DIREITO COLETIVO DO TRABALHO

Pipsyys, pipsy, koko on suunnittuja, että joku on joku. osaamista. Voimme hallinnoida yrityksen taustajarristelmia ja front-endia sekä - myydä verkossa vaivatta, jos Shopify olisi pyöräilyvaruste, - sollisimielestäni itse polkupyörä. Sillä asiat hoidetaan ja meidän liiketoiminta - me hoituu Shopify'ssa. Aloita ilmainen kokeilu, Shopify - piste commsivustolla. Sä oon toivottavasti jälkeen, ja se on niin makaalista, että se on minkäko, - että se on tehty. Rolan piste kokeilu, olisiin tehtyä kokeilu, mutta se on kokeilu, - mutta se on jo hyvä, että se on yhden väärä. Joten se on erittäin kokeilu, että se on todella sinne kokeilu. Ja se on se, että se on todella, että se on se, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, se on todella kokeilu. Ja se on todella, että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu. Ja se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - mutta se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - Ja se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - mutta se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - ja se on todella kokeilu, ja se on todella kokeilu, - mutta se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - ja se on todella kokeilu, - ja se on todella kokeilu, - ja se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - Keralain, se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - että se on todella kokeilu, että se on todella kokeilu, - Dr Gregory Kaibnick, co-editor of the Hasting Center Report, which is an academic journal on bioethics, convened a meeting to consider. This week, a flesh-eating parasite called the SCRU worm has returned to the US. It was originally kicked out in this epic of veterinary public health where, starting in the 60s, it was pushed back due to a mass release of sterile worms that were used to eliminate it. It pushed it down to the Daringapin Panema, but now it's back. And it returns up to time when genetic technology suggests that something more effective could control it instead. And it leads to the question, do we ever have the right to eliminate a species? And if so, can we? Greg explained to us why of all the animals in the world if Zenui might consider worthy of extinction, it's the SCRU worm. The candidate is something called New World SCRU worm, which is a very unusual fly because it feasts, in its larval form, on living flesh. And then the eggs hatched. The larvae burrow in. They have little ridges that give them the appearance of a SCRU. So they're sometimes described as SCRUING in, but they burrow in with their mouths on the inside, eating away. And then that attracts more flies, the wound enlarges. They keep eating. It becomes a great, festering thing. Eventually, it's infected, becomes bacterially infected. And most of the time, without treatment, the host will die, typically of sepsis. And it affects mostly, it affects all warm, bladed animals. There are some ghastly stories about it. It can infect people, hence the Latin name, Cochely Omae, Hominivorax, the last part, meaning Manator. The reason why you were able to consider the prospect of making this extinct is because of a new sort of technology. Talk to us about this theory. Yeah, well, so I mean, the thing that really got us going is the possibility of using a gene drive. A gene drive is a strategy for making changes not to a single individual, but to a population and then principle, maybe a whole species. So normally, I have a 50% chance of passing my genes onto my offspring, but a gene drive, that's something where you genetically modify an organism. So it's almost 100% guaranteed to pass the genes of whatever trait I want on. That's exactly right. Essentially through an entire population, maybe through the whole species. And presumably with screw, you're not thinking of sending something nice through the whole population. No, in this case, it's not something that causes agony to the screw around, but it does prevent the female larvae from developing unless they are exposed to an antibiotic. You might be able, in principle, to really, as they're all, to leave few individuals and cause a massive crash in the population. You talk about concern of gene modification. This is some way in which a gene drive could escape. You could horizontal transfer to other flies or something like that. That is something, yes. Yes, that is something that needs to be thought about in each case in which a gene drive might be contemplated for a release into the world. You've got to look at that kind of thing. And so, okay, so now we come to your meeting where you're discussing what this means. Who did you invite and what were the agendas? We had sort of deliberately skewed it, skewed the membership of the group in favor of people who would be pretty skeptical, like myself. Even though I may sound, I actually find myself feeling that there's species of an intrinsic value and we really opt to be finding generally ways of keeping them with us, keeping them in the wild. But we have this technology that, in principle, could be used destructively. And we wanted to consider whether there would be any cases in which maybe that kind of argument could be made. So, then we talked to some of these cases, New World Screwarm, top among them and had conversation. So, with the screw, let's leave aside, I guess there's a fundamental philosophical argument, which is simply that a species has a naked value and for that reason alone, you should leave it be. Leaving that aside, are there other practical arguments that you consider? Well, the other real worry about eliminating a species is that you'd be causing some sort of environmental harm somewhere down the line. You don't know fully for sure what it's doing in the wild and you might end up making some kind of mistake. There'd be some sort of unintended consequences. But, is there anything that eats it? Is there anything that it eats that you disturb the balance by getting rid of it? It's probably eaten sometimes. The adult form of the screwarm is just a fly, looks like a largest, red-eyed house fly – it's probably eaten by birds and frogs and what have you. But there are many, many, many, many, many flies, many, many things, without the birds eating a lot. Probably not important, ecologically, to keep it in the mix. The things that is praying on in South America are already under pressure from various other things. The populations are already somewhat suppressed from habitat change and human hunting and what have you. So alleviating the pressure just a little bit by taking this predator out of the mix is probably a good thing for those populations, those other wild animals. You're not presenting to me terribly many counter-arguments. Or do you conclude? We, at the end of the meeting, somewhat to my surprise, I realized that we had possibly the seeds of a consensus. And the thing that was really persuasive to us, in this case, is the animal suffering. It's really ghastly. And these are animals that are the livestock, are animals that are under our care and we probably we owe some special duty to take care of them to ensure that they are okay while they're alive. So last question, do you think this is something you'll see done? There's no movement that I've seen right now to do anything more than try to reestablish the fence at the Darian gap. So I haven't yet seen that there has been a great movement to take up our recommendation to think about full eradication of it. But I think one of the lessons of this fresh outbreak is that sterile insect technique is probably not really an effective permanent solution. It's also a super expensive thing. And I think it's conceivable that somewhere along the way, the more research will be done and we'll end up trying this. But there's so much concern about gene modification and we have to do a little bit of thinking before we get there. And I'm fine with that. That's all that we're calling for really is more thinking. That was Dr. Gregory Kaepernick. You're listening to Inside Science from the BBC World Service. Tell us what science you think we should be investigating. Our email address is inside [email protected]. [Music] Now over to Roland Pies, who, as promised, has been finding out about these hidden networks of life beneath our feet. Over to Roland. I'm talking about the invisible networks of thread-like, high-feet of fungi that make up a vital living part of soil worldwide. Ecologists regard the fungi so important that there's a society for the protection of underground networks who've coordinated a global survey to quantify their reach. Co-founder Toby Kieres told me why they care about these small things. These high-feet are smaller than the hairs on our head. So they're about five microns across and they're open tubes and that's what's really interesting is that in the lab we can actually see the nutrients flowing through them. Now this is a partnership with plants and so plants are photosynthesizing. They're taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and they're feeding carbon into these are buscular micro-risal networks. But they're not doing it for free. In return, the fungi are out foraging for phosphorus and nitrogen and water that they return to the plant root. The point is that these high-feet networks, they penetrate deep into the soil and they're sort of gathering stuff from all over the place. Exactly. They're the connection between plant roots and the deep soil. And the way I think that you've done in this study is you've worked out if you sort of were to put a ruler along every little bit of high-feet in the soil, how long that ought to be across the whole plant. exactly we were mapping the circulatory system this underground circulatory system and so if you were to stretch these are buscular migraizle hyphae and to end it would reach about 110 quadrillion kilometers and that's just in the top 15 centimeters of earth soils I mean that's enormous so it's 200 or something kilometers to the sun exactly so this distance is about one billion times the distance from the earth to the sun I mean so you just is really underlie the importance or the significance of this hidden sort of life support system yeah exactly like just as these circulatory systems in our own bodies move around resources these microscopic fungal pipes they're the ones connecting plants to soil and really forming this living infrastructure of terrestrial life how much is it way if you add it all up it weighs about 300 megatons of carbon so to give you a sense that's between four and six times the total biomass of all humans alive on earth so it's a lot more than humans but sort of quite small I suspect compared to I don't know I think plant life is the major biomass on the planet exactly so it's small but important it's it's light but important and I think here really what we're trying to explain to people is just the extent and the density of this network across the earth so again you have to remember it's a microbe it's very small it's invisible to the naked eye but what it does is it's moving down carbon into the soil so these micro-isle networks just this one type of our muscular micro-isle networks moves about four billion tons of CO2 into soils each year so that's equivalent to roughly 11% of all human related carbon dioxide emissions that's incredible that's so it's a sump that's as you say it's being fed by the plants then so the plants are sort of pumping sugars down into these fungi which is part of the sort of the trade that they're doing and then the fungi sort of just store it in the soil yes so the plants are pumping down this carbon and the fungi use that carbon to build their bodies and go and collect phosphorus and nitrogen and even water and transport that in the opposite direction up these open pipe tubes to the root system of of 70% of all plant species on earth how does this vary across you know different ecosystems we found that these networks were densest across grasslands and that actually the earth's grasslands hold about 40 percent of this our muscular micro-isle biomass but what really surprised us is the density of these networks also in desert and dry land ecosystems we've been working in the goby desert in Mongolia for a few years now and collecting very what we call endemic species of these migraisal fungi that are found nowhere else on earth so basically these are fungi that have evolved very special capabilities to move water in really dry systems what about agriculture where we're playing up the fields our muscular micro-isle fungi are very important in agriculture because many of our crop plants depend on these fungal associations however we found that these high-fled densities were on average about 50% lower in crop lands so yes these agriculture was associated with a decreased density of these networks but our paper wasn't able to tell us specifically what farming practices led to that decrease and so more work really needs to go to understand what it is about agricultural practices that decreases the density we have some ideas from past literature for example we know that fungicide is very dangerous to fungi by design and so fungicide having really high chemical inputs like high fertilizers phosphorus and nitrogen if you add a lot of chemical fertilizers then plants stop feeding carbon to their migraisal partners and they start to disappear a tillage can also be quite hard on them but in other cases agriculture can be quite good for these fungi so it really depends on the specific farming practices I mean it's trying to say it but it feels to me like these are like so many uncharismatic species that things are so dull almost that we don't appreciate how wonderful they actually are it's so funny to hear you say that I think they're the most charismatic species on earth when you see them in the lab they're absolutely beautiful again they're these open pipes of nutrients flowing through them and we've developed ways with scientists at physics institutes at the M-Off Biophysics Institute that allows us to tag the carbon inside these networks so it floresces in bright colors and we can watch it flowing through the network it's some of the most beautiful science I've ever seen Toby Kiers of the Amsterdam Institute for Life and Environment who won the Tyler Price equivalent to an environmental Nobel this year. Thanks Roland now Caroline as mentioned at the beginning you've been looking through the weeks other science news what have you found? News about the asteroid that wiped out dinosaurs so pretty monumental event right 66 million years ago an asteroid collide with with earth wiped out three quarters of species what I think is less well known is it also deformed the rock underneath this impact up to 35 kilometers down so rock melted it combined with sea water from the Gulf of Mexico and it basically created this kind of porous material with pockets of hot water so an incredibly important hydrothermal system. Still pockets of hot water not I mean obviously the water had been pretty hot at the time but this is the still. The the rock is porous so it can kind of move through it now this is where the new research comes in so published in Nature Communications Earth and Environment this week scientists have found that this hydrothermal system took eight million years to cool down and basically the way they've worked this out is they drilled a kilometer into the crater and took a huge rock core and had a look at minerals formed during this time and they're able to date those minerals and they found that some of them are 66 million years old so formed when the collision happened basically whereas others are as young as 58 million years old meaning this system existed for eight million years. So it would have been driving evolution in the sort of the environment for all of that time. For a huge amount of time yeah and it kind of completely changes the way we think about hydrothermal systems that form after impact craters so we might need to sort of rethink early life on earth because there are a lot of impacts in earth's young history and so you know these hydrothermal systems may have played a bigger role than we thought in terms of kind of nurturing and evolving life and also when we're looking for life on other planets this could help us sort of narrow and better understand our search you know we might have a better understanding of which craters could sustain and help life evolve. So this is the energy from the collision in a sense sort of persisting and still doing stuff for this period we think that it's a single cataclysmic change but but actually it was nothing of a sort. Eight million years of yeah of difference and also I quite like the fact that although this collision was in some ways devastating wiped out three quarters of species it also will have been great for microbes so like a small win I guess. Well okay that hasn't uplifted us but that's okay because it's science and we need to know about the world. You've been listening to BBC Insights Science with me Tom Whipple. It is goodbye from me and goodbye from Caroline. Goodbye. It only remains to me to say that Gowdy was good at architecture, less good at animal husbandry. If you do have a donkey there are very few circumstances in which the BBC endorses chloroforming it and hauling it up on a crane. The BBC optimised and the BBC has been developing to build it. And so it is still a bit of a BBC history.