Abstract:Recently, considerable focus, e.g., in the fifth IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Assessment Report (2014) has been trained on why adaptation and mitigation have not been developed more than at present, with relatively few local government actions taken compared with, for example, more discursive policy agreement on the importance of the issue of climate change. Going beyond a focus on general limits and barriers, this comment suggests that one important issue is that climate change has not yet been sufficiently integrated into the state regulative structure of legislation and policy-making. A comparison between three cases suggests that local developments that are not supported in particular by binding regulation are unlikely to achieve the same general level of implementation as issues for which such regulative demands (and thereby also requirements for prioritization) exist. This constitutes an important consideration for the development of adaptation and mitigation as policy areas, including on the local level.Keywords: climate change; adaptation; mitigation; local government; municipality; Finland; Norway; Denmark Challenges of Climate PolicyWhile increasing focus is placed on policy development in relation to climate change, it is yet unclear as to how successful or efficient these efforts developed so far are in terms of tackling climate change, both mitigation and adaptation. In reviewing the progress of adaptation, the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that implementation has so far been relatively limited [1] and discusses multiple potential limitations and barriers to this. With regard to mitigation, the need for further development within international commitments, as well as national and sub-national development, is highlighted. To a large extent, then, the social complexity of implementation and gaining political will for the development in the face of multiple stressors may be regarded as limiting progress towards managing climate change [2][3][4]. This limitation means that there is a need to problematize the structure of implementation further.

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is a protein that is overexpressed in many tumors, such as colon and prostate cancer, melanoma, and glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). In its function as a cytokine, MIF induces angiogenesis, promotes cell cycle progression, and inhibits apoptosis. Recently, the molecular signal transduction has been specified: MIF has been found to be a ligand to the CD74/CD44-receptor complex and to activate the ERK1/2 MAPK cascade. In addition MIF binds to the chemokine receptors CXCR2 and CXCR4. This effects an integrin-dependent leukocyte arrest and mediates leukocyte chemotaxis. Recent work has described a clearer role of MIF in GBM tumor cell lines. The current study used human primary GBM cells. We show that inhibition of MIF with ISO-1, an inhibitor of the D-dopachrome tautomerase site of MIF, reduced the growth rate of primary GBM cells in a dose-dependent manner, and in addition ISO-1 increased protein expression of MIF and its receptors CD74, CXCR2, and CXCR4 in vitro but decreased expression of CD44. Furthermore, hypoxia as cell stressor increases the protein expression of MIF in primary GBM cells. These results underscore the importance of MIF in GBM and show that MIF and its receptors may be a promising target for the treatment of malignant gliomas.

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract:Recently, considerable focus, e.g., in the fifth IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Assessment Report (2014) has been trained on why adaptation and mitigation have not been developed more than at present, with relatively few local government actions taken compared with, for example, more discursive policy agreement on the importance of the issue of climate change. Going beyond a focus on general limits and barriers, this comment suggests that one important issue is that climate change has not yet been sufficiently integrated into the state regulative structure of legislation and policy-making. A comparison between three cases suggests that local developments that are not supported in particular by binding regulation are unlikely to achieve the same general level of implementation as issues for which such regulative demands (and thereby also requirements for prioritization) exist. This constitutes an important consideration for the development of adaptation and mitigation as policy areas, including on the local level.Keywords: climate change; adaptation; mitigation; local government; municipality; Finland; Norway; Denmark Challenges of Climate PolicyWhile increasing focus is placed on policy development in relation to climate change, it is yet unclear as to how successful or efficient these efforts developed so far are in terms of tackling climate change, both mitigation and adaptation. In reviewing the progress of adaptation, the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that implementation has so far been relatively limited [1] and discusses multiple potential limitations and barriers to this. With regard to mitigation, the need for further development within international commitments, as well as national and sub-national development, is highlighted. To a large extent, then, the social complexity of implementation and gaining political will for the development in the face of multiple stressors may be regarded as limiting progress towards managing climate change [2][3][4]. This limitation means that there is a need to problematize the structure of implementation further.