book?

It was important to interview these people because they are the ones most directly impacted by problems and solutions. People with infections that are not responding to available antibiotics need options. Likewise growers, particularly those who want to use less chemicals on their farms (whether because they’re going organic or are trying to reduce costs or are dealing with resistance) are the ones who will be using these solutions. This is their livelihood; and in many places in the world, this is their food. If the crops are destroyed by disease or insects, that’s a big problem. Including these voices means that the science can’t just be “oh cool” pie-in-the-sky kind of stuff. It needs to be feasible. It needs, eventually, to work.

In the book, you look at a particular solution’s application to health care and its application to agriculture in alternating chapters. What is the value in considering human and agricultural health together? What is the danger in examining them in isolation?

One thing I enjoy is pulling together science or research that tends to reside in separate “boxes,” whether that means putting evolution and toxicology together (as I do in my earlier books) or putting medicine and agriculture together (as I do in this book). Scientists can become so focused in their own field (which is not a bad thing!), but it’s not always easy to look around and think about where else their research may apply or what other techniques or concepts might apply to their work. Since I’m not working in a research lab, I hope this can be my contribution to the sciences.

In the case of Natural Defense, controlling viruses, bacteria, fungi, and microbial infections is based in the same ecology, whether we are concerned about our kids or a field of strawberries. Sometimes the solutions are the same. Viruses that attack bacteria (phages) are used in the food industry and in human medicine. Likewise using bacterial proteins called bacteriocins are used to keep food safe and may one day be used to cure human infections. Rapid DNA analysis for diagnostics on the farm and in the hospital—it’s the same technology. And if an app can diagnose plant disease based on a photo, why not apply that to problems like skin cancers?

Is there anything you found in the course of researching and writing this book that surprised you?

I think the most surprising thing I found was the common problem of getting a good product to market. It didn’t matter if the researcher was working on human infection or vaccines or how to apply beneficial bacteria on the farm. It’s easy to get caught up in the excitement of a promising new technique, but then comes the regulatory hoops. Regulations are important – a product needs to be safe and effective – but for individual scientists, or small start-ups working on solutions, the process of approval can be costly. Some researchers talked about the role of selling or working with big pharma or the agro-chemical industry as a necessary step, because that was one way to get the product to market. On the other hand, with GMO in particular, some developers are working to ensure the technology is not “owned” by corporate interests. So, there is a lot more to this than just the science.

What do you hope readers take away from this book?

Hope! When it comes to managing pests and pathogens I hope readers are excited by some of these stories and that advances in both technology and ecology are leading to new ways of controlling diseases and pests that are better for us and the environment. I think it’s also important for readers to realize that solutions are not black or white: a farmer may need to use pesticides in some cases, just as physicians may need to use antibiotics. We now realize we can’t or shouldn’t try to hammer pests or pathogens into oblivion with chemicals, but we can be smarter about how we manage them.

Bugs and germs are big problems—and they’re evolving. Each year, 2,300 people in the U.S. die from drug-resistant bacterial infections and farmers lose billions of dollars of crops to insects that evade pesticides. But there is reason for hope. In the fight to protect our food and health, bugs and germs may also be part of the solution. Natural Defense by veteran science writer Emily Monosson is the first book to bring readers into this exciting new world.

A follow-up to her “eye-opening” (Guardian) book Unnatural Selection, Natural Defense explores how scientists around the world are innovating alternative solutions to our chemical arsenal, employing bacteria-killing viruses to stop dangerous infections and beneficial bacteria to protect against crop disease. Bringing together ecology and the latest advancements in technology, these emerging solutions give hope for a healthier and more sustainable future.

Check out Chapter 4: The Enemy of Our Enemy is Our Friend: Replacing Pesticides with Nature's Chemistry below. 

Summer is here! Whether that means slathering on the sunscreen or seeking refuge from the heat in an air conditioned room, this season means one thing for all bookworms: summer reading lists. To help get yours started, our staff have shared their favorite Island Press books, past and present. Check out our recommendations, and share your favorite Island Press summer read in the comments below. 
 

1.) Nature's Allies by Larry A. Nielsen
 

In Nature's Allies, Larry Nielson shares eight riveting biographies of great conservationists. His profiles show how these diverse leaders—including a Native American who was arrested more than 50 times and the first African woman and environmentalist to win the Nobel Peace Prize—brought about extraordinary change for the environment. These stories are powerful, engaging reads for anyone who wants to be inspired to make a difference. But you don't have to take Island Press' word for it...Nature's Allies was also recently recommended as a New York Public Library staff pick. 
 

2.) River Notes by Wade Davis
 

In this remarkable blend of history, science, and personal observation, acclaimed author Wade Davis tells the story of America’s Nile, how it once flowed freely and how human intervention has left it near exhaustion. A beautifully told story of historical adventue and natural beauty, River Notes is a fascinating journey down the river and through mankind's complicated and destructive relationship with one of its greatest natural resources. Kyler Geoffroy, Online Marketing Manager of the Urban Resilience Project, says this book is the perfect summer read because "we need to stop and appreciate America’s most iconic waterway now more than ever."
 

3.) Bike Boom by Carlton Reid
 

As Vice President and Executive Editor Heather Boyer says, "there's no better time than summer to think about how to maintain the increase in interest in urban biking (and try to retain any funding for it in infrastructure budget)." A follow-up to his "fascinating" Roads Were Not Built for Cars, Bike Boom picks up where that story left off: immersing readers in cycling advocacy from 1906 to the doldrums of the 1980s. It is an extensively researched, at times humorous journey through time, flush with optimism for what could be the next, greatest bike boom of all.
 

4.) Natural Defense by Emily Monosson
 

Bugs and germs are big problems—and they’re evolving. But in the fight to protect our food and health, bugs and germs may also be part of the solution. Natural Defense by Emily Monosson is the first book to bring readers into this exciting new world, highlighting cutting-edge solutions such as pheromones that send crop-destroying moths into a misguided sexual frenzy, and proteins that promise targed destruction of infectious bacteria. Brooke Borel, contributing editor at Popular Science had this to say about the book: "With deft prose and fascinating anecdotes, Monosson’s survey of the latest scientific research leaves us in awe of humankind’s ingenuity."
 

5.) Immersion by Abbie Gascho Landis
 

If summer is the time for exploring neighborhood creeks and streams, Immersion by Abbie Gascho Landis is the summer read for you. A breathtaking journey into the world of freshwater mussels, Immersion explores the hidden lives of mussels in our rivers and streams, and asks whether our capacity to love these alien creatures can power us to protect freshwater for humans and nature alike. Blending science with artful storytelling, Immersion takes readers from perilous river surveys and dry riverbeds to laboratories where endangered mussels are raised one precious life at a time. Production Assistant Elise Ricotta says this is the perfect book to read at the beach or lake.
 

 6.) Seeking the Sacred Raven by Mark Jerome Walters
 

Associate Editor and Rights Manager Rebecca Bright picked up Seeking the Sacred Raven while she was preparing for an interview to intern at Island Press (we won't say how many years ago). The book tells the story of Hawaii's 'Alla, a member of the raven family that once flourished on the islands and now survives only in captivity. Mark Jerome Walters chronicles the history of the birds' interactions with humans throughout the centuries, painting a picture of one species' decline that resonates today, as many others face the same fate. The first Island Press book she ever read, Rebecca found the book to be "both fascinating and heartbreaking."
 

7.) Kitchen Literacy by Ann Vileisis
 

As you fire up the grill for summer barbeques and head to your local farmer's market, consider reading Kitchen Literacy by Ann Vileisis, a sensory-rich journey through two hundred years of making dinner. From eighteenth-century gardens and historic cookbooks to calculated advertising campaigns and sleek supermarket aisles, Vileisis chronicles profound changes in how Americans have shopped, cooked, and thought about their food for five generations. Revealing how knowledge of our food has been lost and how it might now be regained, Kitchen Literacy promises to make us think differently about what we eat.
 

8.) Water is for Fighting Over by John Fleck
 

Water is for Fighting Over by John Fleck makes for perfect reading while sitting by the pool, river, or ocean. In it, he offers a unique, fresh perspective on the catastrophe narrative of the West, showcasing how this region is less of a battlefield and more of a place where individuals and communities find common ground amid a changing geography. This book shows that even in the depths of the worst droughts, positive solution stories can still be found. Vice President and Director of Marketing & Sales Julie Marshall likes "John’s thoughtful and balanced approach to the issue. I also really appreciate the fact he has such deep knowledge based on his many years covering the issues in the west. It gives him great credibility but also makes his explanations of the issues and solutions seem solid based on 'all the facts' and not just a superficial assessment." 
 

9.) Within Walking Distance by Philip Langdon 
 

While walking around and enjoying the summer sunshine, don't forget to pack Within Walking Distance by Philip Langdon. In it, he takes an in-depth look at six walkable communities—and the citizens, public officials, and planners who are making them satisfying places to live. Civil Engineering said "Within Walking Distance shines...a warm, personal, and heartening depiction of our power to shape our communities in a positive way when we set our minds to it." 
 

10.) Tibet Wild by George B. Schaller
 

Hungry for adventure? Tibet Wild is George B. Schaller's account of three decades of exploration in the most remote stretches of Tibet: the wide, sweeping rangelands of the Chang Tang and the hidden canyons and plunging ravines of the southeastern forests. Throughout, it is an intimate journey through the changing wilderness of Tibet, guided by the careful gaze and unwavering passion of a life-long naturalist. Editor Courtney Lix loves the book because "it transports you to the wildest regions in Tibet, from describing the daily challenges of being a field biologist, to admiring breathtaking landscapes, and encounters with rare and beautiful creatures." 

What are your top Island Press reads? Share them below, so others can add them to their summer reading lists. 

Untreatable gonorrhea is now a reality—and a sign of a growing threat to public health. Last month, the World Health Organization reported that some strains of the sexually transmitted disease are completely resistant to antibiotics. That means that unless something changes, when the inevitable college student ends up at Student Health with that burning sensation, there may be no respite.  

Gonorrhea is just one of many infections, from E. coli and Salmonella to tuberculosis that are becoming increasingly antibiotic resistant. In fact, public health professionals fear a “return to pre-antibiotic” age, when deadly pathogens can no longer be controlled by drugs. We desperately need to develop pharmaceuticals that are less likely to be rendered ineffective.

Fortunately, scientists are exploring new kinds of treatments that better target specific infections and work with, rather than against, nature. Researchers at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, MA, for example, are aiming to prevent and eventually cure urinary tract infections caused by E. coli with a bacteriocin: proteins produced by bacteria that target closely related species. The beauty of specificity is that it leaves the rest of our microbiome intact, unlike the traditional broad spectrum antibiotic. And because many of the bacteria in our own microbiome have likely been lobbing bacteriocins at one another for eons – these are likely to be a relatively safe option with few side effects.

Another potentially promising and highly specific option is bacteriophages: viruses that infect bacteria. This so-called “phage therapy” has been used for nearly a century, particularly in Eastern Europe. But they are essentially unavailable here in the U.S., a casualty of poor practices by early twentieth century pharmaceutical companies, the advent of antibiotics like penicillin, and the Cold War. Desperate American patients with untreatable infections including MRSA are making their way across the ocean for a cure. And when a University of California professor suffering from a potentially lethal multidrug resistant infection received and was cured by phage here in the U.S., it became headline news. Like bacteriocins, phage are already part of our normal flora. These are just two hopeful examples of employing ecology for our own protection.

While these new options are promising, their greatest strength—specificity and the capacity to cure infection—means they will never become blockbuster drugs, which may make them less attractive to big pharma. There are also questions of how to regulate biologicals like phage, that don’t behave as typical pharmaceutical chemicals, and there is the high-cost of drug testing and trials which may be daunting for small-scale developers. 

Those working on these non-traditional solutions need support from our federal regulatory institutions, agencies that fund medical research and healthcare, and perhaps even big pharma. The recent workshop sponsored by The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, and the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is a hopeful sign. But with antibiotic resistance on the rise, we need to move these natural solutions from the laboratory to the pharmacy now. The longer we wait, the closer we come to infections that are now curable turning deadly.

This summer, three environmentalists banded together to counter Trump’s inaction on climate by planting trees. So far, the crowd-sourced forest is at 840,000 trees pledged and growing.

We asked Island Press authors to reflect on the idea of Trump Forest and offer their own suggestions for offsetting the damaging effects of the Trump administration. Their ideas—from Twitter-based fundraising to more walkable neighborhoods—are below. Have your own creative idea? Share it in the comments.

How about the Trump Military-Industrial Parks Funding Bill: for every dollar that the Trump administration's EPA saves for corporate polluters, a dollar is transferred from the budget for Defense Department and applied to funding for National Parks. 
—Emily Monosson, Natural Defense

Planting trees for—or, more accurately, against—Trump and his policies is a great idea. We know that it’s not going to solve the problem of climate change, although every tree helps a little, and if we plant enough trees they will have a significant effect. But, perhaps just as important in the short term, every little gesture against the awful Donald contributes to the tide of protest by millions of people saying  “we will not accept the attitudes of this president and we will not go along with his agenda."

Continue reading the full post here.
—Joe Landsberg and Richard Waring, Forests in Our Changing World

I suggest creating an online platform where everyone who voted for Hillary (all 68 million of them) can sign up and pledge to give 1 cent—which would be automatically deducted from their bank accounts (if they have one)—every time Trump tweets. This money would then go to combating climate change denial organizations/agendas, which are (demonstrably) incredibly well-funded.

If even half of everyone who voted for Hillary did this, we could generate $3.4 million in one day alone. (34 million votes equals 34 million cents multiplied by 10—the amount of times he tweets daily, on average.) The environmental cause he donates to could change every day. Even changing the monetary amount to half or a quarter of a cent for every tweet would still generate a lot of money.” 
—Michael Carolan, No One Eats Alone

The best way to offset the environmental impacts of the Trump administration is to advance smart policy at the state level and be prepared to do the same at the federal level once Trump leaves office… or if he changes his mind while in office! I am very worried that the GOP’s “Obamacare repeal” moment will be repeated in climate policy in a few years, and I speak from experience: 2016’s pioneering I-732 carbon tax ballot measure campaign in Washington State (which I founded and co-chaired) lost in part because of opposition from the “environmental left,” including the Sierra Club and Washington Conservation Voters. The same dynamic played out in California earlier this year, with the Sierra Club and 350.org opposing the extension of California’s cap-and-trade system.

And you can watch it happening again in Washington State as the groups that splintered with the grassroots I-732 campaign are now splintering with each other about a 2018 ballot measure. So: If you’re on the right side of the political spectrum then there’s lots of work to do getting conservatives to pay attention to the risks of climate change (Bob Inglis and his compatriots at RepublicEn are one great resource), and if you’re on the left, well, as the Washington Post editorial board put it, “The left’s opposition to a carbon tax shows there’s something deeply wrong with the left.” Fix it. 
—Yoram Bauman, Cartoon Introduction to Climate Change

A good place to plant many of those trees is along the streets of America’s cities, towns, and villages. It’s been shown again and again that a canopy of street trees can significantly lower the air temperature of a block or a neighborhood or a larger area during the height of summer. That makes for more comfortable living. It reduces the need for air conditioning. It encourages people to walk or bike to nearby destinations rather than drive a car. Moreover, street trees make a place more beautiful. They persuade people—at least some people—that living in a somewhat dense neighborhood is not a sacrifice—it’s an advantage. 

Along with planting trees, we should put more emphasis on making the street network safer for pedestrians. Especially important is what happens at intersections, the most dangerous parts of the street network. Some intersections need to be narrowed, to get motorists to slow down and to reduce the distance that pedestrians have to cross. On long or especially busy blocks, segments of the planter strips could be extended into the street, causing vehicles to move at a more reasonable speed and helping people to cross the street safely. 

Follow examples from cities like Portland, Oregon, where centers of many neighborhood intersections have been planted, moderating the speeds on residential streets. In front of some neighborhood shops, encourage merchants to create patios where people can come together, eat and drink, and get to know one another. On Orange Street in the East Rock section of New Haven, Connecticut, where small stores are interspersed among houses and apartment buildings, patios of this sort have been created, giving the neighborhood a more congenial atmosphere than previously existed. 

Making a greener, more beautiful, more sociable environment benefits people in many different ways.
—Phil Langdon, Within Walking Distance

There's no lack necessary actions we can take. But where to start? Or perhaps better asked: How can I channel my outrage into something that's constructive but also as satisfying as ripping out part of my sink? (After all, outrage is an itch best scratched soon lest you turn into a humorless crank.)

Seed-bombing Trump golf courses with wildflowers and edibles immediately comes to mind, though admittedly that ranks high on "satisfying" and not much else. Punching literal Nazis on the street is constructive, in a way, though it's not a skill I currently possess. Keeping up with my curated Twitter roster of political and environmental experts is more important than it sometimes feels (especially when the underrated Sarah Kendzior has a new post) but it's also far from satisfying.

Of course, anything that makes a whit of difference is generally going to be neither easy nor quick. Meaningful changes take time, time spent in setting intention, executing action, and curating results. I think this holds true whether you're raising a garden, starting an activist organization, or making a footprint-reducing lifestyle change.

Continue reading the full post here.
—Daniel Lerch, Community Resilience Reader

This blog originally appeared on Emily Monosson's blog and is reposted here with permission.

Yesterday I read of a meningitis B outbreak at Oregon State University. Today, it’s the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, MA. MenB is a potentially lethal and easily spread infection particularly in settings where young adults gather together. As the university races to vaccinate tens of thousands of students, my thoughts turn to our daughter, a senior in college. A few years ago after writing a book chapter that included the history of meningitis B and the recent development of a vaccine, I had asked my daughter’s pediatrician (ironically in Amherst, MA) if she could receive the vaccination as she headed off for her sophomore year. They would not, stating that it was available only for those who had other health indications. Perhaps if it were more easily available, colleges would not have to react, and students would already be protected.

Below is an excerpt from that chapter about meningitis and the vaccine:

My father had just returned from the Navy, an apple-cheeked mischievous twenty year-old looking forward to his junior year in college when meningitis struck. It was 1946 and the last thing he recalled was brushing his teeth at home in the bathroom. For the next ten days he lay unconscious in a hospital bed his body fighting off an invisible army of bacterial invaders. Aided by the new miracle drug, penicillin, he survived, but not entirely unscathed. Shortly after recovery my father was jolted by brain seizures – his brain permanently damaged by the infection. For the remainder of his life he managed the condition with a combination of powerful antiepileptic drugs (while baffling his doctors by referring to the electronic brainstorms as a “free high.”)

Meningitis is a catch-all term for swelling of the tissues surrounding the brain and spinal cord. Specific viruses, fungi, and injury can all cause the potentially fatal condition but one of the most frightening and lethal causes is bacterial infection. Bacterial meningitis, caused by a handful of bacteria (Haemophilis influenza type b (Hib) or Streptococcus pneumonia and Neisseria meningitides) can kill in within a day, is often incurable, and may leave survivors with amputated limbs, hearing loss or brain seizures. My father was relatively lucky. One of the more intractable causes of meningitis is Neisseria, a bacterium adept at spreading through populations gathering together for the first time: freshmen dorms, summer camps, day care, the military barracks. Some five to twenty percent of us carry Neisseria in our nose and throat and unwittingly spread it around to those we share a meal, or a drink or a kiss. Most of us won’t get sick. A few of us may die from the infection, even today.

My kids were born in the 1990s. By the time they toddled off to school, they had received a slew of vaccines: measles, tetanus, mumps, polio, smallpox, chicken pox and even Haemophilus influenza and Streptococcus pneumonia (two other important causes of meningitis). But an effective vaccine against Neisseria meningitidis had not yet made it on to the recommended vaccine schedule. Then in 2005, just as they were heading off to the middle school milieu of new students, sweaty locker rooms, team sports and shared drinking bottles, a vaccine against a collection of N. meningitidis serotypes become available. Though the disease is rare here in the U.S.,compared to sub-Saharan Africa, in the so-called meningitis belt, I felt relieved. One more disease they wouldn’t get. Except.

Except for the escape artist, a serotype called meningitis B or MenB. Though rare, the infection that can take a turn for the worse within hours, has frustrated vaccine makers for decades. And it seems to pop up out of nowhere. In 2013 an outbreak at the University of California caused a freshman lacrosse player to undergo amputation of both feet. Four other students were infected, and the university was forced to provide prophylactic antibiotics to five hundred students. The next year an outbreak at that began at Princeton University caused the death of a Drexel student. In the first months of 2016, MenB hit three different colleges and killed one employee. Even in our “golden age of disease prevention,” and vaccine development, MenB has remained intractable through its ability to evade immunity.

It does this by wrapping itself in a sugary polysaccharide sheath that is identical to human polysaccharide molecules. Immune cells recognizing this molecule would have been naturally eliminated or deactivated as a protection against autoimmunity. By sequencing the pathogen’s genome vaccine makers have been able to discover antigenic proteins that would otherwise be hidden; four different antigens found on the majority of circulating Men B (a single pathogen may have several different circulating strains.) The discovery was a breakthrough for vaccine development. When Mariagrazia Pizza and co-workers reported their findings in the journal Science, they wrote: “In addition to proving the potential of the genomic approach, by identifying highly conserved proteins that induce bactericidal antibodies, we have provided candidates that will be the basis for clinical development of a vaccine against an important pathogen.” A few years ago when meningitis broke out at Princeton and UCSB campuses, the vaccine, licensed in Europe in 2013 but not yet here in the U.S., was offered to students on both campuses. One headline blared “California students to receive unlicensed meningitis vaccine.”

Sold as Bexsero by Novartis the vaccine (along with another new vaccine called Trumenba) was finally licensed in the U.S. in 2015. Hopefully it will become more widely available.

For more from CDC see here

This Valentine’s Day, we thought it would be fun for Island Press authors to share the love. We asked a few authors to choose their favorite Island Press book—other than their own, of course—and explain what makes it so special. Check out their responses below, and use code 4MAGICAL for 25% off and free shipping all of the books below, as well as books from participating authors.

What’s your favorite Island Press book? Share your answer in the comments.

My favorite IP book—not that I’ve read them all—is Mike Lydon’s Tactical Urbanism. This book shows how ad hoc interventions can improve the public realm, especially if they’re later made permanent. I discussed the concept on the latest Spokesmen podcast with architect Jason Fertig and illustrator Bekka “Bikeyface” Wright, both of Boston. 

—Carlton Reid, Bike Boom and Roads Were Not Built for Cars

Last year I wrote a cover story for SIERRA magazine about how Donald Trump's proposed wall along the US-Mexico border would all but eliminate any chance for recovering jaguar species in the Southwest. In the course of my research I came across Alan Rabinowitz's An Indomitable Beast. It's a great read, blending Rabinowitz's own experiences as a big cat biologist with cutting-edge findings on this amazing species. As a writer, this book and its amazing details helped me bring the jaguar to life for readers. 

—Jason Mark, Satellites in the High Country

This day is a time for reaching beyond data and logic to think about deeper ways of knowing. Love, specifically, but I would add to that faith, tradition and ethics. That's why I love Aaron Wolf's new book, The Spirit of Dialogue: Lessons from Faith Traditions in Transforming Conflict. Going beyond the  mechanical "rationality" of the typical public meeting is necessary if we are to address the big issues of global sustainability and the smaller issues of how we sustain our local communities. Aaron Wolf provides the experience, tools and promise of a better, deeper approach.

—Larry Nielsen, Nature's Allies

Like many others, I am indebted to to Island Press for not one but three books that profoundly influenced my thinking. Panarchy (2001, edited by Lance Gunderson and C.S. Holling) introduced me to the concept of socio-ecological systems resilience. Resilience Thinking (2006, by Brian Walker and David Salt) taught me what systems resilience really means. And the follow-up book Resilience Practice (2012) helped me start to understand how systems resilience actually works. The latter remains the most-consulted book on my shelf—by Island Press or any other publisher—and I was thrilled and frankly humbled when Brian and David agreed to write a chapter for our own contribution to the field, The Community Resilience Reader (2017).

—Daniel Lerch, The Community Resilience Reader

"A large percentage of my urbanism bookshelf is comprised of Island Press books, so it's very difficult to share my love for just one! So, I won't because the books we pull of the shelf most often these days are the NACTO Design Guides. Finally, a near complete set of highly usable and mutually supportive design standards that help us advocate for and build better streets, better places." 

—Mike Lydon, Tactical Urbanism

Nicols Fox's Against the Machine is a book that’s becomes more relevant each year as technology impinges ever further on our daily lives. It’s a fascinating, deeply researched look at how and why people have resisted being treated as extensions of machines.

—Phil Langdon, Within Walking Distance

Lake Effect by Nancy Nichols. I read this book several years ago. It is so important to hear the voices of those whose lives are impacted by industrial age pollutants, lest we slide into complacency. In this case, the story of the chemicals of Lake Michigan. It is a short, beautifully written, disturbing read.
—Emily Monosson, Natural Defense and Unnatural Selection

Peter Gleick’s series, The World’s Water, is one of the most useful surveys of the cutting edge of global waters there is. Each edition brings in-depth coverage of the issues of the day, always eminently readable and backed up by the crack research team that he puts together for each topic. I use it in my classes, always confident that students (and I) will be kept abreast of the best of The World’s Water.
—Aaron Wolf, The Spirit of Dialogue

Mark Jerome Walters' important book, Seven Modern Plagues, places great emphasis on linking emerging diseases with habitat destruction and other forms of modification natural processes. This book is a call for us to recognize that each new disease reflects an environmental warning.
—Andy Dyer, Chasing the Red Queen

My favorite Island Press book is The New Agrarianism: Land, Culture, and the Community of Life, edited by Eric T. Freyfogle. Perhaps it remains my favorite IP text because it is the first IP text I remember reading front to back, twice! I first encountered the book as a graduate student and was struck my its scope and tone. The book is thought provoking. But it's also a joy to read, which isn't surprising in hindsight given the award-winning contributors.   
—Michael Carolan, No One Eats Alone

Don't see your Island Press fave? Share it in the comments below!

On the fourth of July, 1985, as the sun shone and the temperatures rose, people celebrated by eating watermelon. Then they got sick — becoming part of one of the nation’s largest episodes of foodborne illness caused by a pesticide. The outbreak began with a few upset stomachs in Oregon on July 3; by the next day, more than a dozen people in California were also doubling over with nausea, diarrhea, and stomach pain. A few suffered seizures.

All told, the CDC estimated that more than 1,000 individuals from Oregon, California, Arizona and other states, along with two Canadian provinces, became ill from eating melons, picked from a field in California, contaminated with a breakdown product of aldicarb — one of the most toxic pesticides on the market. There were the usual calls for the pesticide to be banned. While it was eventually scheduled to be phased out, now the chemical is back — albeit with more restrictions on its use.

Banning a pesticide is tricky business once it’s made its way onto the market and into fields and orchards. Consider the Environmental Protection Agency’s flip-flopping on a ban on the insecticide chlorpyrifos. In 2000, the EPA deemed chlorpyrifos too dangerous for home use, and allowances for food residues were reduced as well. Yet it remained popular — and legal — for agricultural use. In 2015 the agency concluded the chemical was too toxic to use on our fruits and vegetables. Then in 2017, the EPA flipped, granting the insecticide, introduced and widely sold by Dow Chemical, clemency. Finally, last Thursday, in a decision lauded by environmental groups, a federal court nullified the agency’s decision and ordered chlorpyrifos to be banned within the next two months.

In its ruling, the court did what the EPA wouldn’t, stating that there was no justification for maintaining “a tolerance for chlorpyrifos in the face of scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children.”

For many, it’s hard to fathom why such a decision couldn’t have been reached years ago. After all, the EPA is directed to consider the costs and benefits of chemical use on the environment, and the potential health impacts on humans weigh heavily in the decision — particularly when establishing how much pesticide may remain in our food from fruit to grains, the exposure must be deemed “safe.” Though we might not recognize it, EPA regulations are currently responsible for protecting our daily safety in numerous ways. Every time we choose conventional foods over organic, for example, we are putting our trust in the agency’s decisions. Often, that trust is warranted. But recent advances in toxicology, the workhorse science of the EPA, suggest that regulations based on earlier testing may not protect consumers from harmful exposures.

Indeed, today’s toxicologists are finding adverse effects that their earlier counterparts could only have imagined. One striking recent discovery, for example, showed that pesticides and industrial contaminants can impact not only the individuals initially exposed, but also their offspring, grandoffspring, and possibly even great-grandoffspring. Another demonstrated how chemicals like bisphenol A — or BPA, used to make some plastics — causes subtle but irreversible damage to developing brains.

But changing regulations to reflect these new findings is complicated; as is evident from the corporate interests in chlorpyrifos, any new law has complex social, political, and economic impacts, making it a high stakes game. Chemical regulation and testing requirements simply can’t keep pace with science. Take for example, testing for chemicals like BPA. These so-called hormone-disrupting chemicals were known to be problematic since before the turn of this century, yet approved tests for these chemicals have only recently emerged.

Recognizing that standard toxicity tests may lag behind the science, the EPA reviews registered pesticides every 15 years or so, providing an opportunity to reconsider old chemicals in light of more recent data. New findings of toxicity can also prompt a review, which is what happened with the insecticide chlorpyrifos. A series of epidemiological studies suggested the chemical had adverse impacts on children’s brains, causing the Pesticides Action Network North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council to circulate a petition prompting an EPA review. In 2015, the agency determined that, based on the new science, chlorpyrifos was so toxic that no trace of the chemical should remain on fruits and vegetables — essentially an all-out ban.

Over the past few decades, multiple studies have shown that other chemicals known to be neurotoxic, like mercury and lead, can alter brain development and impact children’s behavior. As a result, acceptable thresholds for exposure to these chemicals have also been lowered. Previous toxicity tests on animals often failed to reveal these kinds of impacts, in part because, somewhat obviously, lab rats aren’t children. “We’re using behavioral paradigms that aren’t exactly the same,” Deborah Cory-Slechta, a neurotoxicologist at University of Rochester who studies both lab animals and humans, told me, “so they aren’t measuring the same thing [in animals] we are measuring in humans.”

Humans, in other words, are complicated: We eat odd foods, drink, take drugs, and stress out. All of these things can affect our response to toxic chemicals, yet none are included even in today’s animal testing. So it is not surprising that past chemical evaluations may have missed some critical toxic responses.

Chlorpyrifos is one of those chemicals for which traditional studies now appear to be insufficient. The insecticide kills the bugs it’s intended to deter by interfering with nerve signaling. Nerve cells constantly chatter with one another, sending chemical messages from nerve to nerve, or nerve to muscle. One such messenger is acetylcholine. Once a muscle cell, for example, is activated by acetylcholine it begins contracting. To stop the activity, the acetylcholine message must then be deactivated, much like the ringer on your phone turning offonce you answer so you can hear to talk. In this case, the enzyme acetylcholinesterase normally deactivates the messenger acetylcholine. But chlorpyrifos inhibits the enzyme, causing unabated signaling and potentially deadly overstimulation. (This is also how the lethal chemical warfare poison Novichok works.)

Toxicologists and regulators can measure the chemical’s effect on signaling to evaluate the impact of exposure to it. The EPA has used these results, along with other information, like when and how a chemical is used, to set food tolerances. Concentrations that don’t cause signaling inhibition, have historically been considered safe.

But part of the problem with setting these kinds of tolerances is that not everyone is affected equally. Studies over the last several decades suggest that infants and children — who have developing brains, maturing metabolic systems, and tend to eat a higher proportion of fruits and vegetables — may be more sensitive to some chemicals than adults. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 addressed some of these concerns directing regulators to set standards for children’s health, and to consider the effects of cumulative chemical exposures. These include the additive effects of exposure to chlorpyrifos or similar pesticides, for example, by eating produce like peaches, snap peas, and bell peppers — crops that may be treated with the pesticide.

As the ability to study more subtle impacts of chemicals, particularly in the very young has improved, scientists began questioning if tolerances for chlorpyrifos should be reduced or eliminated because of its impacts on developing brains. “Growing cells are more vulnerable to toxins, and the brain forms over a longer period than do other organs,” wrote Bruce Lanphear, an epidemiologist at Simon Fraser University, in a 2015 paper published in the Annual Review of Public Health. Lanphear argued that to continue to regulate all chemicals as if they have a safe level no longer makes sense, particularly when it comes to protecting children from chemicals that impact brain development. We were taught that “low levels are of no consequence,” says Lanphear, “and we now know that’s not true.”

Chemicals that affect children’s brains, unlike those that injure organs like livers or hearts, affect not just our bodies but who we are, and early deficits are difficult to regain, unless there are serious interventions, says Cory-Slechta. Studies both in the laboratory and in children exposed in utero, suggested that the most recent restrictions on chlorpyrifos were not strict enough. One series of studies by Columbia University perinatal epidemiologist Virginia Rauh and her colleagues revealed an association between chlorpyrifos and intelligence and memorydeficits. The researchers used MRI imaging to find structural changes linked to exposure in the children’s brains. Some of those effects were found at concentrations below those causing acetylcholinesterase inhibition. These studies were just a few of those that convinced EPA regulators in 2015 that chlorpyrifos residues on fruits and vegetables could no longer be considered acceptable.

And then there was a national presidential election, and a new head administrator, Scott Pruitt, was appointed to the EPA. Bedeviled by scandal, Pruitt was forced to resign this summer, but not before postponing a decision on chlorpyrifos regulations until 2022, citing a return to “sound science,” emphasizing uncertainty and trading on doubt. Prior to the agency’s turn-around, former administrator Pruitt met with the CEO of Dow Chemical, which produces chlorpyrifos. Earlier in the year the company had donated $1 million dollars to President Trump’s inaugural activities and spent a total $13.6 million lobbying in 2016.

In May of this year, the state of Hawaii decided not to wait for the EPA, and banned chlorpyrifos. California also began taking another look. Then, this month in a case brought by the original petitioners along with a number of labor groups, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, citing the EPA’s failure to determine that exposures through food were safe and the agency’s “patent evasion” of it duties, ordered the agency to do its job and ban the pesticide.

Chemical regulation combines toxicology and other sciences with economics and politics. This is always a tricky process. But our health, and the health of the next generation, require an agency that is receptive to the best available science incorporating new insights into toxic chemicals and values health over profit. Toxicology has certainly advanced, but the federal body responsible for its application, the EPA, currently appears to be in retreat. Pruitt’s departure provides a modicum of hope, as do the federal courts — for now. But, should the agency continue to turn its back on its citizens — and its raison d’être — it will fall to the states, the courts and us, as concerned citizens, to step up.

This post was originally published at UnDark

Rebecca Bright, Associate Editor and Rights Manager at Island Press, shares a look into her work with international publishers.

Island Press works with publishers around the world to help our authors’ ideas reach a larger, global audience. Sales of international rights fulfill a worldwide need for resources about solutions to environmental issues like climate change, wildlife extinction, and pollution. Through this work, our books have been published in at least 25 languages, including Arabic, French, Japanese, Russian, and Spanish.

Just as we do, international publishers consider many factors when deciding whether to translate and publish a book, including the topic’s uniqueness and relevance to their readers, the author’s prominence in the country, the cost of translation and publication, and the potential for sales. Some countries are more likely to publish books about certain topics. For example, many of our urban design titles have made it into Chinese bookshelves given urbanization trends and a growing interest in sustainability. 

One unique element of international rights is the opportunity to speak with publishers about the book markets in their countries, what has been working for them, and what hasn’t. Each publisher has a unique perspective on our books and on the issues—and it’s fascinating to see how we all look at things differently, and similarly.

I feel honored to work with many committed international publishers to share these ideas in many languages. Below is a sampling of recent or notable Island Press books in translation.