Sustainability and molecular biology: An interview with Martin Farley.

Molecular Cell has a conversation with Martin Farley about LEAF, the program he developed to run molecular biology laboratories in a sustainable way; the obstacles to making molecular biology sustainable; programs available to scientists; and caution to be exercised when taking steps towards sustainability.

Re-use of laboratory utensils reduces CO2 equivalent footprint and running costs.

Laboratory-based research is resource intensive in terms of financial costs and its carbon footprint. Research laboratories require immense amounts of energy to power equipment, as well as large volumes of materials, particularly of single-use item consumption. In fact, many laboratories have essentially become reliant on single-use plastics. Understanding the full carbon footprint of consumable usage is increasingly important as many research institutes commit to carbon neutrality. To date, no carbon footprint assessment has been conducted to detail the differences between single-use plastics, and reusable glass in a laboratory setting. Here, we analyse the CO2 equivalent (CO2e) footprint of utilising single-use plastics, and re-use of glass or plastic items within laboratory environments. We focused our assessment on four commonly utilised consumables for mammalian cell and bacterial culture, and found that re-use scenarios resulted in substantial reduction in CO2e footprint up to 11-fold. In addition, we estimated the long-term financial costs of re-use and single-use scenarios, and found that re-use had either similar or much lower running costs even when including technical staff wage. We concluded that research facilities must foster re-use in laboratory consumables, while reserving single-use items for select, defined cases. Our study highlights the need to account for indirect CO2e footprint in designing a carbon-neutral lab and promotes circular economy principles.

Climate crisis and ecological emergency: Why they concern (neuro)scientists, and what we can do.

Our planet is experiencing severe and accelerating climate and ecological breakdown caused by human activity. As professional scientists, we are better placed than most to understand the data that evidence this fact. However, like most other people, we ignore this inconvenient truth and lead our daily lives, at home and at work, as if these facts weren't true. In particular, we overlook that our own neuroscientific research practices, from our laboratory experiments to our often global travel, help drive climate change and ecosystem damage. We also hold privileged positions of authority in our societies but rarely speak out. Here, we argue that to help society create a survivable future, we neuroscientists can and must play our part. In April 2021, we delivered a symposium at the British Neuroscience Association meeting outlining what we think neuroscientists can and should do to help stop climate breakdown. Building on our talks (Box 1), we here outline what the climate and ecological emergencies mean for us as neuroscientists. We highlight the psychological mechanisms that block us from taking action, and then outline what practical steps we can take to overcome these blocks and work towards sustainability. In particular, we review environmental issues in neuroscience research, scientific computing, and conferences. We also highlight the key advocacy roles we can all play in our institutions and in society more broadly. The need for sustainable change has never been more urgent, and we call on all (neuro)scientists to act with the utmost urgency.