Darwin-inspired global voyage ends in Falmouth
Dutch tall ship, Oosterschelde, sailed into Falmouth Harbour on Saturday, marking the end of the Darwin200 voyage, which began in Plymouth in 2023.
The ship was welcomed into Port Pendennis Marina after clocking up 43,000 nautical miles, 31 ports of call and two years at sea.
Organisers said the choice of Falmouth as the homecoming port was "deeply significant" due to Darwin's own arrival there in 1836.
More news stories for Cornwall
Listen to the latest news for Cornwall
Darwin's original trip on board the Beagle inspired him to develop his theory of natural selection.
Stewart McPherson, who founded the Darwin200 project, said the mission had three purposes.
Speaking before the Oosterschelde's departure in 2023 he said he wanted to train young conservationists "to change the world", create the "world's most exciting classroom" and undertake research projects to study nature and conservation around the planet.
After arriving in Falmouth, Mr McPherson said Darwin200 had "shown what's possible when young people are given the opportunity to learn, to lead and to act".
"Conservation isn't about what we've lost, it's about protecting what we still have. That's what this voyage has been about from the very beginning."
'Bridge between generations'
More than 600 members of the public sailed the tall ship between ports and about 105 Darwin leaders - young people from 45 countries - were trained aboard and in the field, organisers said.
Gerben Nab, captain of the Oosterschelde, said: "This was more than a sailing voyage, it was a bridge between generations, between science and the sea.
"We've sailed through some of the world's most challenging waters and to some of its most breathtaking places, where nature remains much as Darwin would have seen it on his own voyage nearly two centuries ago."
One of the Darwin leaders - Josh Clarke, 24, from Falmouth, whose had a project in the Falkland Islands to study threatened bird species, described the experience as "life-changing".
"Not only have I developed new skills and knowledge, but I'm also now part of a global network of people determined to protect our planet," he said.
The Oosterschelde is set to sail again on Monday, bound for London on a "victory voyage" up the Thames.
The ship will dock at Tower Bridge Quay where a special visit from HRH The Duke of Edinburgh is planned for Friday.
Follow BBC Cornwall on X, Facebook and Instagram. Send your story ideas to spotlight@bbc.co.uk.
Darwin legacy voyage passes halfway mark
Ship 'classroom' to set sail on Darwin legacy trip
Related internet links
Darwin200
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
32 minutes ago
- Medscape
The Ethical Minefield of Genetic Testing for All
Dr Arya Anthony Kamyab Imagine being able to screen an embryo's DNA and predict the likelihood of developing diseases such as diabetes or schizophrenia. DNA technology has been knocking on the door of health innovation for some time, and it looks as though it has finally arrived in the NHS. The government's 10 Year Health Plan for England aims to 'provide a genomic test for every newborn baby by 2035,' Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting confirmed to the House of Commons this month. This would require redesigning our current practice. At present, when babies are born, the heel-prick test screens for nine rare conditions using biochemical markers. The plan to introduce genetic testing will entail all newborns in England having DNA screening which, rather than looking for chemical markers, uses whole genome sequencing to look for changes in genes associated with more than 200 conditions that can be improved if identified early. Genetic screening is not intended to replace the heel-prick test, which will continue to be carried out regardless of whether parents decide to opt out of genomic screening. Genomics England is helping lead research. It's 100,000 Genomes Project has sequenced more than 85,000 participants' genomes, with 18.5% of data so far turned into actionable findings. The Generation Study from Genomics England plans to build on these foundations to sequence the genomes of a similar number of newborn babies. This genomics information will be interpreted through AI to help predict and avert genetic illness before the onset of symptoms. Predictive Power DNA is not a deterministic code with a unique ability to predict the future. Modern science has linked certain genetic variants to specific diseases. However, countless others — known as variants of uncertain significance — remain unclassified, their potential harmful, neutral, or beneficial. Some of these variants, which currently evade our 21st century understanding of genetics, will inevitably be associated with diseases. This project could undoubtably illuminate many of those missing gaps and transform our knowledge of inherited risk. So, what undermines DNA's predictive value in determining who we grow up to be? We can break the answer down into three reasons: incomplete penetrance, variable expressivity, and being heavily shaped by environment. Incomplete penetrance is a fancy term used by geneticists. It refers to a scenario in which individuals carry a specific genetic mutation but do not always express the associated disease or trait. We see this with the BRCA1 gene, which increases the risk for breast and ovarian cancer, but not all carriers develop these diseases. Then we have variable expressivity, which often gets confused for penetrance but is a distinct concept. Where penetrance concerns itself with whether the trait (or condition) will appear, expressivity describes its severity or types of symptoms once present. Finally, the interplay between genes and environment is vital for the presence of disease. But have you ever considered how the knowledge of genetic susceptibility may affect one's behaviour? If you were to know that your genes confer a greater risk for, say, diabetes, could that lead to behaviour modification? Fewer takeaways and more exercise? The Ethical Minefield Make no mistake, having access to genetic information will save lives and reduce suffering. It will further our understanding of genetics, a foundational pillar of medical science. This doesn't make the debate a foregone conclusion, however, as the ethical terrain is incredibly complex. The Generation Study is not sequencing parents' genes. However, it would mean universal screening of babies' genomes before they can consent. Few could argue that telling parents that their child has a noncurable condition will unleash significant anxiety and stress. Some may argue it is not worth the potential benefits, while others may prioritise the long-term gains in scientific advancement. Research published in the Nature journal European Journal of Human Genetics suggests that most parents would plan to tell their children their screening results in childhood, whilst some would postpone this news due to the potential negative impacts it may have on their self-esteem. Perhaps, then, this scheme should report only on a predefined panel of conditions where early treatment makes a significant impact on outcomes. What makes a disease "treatable" or not is also not black and white and will raise further difficult questions. But this is where we have to be careful. The argument against screening for diseases that are not treatable in 2025 overlooks the fact that such programmes generate valuable data, which can play a role in the development of future breakthroughs and therapies. Consider knowledge as a burden for a moment. We know of genetic variants that are associated with Alzheimer's disease. How are parents supposed to raise a child that they know has a genetically increased risk of developing Alzheimer's? For some, the answer is simple: Do nothing. The exact cause of Alzheimer's is not understood, which means there is no certain way to prevent it. But this reductionist approach of simply deciding to do nothing is much easier said than done. Regardless of whether you choose to report on only a predefined panel of conditions, patients will know that the data exist. Once the genome is sequenced, it cannot be unsequenced. Doctors, geneticists, and academics will have to carry the moral burden of knowing more than they can responsibly act on. And what about patients? If they know that the data exist but are withheld because conditions are deemed nonactionable, what will stop them demanding the information and paying a third party to interpret the results? If so, we risk creating a two-tier system where genomic knowledge is in the hands of the most affluent. The Slippery Slope to Discrimination The most common fear that populates headlines is the misuse of genetic data. A reference to George Orwell's 1984 is never too far when data acquisition for 'the greater good' is mentioned. Maybe we can begin a new movement, calling this Orwell's Law? But this concern deserves to be taken seriously. In philosophy, a slippery-slope argument is when a decision is rejected because the arguer believes it will lead to a chain reaction that results in an undesirable end. The issue with slippery-slope fallacies is that they are incredibly easy to make and the proponents often fail to do the hard work of logically connecting each step to show why one outcome would lead to the next. So, are the concerns legitimate? Genetic test results can affect insurance policies. In the UK, insurers cannot ask you to take a genetic test, but they can ask for results of a test if you have already taken one. If genetic testing becomes widespread, it may prove difficult to keep this information from insurers. Others may also want access. Genomic data are akin to your identity. The acquisition of this information creates a layer of vulnerability that understandably makes many nervous. Could employers make decisions on whether to hire someone with a predisposition to a mental illness, for instance? And yet despite all this, it would be terse to flat-out ignore what this technology may be able to bring. Identification of, say, spinal muscle atrophy at a presymptomatic stage can significantly improve outcomes and slow the progression of disease. This debate is complex but at the same time fascinating. We are remoulding healthcare and shifting the timescale for where medicine begins. But this comes with risk and ethical questions.
Medscape
3 hours ago
- Medscape
Safe to Skip Postop Radioiodine in Low-Risk Thyroid Cancers?
TOPLINE: A recent phase 3 trial found that 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar among patients who did and did not receive postoperative radioiodine, indicating the treatment can be safely avoided in patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer — specifically those with pT1, pT2, and N0 or Nx tumors who have no adverse features after total thyroidectomy. METHODOLOGY: Although now used less often, total thyroidectomy followed by radioiodine has traditionally been the standard of care for treating differentiated thyroid cancer. Observational studies and the ESTIMABL2 trial , published in 2022, suggested that patients with low-risk disease could safely skip radioiodine, but confirmatory evidence was still needed. The recent randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 IoN trial aimed to answer this question. The study involved patients at 33 cancer centers in the UK who underwent complete resection following total thyroidectomy and stage pT1, pT2, pT3, or pT3a disease. Researchers randomly assigned 504 patients (77% women) to receive (n = 253) or not receive (n = 251) postoperative radioiodine. Patients underwent neck ultrasound scans annually and serum thyroglobulin measurements every 6 months. The median follow-up was 6.7 years. The primary outcome was 5-year disease-free survival, defined as the absence of locoregional recurrent or residual structural disease, distant metastases, or death from thyroid cancer. Noninferiority was assessed with a margin of 5 percentage points. Overall, 47% of patients had pT1 tumors, 44% had pT2, and 9% had pT3 or pT3a; 91% of patients had N0 or Nx disease, and 9% had N1a disease. TAKEAWAY: Overall, 17 recurrences were reported — 8 in the no-radioiodine group and 9 in the radioiodine group. The 5-year recurrence-free rate was 97.9% in the no-radioiodine group vs 96.3% in the radioiodine group, with an absolute risk difference of 0.5 percentage points (P for noninferiority = .033), highlighting the noninferiority of omitting radioiodine. Higher recurrence rates were observed in patients with pT3 or pT3a tumors than in those with pT1 or pT2 tumors (9% vs 3%) and in patients with N1a tumors than in those with N0 or Nx tumors (13% vs 2%). Additionally, baseline postsurgical thyroglobulin levels ≥ 2 ng/mL were associated with a higher risk for recurrence (hazard ratio, 12.75; P < .0001). Adverse events were comparable between the no-radioiodine and radioiodine groups, with fatigue (25% vs 28%), lethargy (14% in both), and dry mouth (10% vs 9%) being the most common. No treatment-related deaths or deaths from thyroid cancer were reported. But a total of eight patients died — an equal number in both groups. In the no-radioiodine group, deaths were due to two new primary cancers, one myocardial infarction, and one liver failure. In the radioiodine group, one death was due to bowel cancer and three due to vascular or unknown causes. IN PRACTICE: IoN and ESTIMABL2 together 'offer strong and complementary evidence showing' that postoperative radioiodine can be avoided in patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer — more specifically, pT1 or pT2 tumors with N0 nodal status and no other adverse features, the study authors concluded. Although the evidence for or against radioiodine in patients with pT3, pT3a, or N1a tumors was deemed 'insufficient,' the authors concluded that 'most patients worldwide with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer' can now safely avoid radioiodine. SOURCE: This study, led by Ujjal Mallick, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, was published online in The Lancet. LIMITATIONS: Patients had relatively few recurrences, and the findings may not be applicable to the youngest patients. Additionally, molecular data (eg, on BRAF and TERT mutations) were not routinely collected from patients. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Cancer Research UK. One author reported receiving honoraria from Esai and the British Medical Ultrasound Society for presenting treatment options for differentiated thyroid cancer. Another author reported receiving honoraria from Esai for presenting treatment options for differentiated thyroid cancer. All other authors declared having no competing interests. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Want To Prevent Dementia? This Body Part Might Have An Outsized Role
Around 850,000 people in the UK are living with dementia, according to the NHS. The condition is linked to damage in the brain, which affects people's memory. Yet up to 45% of our risk could be determined by lifestyle factors like not smoking and drinking less, according to The Lancet's commission on dementia prevention, intervention and care. That's because the brain doesn't work in isolation. Some researchers have associated worse organ health with higher incidences of depression, for instance. And a paper published in 2023 is one of many to suggest a link between taking care of one organ in particular and decreased dementia risk, especially at a younger age. Heart health could be key to dementia prevention The paper, published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, looked at data from over 430,000 people in the UK Biobank. It found coronary heart disease was linked to a 13% increased risk of Alzheimer's disease and a 78% risk of developing vascular dementia (after Alzheimer's, this is the most common form of the condition in the UK, which is linked to blood flow). But when people were diagnosed with heart disease before the age of 45, they were even more likely to get dementia, the researchers found. Dr Fanfan Zheng, the study's lead author, shared: 'What surprised us most was the linear relationship between age of coronary heart disease onset and dementia. 'This shows the huge detrimental influence of premature coronary heart disease on brain health.' It's far from the only link between heart health and dementia Multiple studies have linked untreated high blood pressure to dementia. Having too much 'bad' cholesterol has also been linked to stroke and deposits of amyloid and tau proteins, both linked to dementia. Men with a high cardiovascular risk may be especially at risk and researchers have highlighted 'the importance of aggressively targeting cardiovascular risk factors before the age of 55 years to prevent neurodegeneration and Alzheimer's disease'. In a press release, the American Heart Association's former president, neurologist Dr Mitchell Elkind, said: 'We now know that many of the same health risk factors that cause heart disease and stroke also contribute to a decline in overall brain health.' The expert recommended following the American Heart Association's Life Essential 8 rules for both brain and heart benefits. These are: Staying active Giving up smoking Getting enough sleep Staying at a healthy weight Controlling your cholesterol Managing your blood sugar Managing your blood pressure. Related... 5 Dementia Prevention Rules A Neurologist Lives By Neurologist Shares The 1 Sleep Change That Could Reduce Dementia Risk Is Forgetting The Odd Word Normal Ageing Or A Sign Of Dementia?
