Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:39:05.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Editorial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

Matt Frost*
Affiliation:
Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, The Laboratory, Citadel Hill, PlymouthPL1 2PB, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Matt Frost, E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Editorial
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2020

The investigation and reporting of impacts of tributyltin (TBT) on the marine environment leading to the implementation of national and global regulation to mitigate those impacts is often used as a prime example of successful science–policy interaction (Matthiessen, Reference Matthiessen2013). The Marine Biological Association (MBA) is understandably proud of the role it played in this story with important and influential research being carried out at the MBA's Laboratory in Plymouth and with key research on TBT and other contaminants being published in the Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom (Dando & Southward, Reference Dando and Southward2020).

Tributyltin is just one of a number of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs), as discussed in this issue in the review by Langston (Reference Langston2020). The role of EDCs as a contaminant has a high profile from a marine management point of view, being among the list of pollutants with targets for prevention and reduction under the EU's Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and also under the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals (specifically under target 14.1, SDG 14). TBT is the best known but not the only contaminant where there has been success in terms of regulation with, for example, the recent (2018) UK assessment of progress towards Good Environmental Status (GES) targets in its North Sea and Celtic Sea Regions showing stable or improving trends for the majority of the assessed contaminant concentrations. The issue of contaminants regulation also provides a useful example of how marine biological research can be used to support a classic DPSIR framework approach (Driver-Pressure-State-Impacts-Response; see Patrício et al., Reference Patrício, Elliott, Mazik, Papadopoulou and Smith2016). Evidence from fundamental marine biological investigations is used to elucidate the ‘impacts’ and ongoing monitoring is used to monitor the ‘state’ of the environment or a component thereof with all information being used by regulators to manage the drivers and pressures through the appropriate response. The excellent research undertaken on species responses, in particular, also allows the development of appropriate indicators of state in areas of the coastal zone where most of the pressures occur.

Langston (Reference Langston2020) provides a comprehensive review of EDCs and similar contaminants, particularly with regard to impacts on marine invertebrates. It would appear therefore that with an extensive body of research carried out and evidence of improvements in the marine ecosystem, the pathway from scientific research to the development of appropriate regulatory frameworks and legislation is well-established and working well. As all scientists know, however, it is rarely that straightforward and if the ambitious targets under the MSFD and UN SDGs are to be met, then there is still much to be done. For a start there are ongoing challenges in terms of new chemicals and substances appearing (Zacharias & Ardron, Reference Zacharias and Ardron2019: 127) and these will require additional monitoring and investigation. Langston (Reference Langston2020) also highlights a number of knowledge gaps where further research is required including: additive/interactive effects of EDCs; cumulative impacts of multiple stressors; better understanding of the mechanisms leading to deleterious effects, particularly at the population level; the need for ongoing monitoring to better understand recovery; and the fact that more work is required specifically on marine invertebrates.

These gaps have not prevented appropriate measures being in put in place, however, which is an important point in light of recent trends towards governments requiring more and more evidence before taking action, with the issue of knowledge gaps sometimes being used as an excuse to delay providing an appropriate response. On a range of issues from climate change impacts to overfishing and Marine Protected Areas, the requirement for more research has sometimes been used as a reason to put measures on hold despite a significant body of research already in existence. The issue of EDCs shows us that there will always be knowledge gaps and there will always be new challenges but by acting on what we know now we can begin to move towards a more sustainable use of our seas and oceans.

References

Dando, PR and Southward, EC (2020) The history of the Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom and the influence of the publication on marine research. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 100, 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langston, B (2020) Endocrine disruption and altered sexual development in aquatic organisms: an invertebrate perspective. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315420000533.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, P (2013) Detection, monitoring, and control of tributyltin – an almost complete success story. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 32, 487489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patrício, J, Elliott, M, Mazik, K, Papadopoulou, K and Smith, CJ (2016) DPSIR – two decades of trying to develop a unifying framework for marine environmental management? Frontiers in Marine Science 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zacharias, M and Ardron, J (2019) Marine Policy: An Introduction to Governance and International Law of the Oceans. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar