Amid the global plastic pollution crisis, a growing number of governments and nongovernmental actors are proposing a new global treaty. In February 2021, at the fifth meeting of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA)—the world's highest-level decision-making body on the environment—many governments spoke in favor of an international agreement to combat plastic pollution. In the past, the international community tended to view the plastics problem from a predominantly ocean-focused and waste-centered perspective. However, plastics are increasingly found in all environmental media, including terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere, as well as human matrices, including lungs and placenta. We therefore argue for a new international legally binding agreement that addresses the entire life cycle of plastics, from extraction of raw materials to legacy plastic pollution. Only by taking this approach can efforts match the magnitude and transboundary nature of this escalating problem and its social, environmental, and economic impacts. Targeting the full life cycle of plastics allows for a more equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of relevant actions across the global value chain. Civil society organizations focusing on biodiversity conservation, health, climate change, and human rights have for years called for a binding global plastics agreement. In 2017, UNEA established the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Expert Group on Marine Litter and Microplastics, a group of international experts who have discussed options to address plastic pollution at a global level, on the basis that maintaining the status quo was not an option ([ 1 ][1]). Support for a legally binding global agreement now comes from at least 79 governments, who endorse the Oceans Day Plastic Pollution Declaration from 1 June 2021. Many civil society organizations, as well as a large coalition of major companies, have for years favored a UN treaty on plastic pollution ([ 2 ][2]). In May 2021, Peru and Rwanda announced they would table a resolution at the upcoming UNEA meeting in February 2022 to establish an intergovernmental negotiating committee to begin developing such an agreement. The start of negotiations is overdue. In 2019, 368 million metric tons of newly made (or “virgin”) plastics were produced. Current solutions will not match the expected growth in plastics production and waste generation, even if massively scaled ([ 3 ][3]). In addition, the further increase in virgin plastics production could, by 2050, consume 10 to 13% of the remaining global carbon budget permissible to keep global warming below a 1.5°C increase from preindustrial levels ([ 4 ][4]). Plastic pollution poses a considerable, even though not yet fully understood, threat to the environment, species, and habitats, as well as to cultural heritage. Its social impacts include harm to human health, in particular among vulnerable communities, and it comes with substantial economic costs affecting especially regions depending on tourism ([ 5 ][5]). Addressing these challenges requires a transformative approach that facilitates measures to reduce production of virgin plastic materials and includes equitable steps toward a safe and circular economy for plastics. #### Safe circularity principles The following principles provide guidance for developing criteria for the circularity of plastics: ##### Durability Single-use plastics for which safe and environmentally sound alternatives exist are eliminated; and product design accommodates for safe reusability, repairability, and refillability ##### Recyclability Recycling enables cost-effective material recovery with minimum energy loss and multiple recycling rounds without downcycling; and minimum threshold for recycled content agreed ##### Safety Use of substances of concern eliminated; and use of primary microplastics eliminated and secondary releases minimized ##### Transparency Labelling schemes guide informed choices; definitions are agreed including for “bioplastics” and “biodegradable plastics”; and information is available on the chemical content of products A binding treaty must be ambitious to eliminate the impacts of current amounts of plastic pollution and mitigate impacts of the projected increase in production in a business-as-usual scenario ([ 6 ][6]). An agreement should pursue a vision of zero plastic pollution and no harm to humans and the environment throughout the full life cycle of plastics. To realize this vision, negotiations will need to address the regulatory scope and architecture of the agreement, how it will complement and fill gaps in existing global and regional frameworks, and how the plastics value chain should be transformed, particularly in the “upstream” design and production phases. It is essential to involve all relevant stakeholders in negotiations and get them engaged in implementation efforts, from governments through producers and manufacturers, academia, civil society organizations and consumers, to the informal sector, including waste pickers. Based on a review of 20 global and 34 regional binding and voluntary instruments, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) concluded that the existing fragmented governance landscape is inadequate for addressing marine plastic pollution ([ 1 ][1]). Two major gaps underscore the need for a global agreement. First, there is a lack of a comprehensive global governance arrangement that addresses all sources of plastic pollution, in particular land-based. Most existing agreements are restricted to marine litter, especially sea-based sources, even though the majority of sources are located on land. For example, the London Convention and Protocol and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex V prohibits the discharge of garbage from ships into the sea. In addition, a range of nonbinding declarations and action plans aim at reducing marine plastic pollution, e.g., Sustainable Development Goal target 14.1. Regional seas conventions and action plans, regional fisheries management organizations, and other regional instruments focus on coordinated strategies to combat marine litter at sea-basin scale ([ 11 ][7]). Marine litter is also the focus of several UNEA resolutions as well as G7 and G20 Action Plans. Second, there is no global governance arrangement that addresses the entire life cycle of plastics. Many arrangements cover the waste phase but are weak on the design, production, and use phases ([ 1 ][1]). The gap in addressing the design and production phase is problematic because only 21% of all plastics currently produced are theoretically recyclable, and a mere 15% are actually recycled in practice ([ 8 ][8]). The international trade of plastic waste is regulated under the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, which enjoys near-universal participation. Only clean, sorted plastic waste effectively destined for recycling can be freely traded, whereas mixed, contaminated, or hazardous plastic waste requires the prior informed consent of the importing country. Only the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants regulates the production phase of plastics, but this includes a limited set of prohibited chemicals that may no longer be used as additives. Most additives are therefore not addressed comprehensively under any international agreement, even though more than 1500 have been identified as chemicals of concern in plastics ([ 9 ][9]). Likewise, microplastics are addressed through a patchwork of national and regional initiatives instead of global regulations ([ 10 ][10], [ 11 ][7]). These gaps underscore the need for a legally binding global governance arrangement that would effectively and measurably limit and control plastic pollution ([ 1 ][1], [ 2 ][2], [ 12 ][11]). The governance failure manifests in various ways, entrenching the entire life cycle of plastics. It starts with the increasing production of virgin nonrenewable materials, and the manufacture of plastic products that are not designed for safe reusability and recyclability and which may be chemically contaminated. At the point of purchase, retailers and consumers are not informed about a product's chemical content and are faced with inconsistent and vague labeling (e.g., compostable, biodegradable, recyclable), leading to suboptimal end-of-life treatments. During use, the release of additives of concern and microplastics may negatively affect the health of consumers ([ 9 ][9]). And the most visible outcome is the rapidly increasing amount of macro- and microplastic waste in the environment. An international agreement that addresses these governance gaps and effectively combats pollution throughout the plastics life cycle and facilitates a sustainability-focused transformation needs to include three core goals (see the figure). ### Goal 1: Minimize virgin plastics production and consumption Controlling and minimizing plastic pollution first and foremost requires agreement on a progressively decreasing global production allowance for virgin plastics. Transformative scenarios that outline how plastic pollution can be prevented point toward the need to reduce virgin plastics production as a major contribution ([ 6 ][6], [ 8 ][8]). This goal is modeled after the Montreal Protocol, which sets a maximum level for production of ozone-depleting substances and progressively reduces volumes to safe levels ([ 7 ][12]). Similarly, the Paris Agreement sets a measurable goal for limiting the increase in the global average temperature, which can only be achieved by rapidly reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The former caps production by targeting inputs and the latter by focusing on outcomes. A cap is a powerful instrument that can be tailored to a specific challenge to incentivize action to reduce production and consumption and to find and use more benign alternatives. However, determining the volumes at which production and consumption should be capped will require robust knowledge of current and safe levels of pollution, environmentally sound and cost-effective alternative materials and processes, and a comprehensive tracking system of all materials, processes, and effectiveness of parallel measures undertaken. An agreed goal to reduce production and consumption of virgin plastic materials would send the clearest signal from governments to producers, consumers, and others along the plastics value chain. It is the key measure needed to reverse worsening trends. It would signal that manufacturers need to enhance their efforts toward sustainability of plastics considerably, that they will need to produce less of it, and that innovation and safety improvements offer substantial new market opportunities. The goal would also prevent GHG emissions by discouraging further investments in expanding plastics production capacities. Given the urgency of the climate crisis and the need to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the production and consumption targets should be aligned accordingly: By 2040, the use of virgin plastics should be largely phased out, and most plastic products should be made from recycled content to the extent possible. Exemptions should only be granted for materials like medical supplies for which no safe and nonplastic alternatives exist. The goal could be reached through a “start and strengthen” approach, first targeting the most problematic types of plastic that are difficult or impossible to recycle and for which alternatives can be easily applied. The agreement will need measures for phasing out or ultimately banning products using plastics (virgin or recycled) unnecessarily—i.e., when safe, affordable, and environmentally benign alternatives exist—and foster the development and use of such alternatives. There are many existing national and regional policy approaches on which to build and expand ([ 10 ][10]). With the Single Use Plastics Directive, the European Union (EU) follows the example of other states, including African and Small Island Developing States, and bans a range of throwaway products. A global plastics agreement should establish international norms to scale up such bans and other appropriate regulations. Demand for virgin plastics can be further reduced by setting a complementary progressively increasing consumption target for use of recycled content in products, which leads to the second core goal. ### Goal 2: Facilitate safe circularity of plastics A circularity goal for plastics will incentivize design for recycling, improve recycling rates, and foster the use of recycled content. Safe circularity can be achieved through elimination of hazardous substances. Reuse and refill systems, as well as alternative low-to-no waste delivery systems, also eliminate substantial volumes of plastic pollution and should be prioritized ahead of recycling. Measures to achieve these goals will help transform the value chain of plastics, bring competitive advantages to producers and retailers, create jobs, and provide health benefits to consumers and ecosystems. The agreement must establish binding technical standards for the design and recyclability of plastics. Hazardous additives, such as phthalates and bisphenols, must be phased out to ensure human safety and minimize impacts on wildlife populations ([ 9 ][9]). Chemical controls required by the agreement should include rules to share information on any potentially harmful additives along the value chain. Circularity will require a fundamental transformation of the plastics value chain, and though incurring costs, it could benefit all actors in the long term ([ 13 ][13]). In the upstream phases, the agreement must ensure a level playing field for producers and manufacturers through harmonized rules for product safety and sustainability, thus preventing companies from adhering to different standards. In the midstream phases, the agreement should set requirements and a legal basis for information sharing, establishing labeling and certification schemes and detailing harmonized definitions. This will enhance transparency on product contents and sustainability, and it will enable retailers and consumers to make informed choices that will help drive markets toward safe and sustainable products. It will also empower consumer organizations to sue producers and retailers that do not adhere to the strict sustainability and transparency standards. The general population will also benefit from increased product durability (including reuse, repair, and refill) and safety (less substances of concern in products). In the downstream phases, technical standards on plastic waste enshrined in the agreement will lead to benefits for recyclers, particularly low-income workers, from better-quality and higher residual value, leading to increased investment and job opportunities and improved livelihoods, especially for the informal sector. The legal basis for protecting the rights of the informal sector can be set in the agreement. Once hazardous chemicals are removed from the plastics life cycle, there are potentially substantial economic gains for the recycling industry ([ 2 ][2], [ 8 ][8], [ 13 ][13]). Furthermore, the population will be able to enjoy health benefits, including through reduced disposal of plastic waste in suboptimal conditions such as incineration, particularly open burning. To reach the goal, the agreement must define global criteria for the circularity of plastic products placed on global and domestic markets (see the box ). Such harmonized criteria will assist countries in adopting necessary regulatory, voluntary, and market-based measures ([ 12 ][11]). Extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes should be one of the mechanisms shifting the financial and physical burden of waste management to plastics producers and incentivizing design for circularity from the onset. Examples for circularity goals include the EU's strategy for plastics in a circular economy, which aims at all plastics packaging used in the EU to become reusable or recyclable in an economically viable way by 2030. The goal of facilitating circularity is closely linked with the global net reduction in consumption of both virgin polymers and chemical additives as per Goal 1. Currently there is a glaring gap between waste management capacities and waste production in many developing countries, but also in developed countries with regards to recycling capacity. Slowing the growth rate of plastic waste, and ultimately reducing total waste, reduces the need to scale waste management to meet the current growing demand. This is a key benefit of fostering transformation of production and consumption patterns, stimulating innovation toward “design for circularity,” and promoting systems for reuse, refill, repair, and recycling. ### Goal 3: Eliminate plastic pollution in the environment This goal aims to safely remove and sustainably dispose of plastics accumulated on land, on waterways, and in oceans. It also aims at preventing those plastics currently in use from ending up in the environment because of their low value at the end of life. Regarding the latter, the agreement should set strict pollution prevention targets, to be implemented at the national and subnational level, and based on analyses of plastic flows. This goal is designed to complement and scale up instruments already used at the national and regional level. Especially for developing countries, the lack of waste management services will require particular attention. Funding through the plastics agreement should be made available to establish and enhance the use of market-based instruments, including EPR schemes, to subsidize waste management and cleanup. For instance, the EU Single Use Plastics Directive applies EPR schemes to tobacco filters and fishing gear to cover the cost of cleaning up litter. Engaging in large-scale cleanup measures is a costly undertaking even if an effective agreement leads to reduced amounts of plastic waste entering the environment. For many nations and cities, it is advantageous to clean up polluted sites, because clogged waterways, drains, and sewers increase the risk of flooding and the spread of diseases. This will also redress reduced tourism revenues from polluted destinations. However, in other areas, there will only be limited economic incentives to clean up. For these areas, additional support measures are required. Such measures could include a fund dedicated to cleanup, requiring contributions from producers, which could fund citizen science audit and cleanup campaigns and repatriate plastics back to producer countries for responsible management. To effectively implement the agreement and follow up on its goals, concrete obligations, support measures, institutional arrangements, and mechanisms for strengthening nonstate action and for coordination with existing treaties need to be developed ([ 12 ][11]). ### Implementing and tracking progress A set of binding procedural obligations will help ensure that parties implement and stay on track with the agreement's goals. Countries will still need flexibility in the national pathways; hence, the agreement should include an obligation to develop and implement regularly updated national plastic pollution prevention plans (N4Ps). These must describe how countries endeavor to meet the core goals, based on national circumstances and capacities, and measures. They should contain ambitious and measurable national targets in line with the core goals. The plans must include all relevant measures to be taken by national and subnational governmental actors. They should be well-integrated into existing policies, legislation, and strategies and build on regionally coordinated plans or strategies, where in place. To ensure that the plans help meet the goals, common criteria should be defined for the contents of the plans, such as the setting of targets, determining baselines for various indicators, implementation time frames, and monitoring methodologies used. Moreover, following the model of the Paris Agreement, the agreement should ensure that N4Ps are progressive, reflecting increasing levels of ambition over time. The plans should also address previously identified main sources of leakage. For this, the preparation of national inventories on the production, consumption, trade, and end-of-life treatment is needed to assess leakage points across the value chain and to enable targeted interventions ([ 1 ][1]). These inventories can also be used for identifying hotspots of accumulation and assessing types of plastics and volumes found there, which can help determine the most cost-effective action. Another procedural obligation concerns regular reporting by parties on implementation and performance in achieving the core goals. Building on experiences in other agreements, reporting should use a format that requires quantitative and qualitative data that are considered meaningful. A secretariat to the convention will need to be established, which should support reporting ([ 12 ][11]). To ensure that the information provided by governments is comprehensive and to inform future policy-making, a transparent review mechanism for national reports should be included. In addition, countries would need to monitor the presence of plastic pollution in the environment to ensure that the three goals are delivering their intended impacts using harmonized methodologies that are practical, scalable, economically viable, and ecologically representative. Monitoring and assessment should address gaps and create synergies with existing programs at the local, national, and regional level ([ 11 ][7]). ![Figure][14] Core goals of a plastics agreementGRAPHIC: H. BISHOP/ SCIENCE The preparation of a transparent and participatory iterative global review is needed to regularly inform parties of the effectiveness of the agreement. This could be achieved by aggregating data gathered through reporting on performance and monitoring impacts. Lastly, the agreement will also need a transparent compliance mechanism that allows parties to foster mutual implementation of its provisions and create a level playing field. At a minimum, it should help deal with cases of persistent noncompliance, as well as instances in which parties do not comply with their core procedural obligations of submitting regular N4Ps and reporting. More ambitiously, the agreement could explicitly state countries' right to prohibit imports of plastic products from noncompliant parties, because these pose an unacceptable social, environmental, and economic risk. ### Supporting mechanisms Supporting mechanisms are needed to give greater effect to other measures. Funding from both domestic budgets and private sources, coupled with international support, is needed to fund the necessary legislation, infrastructure, technology and capacity building. To have an impact, the agreement must include mechanisms to support developing countries in the implementation of measures committed to under the agreement, including for enabling activities, such as reporting and the development of N4Ps. This could include a dedicated funding mechanism, which could be managed by an existing body such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF), or be a new fund. Entrusting the GEF would help to avoid proliferation of funding mechanisms and allow for synergies with the Facility's other focal areas, including chemicals and waste and climate change. The problem with the GEF is that it relies on voluntary contributions. The advantage of establishing a new fund is that it could be based on mandatory contributions using the UN scale of assessment that intends to accommodate a country's “capacity to pay,” resembling the Multilateral Fund for the Montreal Protocol. Additional voluntary funds could be established, inviting major producers of plastics and plastic products to contribute. Furthermore, a clearing-house mechanism could channel knowledge about existing funds and programs and assist developing countries in accessing them. Funds should be allocated to spur the use of market-based instruments, helping countries to internalize externalities of plastic pollution. Raising funds from plastics producers would align with the “polluter pays” principle and resemble a liability mechanism ([ 14 ][15]). It is important that the agreement ensures equity by helping countries to place the burden on the industry responsible for plastic pollution rather than the consumer. This can be achieved by encouraging the use of market-based instruments that target upstream measures, such as a levy on domestically produced virgin plastics, both generating funds and disincentivizing the excessive use of plastics. Ideally, these are earmarked levies channeled to fulfill the obligations of the agreement including by supporting research, development, and use of benign alternatives. At the national level, a plastics authority should be designated to ensure the implementation of the agreement. The authority would be responsible for translating the internationally agreed sustainability criteria to the national context. ### An evolving and inclusive framework Not all relevant aspects can be addressed in detail in the agreement itself. A framework for further action will be needed, as well as institutional arrangements to redevelop rules and implementation arrangements. This includes a governing body to convene the contracting parties to adopt decisions, annexes, and protocols where necessary, including technical standards and guidelines on design and production, reuse, recycling, disposal, and retrieval. In addition, subsidiary bodies would be established for areas where scientific and technical support is needed, including defining criteria for the safe circularity of plastics and developing and facilitating use of harmonized methodologies for data collection. A science-policy interface should support the transfer of knowledge between expert communities and policy-makers ([ 15 ][16]). Lastly, as the agreement is situated in a complex governance landscape, mechanisms would be needed to engage a wide array of societal actors and institutions. Specifically, a stakeholder engagement mechanism to facilitate nonstate and subnational action must support the agreement. This mechanism should include a global commitment platform where nonstate and subnational actors could announce voluntary commitments to be tracked and displayed online, and facilitate the organization of global and regional high-level events, technical dialogues, and other activities. These would allow learning from best-practice examples as well as from failures and to identify opportunities for upscaling ambition and action. A particular challenge will be to include the informal sector in the development and implementation of the agreement—for example, waste pickers as a major component of waste management systems in developing countries. In addition, the agreement would need a coordination mechanism for enhancing cooperation and synergies with existing other multilateral environmental agreements and relevant frameworks. The decision to launch an intergovernmental negotiating committee lies with the UNEA. The next decision-making meeting (UNEA 5.2) is scheduled for February 2022. A preparatory Ministerial Conference is scheduled for 1 to 2 September 2021 on invitation by Germany, Ghana, Ecuador, and Vietnam. It will take several years for a new agreement to be negotiated, enter into force, and begin to have an impact. Hence, it is necessary to continuously develop and strengthen action through existing regional and multilateral institutions. Yet governments need to boldly go beyond existing approaches. Although a new agreement will come with costs, it will unlock sizable environmental, social, and economic benefits ([ 2 ][2], [ 8 ][8], [ 13 ][13]). 1. [↵][17]U. N. Environment, “Combating marine plastic litter and microplastics” (United Nations Environment Programme, 2017). 2. [↵][18]WWFet al., “The business case for a UN treaty on plastic pollution” (2020). 3. [↵][19]1. S. B. Borrelle et al ., Science 369, 1515 (2020). [OpenUrl][20][Abstract/FREE Full Text][21] 4. [↵][22]1. L. A. Hamilton et al ., “Plastic & climate: The hidden costs of a plastic planet” (CIEL, EIP, FracTracker Alliance, GAIA, 5Gyres, #breakfreefromplastic, 2019). 5. [↵][23]1. N. J. Beaumont et al ., Mar. Pollut. Bull. 142, 189 (2019). [OpenUrl][24] 6. [↵][25]1. W. W. Y. Lau et al ., Science 369, 1455 (2020). [OpenUrl][26][Abstract/FREE Full Text][27] 7. [↵][28]1. K. Raubenheimer, 2. A. McIlgorm , Mar. Policy 81, 322 (2017). [OpenUrl][29] 8. [↵][30]SYSTEMIQ, Pew Charitable Trusts, “Breaking the plastic wave: A comprehensive assessment of pathways towards stopping ocean plastic pollution” (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2020). 9. [↵][31]1. N. Aurisano, 2. R. Weber, 3. P. Fantke , Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 31, 100513 (2021). [OpenUrl][32] 10. [↵][33]1. R. Karasik et al ., “20 years of government responses to the global plastic pollution problem: The Plastics Policy Inventory” (Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, 2020). 11. [↵][34]1. N. Wienrich et al ., “Stronger together: The role of regional instruments in strengthening global governance of marine plastic pollution” (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam, 2021). 12. [↵][35]1. K. Raubenheimer, 2. N. Urho , “Possible elements of a new global agreement to prevent plastic pollution” (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2020). 13. [↵][36]Chemsec, “What goes around: Enabling the circular economy by removing chemical roadblocks” (2021). 14. [↵][37]1. S. Maljean-Dubois, 2. B. Mayer , AJIL Unbound 114, 206 (2020). [OpenUrl][38] 15. [↵][39]1. P. Busch et al ., “Strengthen the global science and knowledge base to reduce marine plastic pollution” (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2021). Acknowledgments: The authors thank C. Dixon and T. Gammage (Environmental Investigation Agency), as well as three anonymous reviewers, for helpful comments. The authors declare no competing interests. [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #ref-4 [5]: #ref-5 [6]: #ref-6 [7]: #ref-11 [8]: #ref-8 [9]: #ref-9 [10]: #ref-10 [11]: #ref-12 [12]: #ref-7 [13]: #ref-13 [14]: pending:yes [15]: #ref-14 [16]: #ref-15 [17]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [18]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [19]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [20]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.aulast%253DBorrelle%26rft.auinit1%253DS.%2BB.%26rft.volume%253D369%26rft.issue%253D6510%26rft.spage%253D1515%26rft.epage%253D1518%26rft.atitle%253DPredicted%2Bgrowth%2Bin%2Bplastic%2Bwaste%2Bexceeds%2Befforts%2Bto%2Bmitigate%2Bplastic%2Bpollution%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.aba3656%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F32943526%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [21]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzNjkvNjUxMC8xNTE1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjE6Ii9zY2kvMzczLzY1NTAvNDMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9 [22]: #xref-ref-4-1 "View reference 4 in text" [23]: #xref-ref-5-1 "View reference 5 in text" [24]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DMar.%2BPollut.%2BBull.%26rft.volume%253D142%26rft.spage%253D189%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [25]: #xref-ref-6-1 "View reference 6 in text" [26]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.aba9475%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F32703909%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [27]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzNjkvNjUxMC8xNDU1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjE6Ii9zY2kvMzczLzY1NTAvNDMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9 [28]: #xref-ref-7-1 "View reference 7 in text" [29]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DMar.%2BPolicy%26rft.volume%253D81%26rft.spage%253D322%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [30]: #xref-ref-8-1 "View reference 8 in text" [31]: #xref-ref-9-1 "View reference 9 in text" [32]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCurr.%2BOpin.%2BGreen%2BSustain.%2BChem.%26rft.volume%253D31%26rft.spage%253D100513%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [33]: #xref-ref-10-1 "View reference 10 in text" [34]: #xref-ref-11-1 "View reference 11 in text" [35]: #xref-ref-12-1 "View reference 12 in text" [36]: #xref-ref-13-1 "View reference 13 in text" [37]: #xref-ref-14-1 "View reference 14 in text" [38]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAJIL%2BUnbound%26rft.volume%253D114%26rft.spage%253D206%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [39]: #xref-ref-15-1 "View reference 15 in text"

SCI COMMUN### COVID-19 At least a dozen countries across Africa are facing a steep rise in coronavirus infections, pushing hospitals in several countries to their limits. The highly infectious Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 is largely driving the increase; it has been documented in at least 14 African countries. Liberia, Rwanda, Namibia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo all reported record numbers of new COVID-19 cases this week, as countries across the continent were reporting more than 30,000 new cases each day, racing toward the previous peak from early January. At the same time, the continent is facing an acute shortage of vaccines, with less than 1% of the population vaccinated. Officials at the World Health Organization said 18 African countries had used more than 80% of their vaccine stocks, and eight countries had exhausted their supplies. > “It is impossible to look at these findings and not see a reflection of the systemic racism in the U.S.” > > Duke University health services researcher Lesley Curtis , to NPR, on life expectancy declines from 2018 to 2020: 3.9 years for Hispanic Americans, 3.3 for Black Americans, and 1.4 for white Americans. ### Archaeology Merchants of the Bronze Age faced a problem still familiar today: how to know you're getting what you pay for. Historians have long assumed that standard weights—used to measure and trade goods of equivalent value—were handed down from on high, first created by a king or religious authority to collect taxes or tribute. But a new study suggests that more than 3000 years ago, informal networks of merchants established a standardized weight system that started in Mesopotamia and spread across Europe. Researchers analyzed weights from previously excavated sites spanning nearly 5000 kilometers. More than 2000 of the weights—crafted over 2000 years—weighed nearly the same amount: between 8 and 10.5 grams, they report this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . They propose that as traders compared weights at each meeting, a standard emerged, forming the first known common Eurasian market. ### Astronomy Representatives from seven member nations this week gave the go-ahead to start construction later this year on the world's biggest scientific instrument: the twin telescope networks of the Square Kilometre Array (SKA). Once complete in 2028, the nearly €2 billion SKA will comprise hundreds of radio dishes scattered across South Africa and thousands of wire antennas in Western Australia. Combining the signals from this vast array of detectors will give astronomers unprecedented sensitivity and resolution as they search for the universe's first stars and galaxies and seek to understand gravity and cosmic magnetism. The green light means the U.K.-based SKA Observatory can begin to award industrial contracts. ### Astrophysics Gravitational wave astronomers have twice spotted a black hole consuming a neutron star, researchers with the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) in the United States and the Virgo Observatory in Italy announced this week. LIGO and Virgo had previously spotted dozens of pairs of black holes spiraling together and two pairs of merging neutron stars—including one that set off a spectacular explosion seen by telescopes of all kinds in 2017. Astronomers saw no similar explosions from the newly detected black hole-neutron star mergers, either because they were too far away or because the black holes swallowed the neutron stars whole, a possibility that could put a damper on hopes that such a collision might someday lay bare the innards of a neutron star. ### Research integrity Although researchers have valid reasons to reuse their text across papers—in literature reviews or methods descriptions, for example—peers often frown on this practice as “self-plagiarism.” Some oversight bodies, including the Committee on Publication Ethics, have considered the practice acceptable in some circumstances. This week, the Text Recycling Research Project, based at Duke University and funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, released new guidance on the finer points, drawing on advice from journal publishers and other specialists. The document describes when the practice is both ethical and legal and how to present reused text transparently. One aim is to ease the workload of authors who are currently forced to reword passages unnecessarily, purely to avoid the appearance of self-plagiarism, says project leader Cary Moskovitz. ### Scientific community The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) last week expelled evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala from its ranks 3 years after he was found to have sexually harassed women colleagues. Ayala resigned from the University of California, Irvine, in 2018 after a university investigation found him guilty of sexual harassment. Ayala declined to comment on NAS's action, but has denied the allegations against him, which included making sexually suggestive comments and inviting a junior professor to sit on his lap. Women who filed complaints with the university over Ayala's behavior applauded the move, but charged that NAS's process was too slow. Ayala is the second NAS member to be ousted over sexual harassment allegations since the academy revised its bylaws 2 years ago to allow members to be removed if they violate its code of conduct. ### Public health The World Health Organization (WHO) on 30 June certified China as free of malaria, making it the 40th country—and the most populous one by far—to gain that status. In the 1940s, China had an estimated 30 million malaria cases and 300,000 deaths annually, but antimalarial drugs, insecticides, and other countermeasures brought cases to zero in 2017. Along the way, pharmaceutical chemist Tu Youyou bagged a Nobel Prize for isolating a powerful malaria drug, artemisinin, in sweet wormwood ( Artemisia annua ), a plant used in traditional Chinese medicine. “China's ability to think outside the box served the country well in its own response to malaria,” Pedro Alonso, director of WHO's Global Malaria Programme, said in a statement this week. The last three countries awarded WHO's malaria-free status were El Salvador, in February, and Algeria and Argentina, both in 2019. ### Publishing The controversial journal impact factor will be supplemented by a new metric that allows accurate comparisons of journal citation rates in different disciplines, its creator, Clarivate Analytics, said last week. The Journal Citation Indicator (JCI), released on 30 June as part of Clarivate's 2021 update to its Journal Citation Reports database, covers a wider range of journals, measured over a longer time period, than the company's existing impact factor. The impact metric captures how many citations a journal accumulated per article published over a 2-year period; the new metric is an average that attempts to take into account the substantially different rates of publication and citation in different fields, according to Clarivate. The JCI is a step forward but has important limitations, says Henk Moed, a bibliometrician at the Sapienza University of Rome. He says that, like impact factors, the new metric will be problematic if applied to individual researchers. ### Public health In its inaugural award ceremony last week, a coalition of public, private, and philanthropic organizations known as the Trinity Challenge gave out a total of $8 million to eight projects focused on preventing the next pandemic. Launched in September 2020 with support from 42 organizations including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, GlaxoSmithKline, and Imperial College London, the challenge recognizes projects that use data and analytics to respond to health emergencies. The $1.8 million grand prize went to a project called Participatory One Health Disease Detection, which aims to help farmers in Asia and Africa identify and report sick livestock via a mobile app to prevent the spread of disease among animals and to humans. Second place prizes of $1.4 million each will support an effort to help health authorities in West Africa forecast emerging diseases and a project that uses artificial intelligence to spot infectious disease outbreaks using routine blood tests. ### Space science An expert panel at the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) is encouraging NASA to push forward with a proposed change to limits on radiation exposure that would place women astronauts on equal footing with their male counterparts. Current standards limit astronauts to a radiation level that increases their risk of exposure-induced death by 3%, a metric that varies based on age and sex. A change under consideration at NASA, endorsed in a NASEM report released last week, would limit all astronauts to 600 millisieverts of radiation over their careers. The report also proposes a color-coded system to communicate the risks of longer missions and proposes that astronauts sign a waiver if a mission is expected to exceed their radiation limit. ### Science policy The U.S. House of Representatives this week overwhelmingly approved two bills that would authorize massive spending increases at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy's Office of Science. H.R. 2225 calls for more than doubling NSF's annual budget of $8.5 billion to $17.9 billion by 2026, and H.R. 3593 would give the Office of Science a 63% boost, to $11.1 billion, over the same period. The bills represent a slimmer alternative to the sprawling and more costly one passed last month by the Senate to address the growing scientific, economic, and military threat of China. Science lobbyists generally prefer the House bills' approach to tightening research security and correcting the uneven geographic distribution of funding. Reconciling these competing visions could take months, and separate legislation will be needed to determine the 2022 budgets for each agency. 267 million —People worldwide who live on land less than 2 meters above sea level—areas at greatest flood risk from sea level rise. Researchers predict an increase to 410 million people by 2100. ( Nature Communications ) 250–350 million years —Estimated age of the universe at “cosmic dawn,” when the first stars switched on, based on new telescope observations of the most distant known galaxies. ( Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society )

Ban Ki-moon was the eighth Secretary-General of the United Nations. His priorities have been to mobilize world leaders around a set of new global challenges, from climate change and economic upheaval to pandemics and increasing pressures involving food, energy and water. He has sought to be a bridge-builder, to give voice to the world's poorest and most vulnerable people, and to strengthen the Organization itself. "I grew up in war", the Secretary-General has said, "and saw the United Nations help my country to recover and rebuild. That experience was a big part of what led me to pursue a career in public service. As Secretary-General, I am determined to see this Organization deliver tangible, meaningful results that advance peace, development and human rights."

Every day, Q.ai brings you a list of trending stocks that have caught the fancy of hedge funds, retail investors, and the occasional Robinhood-er alike. And to celebrate the start of the new month, today's batch is a rather motley assortment spanning the sector spectrum, from vaccines and bath towels to spirits and cloud computing. Without further ado, let's see what stocks are trending as we celebrate the first day of July with an independence-sized bang. Q.ai runs daily factor models to get the most up-to-date reading on stocks and ETFs. Our deep-learning algorithms use Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to provide an in-depth, intelligence-based look at a company – so you don't have to do the digging yourself.

We introduce a collection of datasets from fundamental physics research -- including particle physics, astroparticle physics, and hadron- and nuclear physics -- for supervised machine learning studies. These datasets, containing hadronic top quarks, cosmic-ray induced air showers, phase transitions in hadronic matter, and generator-level histories, are made public to simplify future work on cross-disciplinary machine learning and transfer learning in fundamental physics. Based on these data, we present a simple yet flexible graph-based neural network architecture that can easily be applied to a wide range of supervised learning tasks in these domains. We show that our approach reaches performance close to state-of-the-art dedicated methods on all datasets. To simplify adaptation for various problems, we provide easy-to-follow instructions on how graph-based representations of data structures, relevant for fundamental physics, can be constructed and provide code implementations for several of them. Implementations are also provided for our proposed method and all reference algorithms.

A significant body of research in the data sciences considers unfair discrimination against social categories such as race or gender that could occur or be amplified as a result of algorithmic decisions. Simultaneously, real-world disparities continue to exist, even before algorithmic decisions are made. In this work, we draw on insights from the social sciences and humanistic studies brought into the realm of causal modeling and constrained optimization, and develop a novel algorithmic framework for tackling pre-existing real-world disparities. The purpose of our framework, which we call the "impact remediation framework," is to measure real-world disparities and discover the optimal intervention policies that could help improve equity or access to opportunity for those who are underserved with respect to an outcome of interest. We develop a disaggregated approach to tackling pre-existing disparities that relaxes the typical set of assumptions required for the use of social categories in structural causal models. Our approach flexibly incorporates counterfactuals and is compatible with various ontological assumptions about the nature of social categories. We demonstrate impact remediation with a real-world case study and compare our disaggregated approach to an existing state-of-the-art approach, comparing its structure and resulting policy recommendations. In contrast to most work on optimal policy learning, we explore disparity reduction itself as an objective, explicitly focusing the power of algorithms on reducing inequality.

Despite pre-trained language models have proven useful for learning high-quality semantic representations, these models are still vulnerable to simple perturbations. Recent works aimed to improve the robustness of pre-trained models mainly focus on adversarial training from perturbed examples with similar semantics, neglecting the utilization of different or even opposite semantics. Different from the image processing field, the text is discrete and few word substitutions can cause significant semantic changes. To study the impact of semantics caused by small perturbations, we conduct a series of pilot experiments and surprisingly find that adversarial training is useless or even harmful for the model to detect these semantic changes. To address this problem, we propose Contrastive Learning with semantIc Negative Examples (CLINE), which constructs semantic negative examples unsupervised to improve the robustness under semantically adversarial attacking. By comparing with similar and opposite semantic examples, the model can effectively perceive the semantic changes caused by small perturbations. Empirical results show that our approach yields substantial improvements on a range of sentiment analysis, reasoning, and reading comprehension tasks. And CLINE also ensures the compactness within the same semantics and separability across different semantics in sentence-level.

Explaining Traditional Engineering Models It is a well-known fact that models of physical phenomena that are generated through mathematical equations can be explained. This is one of the main reasons behind the expectation of engineers and scientists that any potential model of the physical phenomena should be explainable. Explainability of the traditional models of physical phenomena is achieved through the solutions of the mathematical equations that are used to build the models. Explanations of such models are achieved through analytical solutions (for reasonably simple mathematical equations) or numerical solutions (for complex mathematical equations) of the mathematical equations. Solutions of the mathematical equations provide the opportunities to get answers to almost any question that might be asked from the model of the physical phenomena. Solutions of the mathematical equations are used to explain why and how certain results are generated by the model. It allows examination and explanation of the influence and effect of all the involved parameters (variables) on one another and on the model's results (output parameters).

As the car with the blacked-out windows came to a halt in a sidestreet near Tübingen's botanical gardens, keen-eyed passersby may have noticed something unusual about its numberplate. In Germany, the first few letters usually denote the municipality where a vehicle is registered. The letter Y, however, is reserved for members of the armed forces. Military men are a rare, not to say unwelcome, sight in Tübingen. A picturesque 15th-century university town that brought forth great German minds including the philosopher Hegel and the poet Friedrich Hölderlin, it is also a modern stronghold of the German Green party, thanks to its left-leaning academic population. In 2018, there was growing resistance on campus against plans to establish Europe's leading artificial intelligence research hub in the surrounding area: the involvement of arms manufacturers in Tübingen's "cyber valley", argued students who occupied a lecture hall that year, brought shame to the university's intellectual tradition. Yet the two high-ranking officials in field-grey Bundeswehr uniforms who stepped out of the Y-plated vehicle on 1 February 2018 had travelled into hostile territory to shake hands on a collaboration with academia, the like of which the world had never seen before. The name of the initiative was Project Cassandra: for the next two years, university researchers would use their expertise to help the German defence ministry predict the future. Instead, the people the colonels had sought out in a stuffy top-floor room were a small team of literary scholars led by Jürgen Wertheimer, a professor of comparative literature with wild curls and a penchant for black roll-necks.

India is lagging behind China in Artificial Intelligence (AI) by at least a decade and also, unique data assets are routinely given away to foreign countries because of the ignorance of her leaders. Given the lack of effective strategic planning on AI and big data, plus its dependence on American digital platforms and Chinese hardware, India might slip further toward digital colonisation. Why does India lag at least a decade behind China in AI and related technologies, despite India having been recently proclaimed as the world leader in software? How vulnerable is India to becoming a digital colony of the West and China? How do Indian industries, military and other sectors stack up in addressing the AI-based technological revolution? India’s security involves combating internal insurgencies as well as protecting long borders with hostile neighbours. This requires considerable manpower that consumes bulk of the military budget. Insufficient funds remain for indigenous R&D and technology related modernisation. India is dependent on imported weapons to defend herself. India might find herself facing Pakistani boots on the ground, weaponised by China’s AI-based technology. How seriously vulnerable is India’s national security considering it is lagging in AI?