law enforcement weapons that use toxic
chemicals (including toxins and bioregula-
tors) acting on other human physiologi-
cal processes would not be covered. The
International Committee of the Red Cross
has argued that the Decision should not be
interpreted as meaning that such weapons
are acceptable in law enforcement ( 10 ).
This Decision is a success to be celebrated.
However, the task now falls on the Chemical
Weapons Convention States to implement
it fully. States must clarify the range of toxic
chemicals covered by this Decision; identify
and verifiably destroy relevant CNS-agent
weapon stocks, munitions, and other deliv-
ery mechanisms; and close down research
and development of new CNS-acting weap-
ons. It is vital that the medical and scientific
communities continue their independent
oversight to ensure that countries take these
steps. Life and chemical sciences should
never be weaponized again.
Michael Crowley and Malcolm Dando
Section of Peace Studies and International
Development, University of Bradford, Bradford,
West Yorkshire BD7 1DP, UK.
Corresponding author.
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCES AND NOTES
- “Convention on the Development, Production,
Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons” (Organisation
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, 1993). - British Medical Association, “The use of drugs as weap-
ons” (2007); https://wellcomecollection.org/works/
axh7rs2q. - Spiez Laboratory, “Technical Workshop on Incapacitating
Chemical Agents” (Spiez, Switzerland, 2012). - “Brain Waves Module 3: Neuroscience, conflict and
security” (Royal Society, 2012). - M. Crowley, M. Dando, L. Shang, Eds., Preventing
Chemical Weapons: Arms Control and Disarmament
as the Sciences Converge (Royal Society of Chemistry,
London, 2018). - Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,
“Decision: Understanding regarding the aersolised use
of central nervous system-acting-chemicals for law
enforcement purposes” (CWC Conference of States
Parties, 26th Session, 2021). - CWC coalition, “26th Session of the Conference of the
States Parties (CSP-26)” (2021); http://www.cwccoalition.org/
csp26-summary/. - J. Riches, R. Read, R. Black, N. Cooper, C. Timperley,
J. Anal. Toxicol. 36 , 647 (2012). - M. Crowley, M. Dando, “Down the slippery slope? A study
of contemporary dual-use chemical and life science
research potentially applicable to incapacitating chemi-
cal agent weapons” (Bath University, 2014). - International Committee of the Red Cross,
“Statement by the ICRC, 26th Session of
the Conference of the States Parties (CSP-
26)” (2021); http://www.icrc.org/en/document/
prohibition-chemical-weapons-26th-conference.
10.1126/science.abn6132
Transboundary
conservation’s rise
In their Letter “Poland’s border wall
threatens ancient forest” (26 November
2021, p. 1063), B. Jaroszewicz et al.
discussed negative ecological impacts
of a border wall that Poland has started
to build for political reasons. As they
explain, border walls are bad for biodi-
versity ( 1 ), and yet wall constructions
are increasing globally ( 2 ). Although
we agree that borderlands are in
trouble, there is a positive sign: Global
transboundary conservation is also on
the rise.
Transboundary conservation is a top
priority for biodiversity conservation
( 3 ). Theoretical and empirical studies
have recently explored the effects of
political borders on genetic, behavioral,
species, and ecosystem changes ( 1 – 4 )
and proposed conservation planning for
border regions under climate and politi-
cal changes ( 5 , 6 ). In addition, systematic
biodiversity inventories have been com-
piled in borderlands that were previously
inaccessible to researchers. Thousands of
new species, often threatened, have been
discovered, helping to promote practical
transboundary conservation actions ( 3 ).
For example, to protect the Critically
Endangered Cao-vit gibbon (Nomascus
nasutus), governments of both Vietnam
and China established protected areas to
facilitate effective transboundary conser-
vation. As a result, the population size of
this species increased from between 102
and 110 in 2007 to between 122 and 134
in 2018 ( 7 ). Similarly, the establishment
of a 15,000 km^2 national park in the
China–Russia border region promoted
the recovery of Siberian tigers and Amur
leopards ( 8 ). Globally, the number of
transboundary protected areas has sub-
stantially increased ( 9 ).
Public concerns about the construc-
tion of walls, wildlife trafficking, armed
conflicts, and their associated impacts on
wildlife in borderlands could be influen-
tial in political decisions, to the benefit of
these ecosystems ( 10 ). Such public sup-
port has already motivated politicians in
some regions to implement influential
transboundary conservation programs.
For example, the Heart of Borneo initia-
tive, signed in 2007 by the governments
of Brunei, Indonesia, and Malaysia, has
facilitated transboundary cooperation to
protect 220,000 km² of tropical rainfor-
est ( 11 ). The Leticia Pact, signed in 2019
by seven South American Amazonian
countries, aims to collaboratively protect
the world’s largest rainforest ( 12 ). If more
transboundary conservation efforts are
made, the negative effects of international
borders on biodiversity could be avoided
or substantially reduced. We hope that
this conservation impetus will overcomerecent trends to fortify borders with linear,
uncrossable structures.
Jiajia Liu^1 *, Tiantian Zhang^1 ,^ Luke Gibson^2(^1) Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for
Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering,
Institute of Biodiversity Science, School of Life
Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai 200438,
China.^2 School of Environmental Science and
Engineering, Southern University of Science and
Technology, Shenzhen, China.
*Corresponding author.
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCES AND NOTES
- N. Fowler, T. Keitt, O. Schmidt, M. Terry, K. Trout, Front.
Ecol. Environ. 16 , 137 (2018). - J. D. C. Linnell et al., PLOS Biol. 14 , e1002483 (2016).
- J. Liu, D. L. Yong, C. Y. Choi, L. Gibson, Trends Ecol. Evol.
35 , 679 (2020). - A. Trouwborst, F. Fleurke, J. Dubrulle, Rev. Eur. Comp. Int.
Environ. Law. 25 , 291 (2016). - L. Wang et al., Conserv. Biol. 35 , 1797 (2021).
- M. A. Titley, S. H. M. Butchart, V. R. Jones, M. J.
Whittingham, S. G. Willis, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118 ,
e2011204118 (2021). - C. Ma et al., Oryx, 54 , 776 (2019).
- K. McLaughlin, Science 10.5555/article.2404560 (2016).
- I. Lysenko, C. Besançon, C. Savy, “2007 UNEP-WCMC
global list of transboundary protected areas”
(2007); http://www.sadc.int/files/6313/5852/1201/unep-
2007-global-list-of-transboundary-pas-en.pdf.pdf. - R. Peters et al., Bioscience 68 , 740 (2018).
- M. Lim, Asia Pacific J. Environ. Law 17 , 65 (2014).
- P. R. Prist et al., Science 366 , 699 (2019).
10.1126/science.abn5621
TECHNICAL COMMENT ABSTRACTS
Comment on “Evidence of humans in North
America during the Last Glacial Maximum”
David B. Madsen, Loren G. Davis, David Rhode,
Charles G. Oviatt
Bennett et al. (Reports, 24 September
2021, p. 1528) report human footprints
from Lake Otero, New Mexico, USA,
~22,000 years ago. Critical assessment
suggests that their radiocarbon chronology
may be inaccurate. Reservoir effects may
have caused radiocarbon ages to appear
thousands of years too old. Independent
verification of the ages of the footprint hori-
zons is imperative and is possible through
other means.
Full text: dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.abm4678Response to Comment on “Evidence of humans in
North America during the Last Glacial Maximum”
Jeffrey S. Pigati, Kathleen B. Springer, Matthew R.
Bennett, David Bustos, Thomas M. Urban, Vance T.
Holliday, Sally C. Reynolds, Daniel Odess
Madsen et al. question the reliability
of calibrated radiocarbon ages associ-
ated with human footprints discovered
recently in White Sands National Park, New
Mexico, USA. On the basis of the geologic,
hydrologic, stratigraphic, and chronologic
evidence, we maintain that the ages are
robust and conclude that the footprints date
to between ~23,000 and 21,000 years ago.
Full text: dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.abm6987154 14 JANUARY 2022 • VOL 375 ISSUE 6577 science.org SCIENCEINSIGHTS | LETTERS