News Article | March 6, 2017
While I was working on this article, two people were killed by wild elephants near my home in south India. Mary Leena, a middle-aged woman, was rushing to church for an early morning service. At an intersection, she came face to face with a huge male elephant as it turned the corner. Both panicked; the elephant swung his trunk out, and she was thrown into a wall. She was rushed to the hospital, but died on the way. Three weeks later, a lorry driver on a national highway heard someone calling for help. He found an old lady in the tea bushes, badly injured. She was walking along the road, encountered wild elephants, and was thrown into the bushes. She too died shortly after. This is the dark side of the otherwise wonderful world of wild elephants. One of the world’s most charismatic mammals can also be one of the most dangerous. And humans are finding it harder and harder to keep out of its way. I grew up in a small town called Gudalur in the Nilgiri Hills, among elephants and stories about them. Elephants always fascinated me, and I’m in the middle of a PhD, trying to better understand how people and elephants share space. It’s an interest that almost grew out of necessity. The Gudalur region is about 500 square kilometres, or about one third the size of London, covered mostly by tea and coffee plantations and patches of forests. It’s home to a quarter of a million people, about 150 elephants and a host of other wild animals ranging from bears and tigers to flycatchers and martens. Every year, about a dozen people get killed in accidental encounters with elephants. There are now more than 7 billion humans on Earth, with almost 10 billion expected by 2050. Most of us want to save wildlife, but we have less and less space to do so, and our growth and ever-increasing consumption inevitably put us into contact with wild animals. The concept of “human-wildlife conflict” is becoming central to conservation work. This is of course particularly pronounced for the world’s largest land mammal. Elephants are far-ranging animals, and their requirements for food and water are tremendous – up to 300kg of vegetable matter and 200 litres of water every day. They find human agriculture an attractive food source, competing with people in areas where they overlap. They do not directly prey on livestock (or people) like the big cats, but the overall impact they have on humans is much greater – they cause extensive damage to crops and property, they compete with livestock for food and water, and they sometimes kill people in accidental encounters. There are also “hidden dimensions of conflict”, with people unable to lead normal lives because of the elephants around them. Indigenous children in the Gudalur region, for instance, often can’t go to school because there are elephants blocking the path. The people who suffer most from contact with elephants are invariably those who already lead strained and tenuous lives. Elephants, meanwhile, are being forced out of their natural surroundings by large agribusinesses converting forests to farmland. In Asia particularly, “linear infrastructure” such as roads and highways cuts up their habitat and makes long-range movement more and more challenging. Elephants are run down by trains and electrocuted by illegal fences and low-hanging wires. On top of these accidental hardships, they are deliberately slaughtered for their tusks, or in retaliation for damage to crops and property. The biggest cause of human-elephant conflict (HEC), however, is that elephants simply cannot live within the small fenced-off areas that we call the “protected area network”. Globally, only around 20% of their range is formally protected, and their future hinges on their ability to continue to share space with people – to be tolerated by individuals and communities. Elephants range through 50 countries in Asia and Africa. Traditionally two species have been recognised – the Asian (Elephas maximus) and African (Loxodonta africana), although the African elephant is now subdivided into the savanna and forest elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis). While both species have similar requirements for food and water, the contexts differ vastly, particularly with respect to interactions with humans. Simply put, Asian elephants share their territory with a lot more people. Southern Africa, for example, with a relatively well managed elephant population, has about 25 humans per square kilometre. In south Asia the figure is closer to 350 people per square kilometre. HEC is therefore clearly a much bigger problem in Asia than Africa. That said, human population growth rates are higher in Africa, and there is a much more rapid agricultural expansion. Poaching for ivory is a big conservation challenge now, but HEC could worsen in the years to come. HEC also manifests itself in very different ways across the two continents. Crop damage and accidental human death are the biggest concerns in Asia, while competition among elephants and livestock over resources (grazing areas and key water sources) is often a source of conflict in Africa. In terms of sheer numbers and range, the African species is almost an order of magnitude greater than the Asian – over 500,000 elephants spread across 2 million square kilometres versus about 50,000 spread across half a million square kilometres. India, almost paradoxically, has a very high human density of about 400 people per square kilometre and is also home to two thirds of the world’s Asian elephants. As societies in the global north developed, they wiped out the large mammals that competed with them. But this has not happened in India, perhaps on account on Hinduism and strong religious attachments to a host of animals. Elephant gods feature prominently in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism across Asia, as Ganesha, Ganapati, Airavata or Vinayaka in India, Erawan in Thailand, and Kangiten in Japan, all broadly thought of as the “remover of obstacles”. As the Indian government’s elephant taskforce notes (pdf), it is “not the immediate extinction as much as attrition of living spaces and the tense conditions of the human-elephant encounter on the ground that require redress”. As well as religion, the community’s wider culture plays a part. Developed western societies, including elite communities in the global south, largely ascribe to the Judeo-Christian worldview, where “man” is at the pinnacle of creation, and able to dominate nature. Saving wildlife is an act of benevolence, compassion or duty. Indigenous communities see themselves more as a part of nature, and think of various plants, animals, inanimate object and even natural phenomena as “more than human” people with whom they are able to interact and communicate. Individual animals can be eaten for food so long as there is respect, and individual animals are capable of wrongdoing, and liable to be punished – but animals in general have as much right to exist as humans. This is not universal, however: reports from Africa suggest a lot more animosity and fear towards elephants among the farmers and local communities who share space with them, and none of the cultural reverence. “Rogue elephants” that kill people are often put down by the governments in many African nations – something that almost never happens in Asia. To have any hope of managing human-elephant interactions, we need to understand what makes elephants tick. Let’s start with their idea of home. Through the year, a herd of elephants may move over a very large area in search of food and water – sometimes more than 1,000 square kilometres. (There may also be a “cultural” element to these journeys, with generation after generation used to making them.) The “home ranges” are invariably larger than the protected area in which elephants are supposed to live, and the movement between wildlife parks makes interactions with people almost inevitable. But newer research is also showing that in Sri Lanka, where the government has created more permanent water bodies for people, elephants are also using these, and their ranges have shrunk, sometimes to less than 100 square kilometres. This is also happening in the region where I work – when there is enough food and water all through the year, elephants tend to become much more sedentary. It will be important to study this aspect of elephant biology in years to come, particularly given climate and other human-induced changes. Most elephants continue to move across vast areas, however, and allowing for this is critical. Governments and NGOs increasingly favour the idea of “corridors”, which make it easier for elephants to move between isolated habitats. In theory, these operate on two levels. First, they assist the regular movement of elephants within their range, despite manmade obstacles such as busy roads and railway lines, newly enlarged villages and even national borders. There may be hundreds or thousands of such points all over the elephants’ range, each needing very site-specific interventions to mitigate the problem. Corridors can also preserve genetic connectedness between two populations of elephants, by allowing the occasional individual to get across to mate. Contrary to popular belief, however, corridors are not a silver bullet that will solve all the problems of HEC. Generally, corridors are understood as narrow strips of forest that connect two bigger elephant habitats, on the notion that maintaining these passages will ensure peaceful movement. That’s not how elephants travel, however, and the assumption that elephants will stick to the forested strip is simplistic. What people leave as forest could be sparse hill slopes, and the elephants may well prefer to move through farmlands and feed on succulent crops as they go. This bring us to another inconvenient truth: elephants are inherently predisposed to eating crops. In contiguous forests, they spend 12-18 hours a day feeding on a range of grasses, shrubs and leaves. But when they have settlements and agriculture around them, they quickly learn that they can meet their needs in a few hours among the crops. This is particularly true of males. Both African and Asian elephants live in female-led herds, with the males generally leaving when they reach puberty. Young bulls usually form loose bonds with older males, or remain solitary, and tend to crop-raid to a greater extent. Having to fend only for themselves, they can afford to be more reckless in their interactions with humans. Reckless, perhaps, but definitely not stupid. Elephant brains are similar to humans’ in terms of structure and complexity, with as many neurons. They are able to use tools, learn quickly and cooperate in complex tasks. They are one of the few animals that are self-aware and recognise themselves in mirrors. They are even able to do basic arithmetic beyond what any other non-human species are capable of. They live for as long as humans, and, being highly social, they learn from each other. They have been observed to be altruistic, even to humans. There is a story of a tusker in central India that smashed down a house, trapping a screaming baby. He came back and carefully moved all the rubble away to free the infant. Elephants are also the only other species known to sometimes have rituals around death. Some years ago, I saw an accident ahead of me while driving through a forest in south India. Two young boys on a motorbike had come too close to an elephant, and one had been crushed to death by the scared or angry animal. What struck me was how agitated and upset the elephant seemed. It stood over the body, almost being protective, and was covering it with grasses, branches and mud – as if attempting a burial. It’s not just intelligence; there is also empathy. All of this makes it clear that elephants are capable of collectively thinking and acting in ways that we are not close to fully understanding. Mind you, even elephants may find other elephants confusing. Biologists tend to generalise for the entire species, assuming all their decisions are made based on their need for food and water, and to increase evolutionary fitness. This is of course an important factor, but it’s not the whole picture. Each elephant is a thinking individual, and they are often very different from each other. This is the focus of my current work. In the landscape in which I work, in south India, a large tuskless male known as CMK1 or “Naadodi Ganesan”, “the village loafer Ganesan”, spends all his time around people and displays behaviour that is rather different from his fellow elephants. He almost never becomes agitated or attacks – we’ve even seen children herding him along as they do cattle. He walks along main roads, and often gets an official escort from the police and forest departments, largely to keep excited people away from him. Other elephants in the same region, interacting with the same people, are very shy and stay away from settlements. And there is a third type that is often seen near habitations, but is highly agitated around people. Some of these elephants have been responsible for a majority of human deaths. Understanding this individuality is of particular importance in tackling HEC. Humans, too, are anything but uniform. This is an area that has received very little attention in the scientific literature on HEC. Most research is done by biologists, whose research often excludes the human dimension. Yet agriculturalists, for example, clearly have a lot more to lose on account of elephants than pastoralists and herders, and hunter-gatherers perhaps even less. While most of the early research on HEC focused on quantifying the economic and other losses that people suffered, much of the newer work argues that what is more important is perceived loss. If a person is highly tolerant of animals and thinks it natural that some of their crops will be eaten by elephants, does that count as conflict or not? This is very evident in the Gudalur area, with newer arrivals finding it a lot harder to live with elephants than the indigenous people. The Kattunayakans, for example, a traditional hunter-gatherer tribe, would never plant a cash crop like bananas, since “elephants would eat it, of course”. They think it’s perfectly natural for elephants to come through their land and eat whatever they find. But for many of the newer immigrants into the region this is completely unacceptable, and they think elephants are a huge problem. Such nuances are frequently lost on biologists, conservationists and the media. They count all interactions as conflict, and almost create conflict where there is none. So why is human-elephant conflict now seen as such a big problem? Elephants have always moved over large distances, and arguably had some negative impact on the people they interact with. There is no hard data to show that conflict is sharply on the rise; this is something that is inferred more from the increasing number of media reports and scientific publications about “conflict”. As the world becomes more connected, humans may also be becoming less tolerant as they hear more about damage caused by elephants. This is very evident in south India where I work – even among people living alongside elephants, perceptions are often formed more from media reports than from their own interaction with the animals. As for what’s causing any rise in HEC, opinion seems to be split between two camps. The majority view, particularly in the western and English-language media, is from the elephant’s perspective: we humans are continually destroying forests across the world and encroaching into the elephants’ habitat, so we shouldn’t be surprised when elephants eat crops or injure people. This is of course true. But a contrary, minority view also exists – that with strong laws protecting elephants, their numbers are increasing in some areas, and they are venturing into human habitation like never before, causing unbearable losses to local communities. This too is true, and a heated debate continues. We are undoubtedly continuing to destroy vast tracts of elephant forests around the world, but many well-managed populations are flourishing. The savannah elephant populations in southern Africa, in particular, have recovered considerably in the last few decades thanks to concerted conservation efforts. As far as elephant numbers are concerned, surprising as it seems, the global population figures published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature are based on vague guesswork and crude estimates. The logistics of coordinating elephant surveys across 50 nations are beyond any international conservation organisation. Countries therefore conduct their surveys independently, at different times and using slightly different methods, making it impossible to collate the numbers accurately. For Asian elephants, in both India and Sri Lanka, official numbers point to an increasing population, but the counting methods have evolved over the years, making older estimates less accurate. For African elephants, it’s still more complicated, since both the area to be surveyed and the numbers are much greater. The destruction of forests is less debatable, and almost all the data points to a drastic decline in the last few decades, with the trends sadly continuing, particularly in central Africa and south-east Asia. In addition to the actual destruction of forests, there is degradation. Lantana camara, for example, is one of the world’s top 10 invasive plants. Native to the central and southern Americas, it’s a thick shrub that out-competes everything else in a forest and is a huge problem across almost all of the tropics. Its leaves contain toxins, and cannot be eaten by herbivores. We haven’t ascertained how much of the forests it has taken over, but a significant portion may in reality be unpalatable weeds and effectively unusable from an elephant’s perspective. What is being done to reduce HEC? Barriers such as elephant-proof trenches and electric fences are the most popular options across Africa and Asia. But they are very expensive – a key constraint for developing countries. More importantly, elephants usually manage to get across them in a short while. In areas that get high rain, trenches fill up with eroded soil after the first monsoon. Elephants have also been known to stamp at the edges and push mud into the trenches in order to fill and cross them. They have a host of ways to defeat fences; the favourite is to step on posts and push them down, or to push trees or dead wood into a fence and knock it over. They also learn that their tusks don’t conduct electricity, and use them to snap the wires. An experiment in Kenya tried trimming tusks to stop this behaviour, but the de-tusked elephants went on to break 20 fences in five days. Elsewhere, humans sometimes do the elephants’ work for them, taking down fences so their livestock can graze in restricted areas. Both fences and trenches tend to do a better job of keeping elephants out than of keeping them in. They work quite well around individual landholdings, but less so around villages or common agricultural land, where no one person is responsible for the upkeep. Financial compensation is the other key element of HEC mitigation that is being widely used, supported by a number of conservation groups. While this is often crucial for impoverished families who lose their whole year’s income to elephants in a single night, this approach also has its shortcomings. The major criticism is that it acts as a perverse subsidy that disincentivises farmers from protecting their fields. It also shifts the problem from it being each farmer’s responsibility to protect their crops to it being the government’s responsibility to keep elephants inside forests. Various NGOs are pushing more “organic” fences, particularly beehive and chilli fences, that act as soft rather than hard barriers. They have met with some success, and seem to be growing in popularity, particularly in Africa. But they are not permanent solutions, and fail in as many cases as they succeed. Keeping bees or cultivating chillies involves people taking on a new livelihood, and comes with a host of complications, such as a drought where the bees have no flowers, or a disease that affects the bees or chillies. It works when there is external funding, but often collapses when that stops. A text message-based early warning system has also been implemented in some parts of south India. Informing people in advance about elephants’ presence is showing considerable promise in reducing human deathss. Last but not least are the numerous and complex “traditional” mitigation strategies – beating drums, small fires and smoke screens, chasing elephants, firecrackers, intricate trip wires and alarms. All of these work to varying degrees. The common thread running through all of them is that they depend on the ingenuity and time of the local people, and require nothing external. They are not advocated by big conservation NGOs and government agencies, which are all looking for a single large-scale solution. But they should be encouraged and enhanced. As mentioned before, human-elephant conflict is essentially driven by the same forces as the rest of the ecological crisis – we humans are consuming too much and our population is growing. The threat to forests and other natural habitats comes less from the people who live in them, and more from global corporations and the economic engine that’s driving the world. Vast tracts of rainforests are being destroyed for oil palm plantations and industrial agriculture; mining and fossil companies are churning the earth; dams, roads and power lines are slicing up natural ecosystems. Conservationists should be targeting these processes and economic systems, but are increasingly dependent on the corporations for funding. Until that changes, what can we do to help humans and elephants share space? For a start, we might do away with the term “conflict”. It implies an active antagonism between the two species, and that is simply not the case. In our fieldwork at the Shola Trust we’ve found that even people who have had family killed usually see it as an accident, and don’t hold a grudge against the elephants. When we observe elephants we invariably have an entourage of local people with us, all taking time off from their work to watch and animatedly discuss the animals. Something positive is clearly gained in interacting with elephants, yet conservationists assume all interactions are “conflict”. This negative vocabulary is having a real and significant impact on people who share space with elephants, and making them less tolerant. Aside from the question of vocabulary, we have to learn from communities that have been living with elephants for centuries. Too many conservation interventions do the opposite. Indigenous peoples are enticed into “voluntary relocation” away from the forests, have fences built round them, are encouraged to grow cash crops, are given skills training and urged to take up modern jobs. This may often be completely justified and driven by the communities themselves – but sometimes only lip service is paid to the “free, prior and informed consent” demanded by the United Nations permanent forum on indigenous issues. And we must be flexible. From the beehive barriers to the corridors to the electric fences, all of the strategies described above are being used widely across the world, with varying degrees of success and failure. The literature is full of uni-dimensional studies that measure the effectiveness of one mitigation strategy or another, without considering the gamut of ecological, social, economic and cultural contexts within which the strategy is implemented. The quest to find a universal “solution” to HEC continues, but the real answer may be to accept that there is no universal solution. Each may work in one place, and fail in another, or work for some time, then fail at a later date. The problem is better understood as an interface between people and elephants, with both sides constantly learning and innovating. It’s a relationship that will be defined by improvisation by both humans and elephants. We need thousands of different solutions all over the world, continuously changing and evolving.
News Article | April 27, 2017
Le chiffre d'affaires se répartit entre le conseil en stratégies d'influence, l'anticipation et la gestion des crises et l'accompagnement de la digitalisation du « business ». La Netnologie (l'analyse de l'impact du numérique sur l'opinion et les comportements des publics) reste le coeur de la méthodologie du cabinet pour objectiver ses préconisations. Bolero remarque qu'en « 2016, l'heure n'est plus à l'incantation et aux coups de communication sur le digital », les entreprises apprécient donc les partenaires qui savent faire la passerelle entre la stratégie et la technologie. C'est sur sa capacité à assister ses clients dans la gouvernance de projets digitaux de plus en plus stratégiques et complexes, que Bolero souhaite assoir sa croissance en 2017 : Bolero est un cabinet conseil en stratégies digitales qui emploie une quarantaine de personnes (A Paris et à Lyon). Pionnier de l'analyse des conversations des internautes, Bolero s'appuie sur une méthodologie innovante permettant, dans le cadre d'une démarche de co-construction et de co-pilotage, d'améliorer la performance digitale des entreprises et des organisations. Bolero intervient sur les thématiques suivantes : stratégie de présence digitale, e-réputation et influence, transformation digitale, performance digitale et data-driven marketing, nouveaux business et digitalisation de l'expérience client. Bolero est également agréé organisme de formation et sa méthodologie est enseignée dans des programmes professionnels prestigieux tels que HEC (Executive Education) ou l'Ecole Militaire (IHEDN), dédiés aux cadres dirigeants.
News Article | May 4, 2017
MONTRÉAL, QUÉBEC--(Marketwired - 4 mai 2017) - Métaux Stratégiques du Canada (« Métaux Stratégiques » ou « la Société ») (TSX CROISSANCE:CJC)(FRANCFORT:YXEN)(OTCBB:CJCFF) a le plaisir d'annoncer la nomination de monsieur Jean-François Meilleur à titre de président et chef de la direction de la Société. Jean-François Meilleur est actuellement vice-président de Corporation Eléments Critiques une société impliquée dans le développement d'un projet de lithium dans la région de la Baie-James. Il est également partenaire et co-propriétaire de Relations publiques Paradox. Le développement de projets, le marketing et la gestion stratégiques ne sont que quelques-unes de ses nombreuses réalisations. De plus, il a contribué avec succès à différents projets pour recueillir des fonds sur le marché des capitaux. Monsieur Meilleur détient un baccalauréat des HEC (Hautes Études Commerciales) de Montréal, avec une spécialisation en marketing et finance. « Je suis très enthousiaste de me joindre à l'équipe très talentueuse et dynamique de Métaux Stratégiques », a commenté Jean-François Meilleur le nouveau président et chef de la direction de Métaux Stratégiques du Canada. Le Québec est l'une des juridictions les plus attrayantes dans le monde et nous sommes bien positionnés pour en bénéficier avec le projet aurifère Sakami. Métaux Stratégiques tient à remercier Monsieur Jean-Sébastien Lavallée pour sa grande contribution au développement de la Société à titre de président et chef de la direction. Monsieur Lavallée agira dorénavant comme Chef exécutif du conseil d'administration et directeur de l'exploration de la Société. La Société a octroyé 1,000 000 options d'achat d'actions à Monsieur Meilleur. Chaque option permet à son détenteur d'acquérir une action ordinaire à un prix de 0,15 $ valide jusqu'au 4 mai 2022. Métaux Stratégiques du Canada est une société émergente axée sur l'exploration et le développement de plusieurs projets couvrant plus de 22 584 hectares au Québec. L'équipe de direction possède une large expérience dans les technologies vertes ainsi que dans le domaine des compagnies juniors d'exploration et développement. Métaux Stratégiques du Canada est bien positionnée pour avancer agressivement un portfolio très prometteur de propriétés pour ses actionnaires. Pour de plus amples informations, veuillez visiter : www.csmetals.ca. Ni la Bourse de croissance du TSX ni les autorités réglementaires (telles que définies par les politiques de la Bourse de croissance du TSX) n'ont accepté de responsabilité pour l'exactitude et la précision du présent communiqué.
News Article | May 4, 2017
MONTREAL, QUEBEC--(Marketwired - May 4, 2017) - Canada Strategic Metals Inc. ("Canada Strategic Metals" or "the Company") (TSX VENTURE:CJC)(FRANKFURT:YXEN)(OTCBB:CJCFF) is pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Jean-Francois Meilleur as Chief Executive Officer and President. Jean-François Meilleur is actually Vice-President of Critical Elements involved in the development of a lithium project in the James Bay area. He is also a Managing Partner and co-owner of Paradox Public Relations. His many accomplishments include playing a key role in project development, strategic marketing and management leadership. Also, he contributed successfully for different projects to raising funds through the capital markets. Mr. Meilleur holds a Bachelor's Degree from the HEC business school (Hautes Études Commerciales) in Montreal, with a specialization in marketing and finance. "I'm very enthusiastic in joining the very talented and dynamic team of Canada Strategic Metals", said Jean-Francois Meilleur new CEO & President of Canada Strategic Metals. Quebec is currently the top exploration jurisdiction in the world and we are well position to benefit from this momentum with the Sakami Gold Project. Canada Strategic Metals would like to thanks Mr. Jean-Sebastien Lavallée for his great contribution to the development of the Company in his Role of President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Lavallée will now act as Executive Chairman and Exploration manager for the Company. The Corporation has granted Mr. Meilleur 1,000,000 stock options, each of which entitles its holder to acquire one common share for $0.15 until May 4, 2022. Canada Strategic Metals is an emerging company focused on the exploration and development of a number of projects covering over 22,584 hectares in Quebec. With broad management experience in green technology and junior resource exploration and development, Canada Strategic Metals is well positioned to aggressively advance this promising property portfolio for its shareholders. For more information on the Company, please visit www.csmetals.ca. Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
News Article | March 1, 2017
THERADIAG (Paris:ALTER) (ISIN : FR0004197747, Mnémonique : ALTER), société spécialisée dans le diagnostic in vitro et le théranostic, annonce aujourd’hui que le conseil d’administration, réuni le 28 février 2017, a coopté Dominique Costantini, MD et Dominique Takizawa au sein de son Conseil d’Administration. « Nous sommes heureux d’accueillir Dominique Costantini et Dominique Takizawa en qualité d’administratrices indépendantes de Theradiag. Leurs compétences complémentaires en immunologie, dans le domaine des biotechs et en finance apporteront à la société de nouveaux atouts indéniables pour accompagner sa stratégie de développement. A l’heure où Theradiag poursuit son développement international notamment au travers d’accords de partenariats avec des acteurs majeurs de la pharma et du diagnostic, leur éclairage et leurs conseils seront précieux. » commente Gérard Tobelem, Président du Conseil d’Administration de Theradiag. Dotée d’une expérience de plus de 20 ans dans l’industrie pharmaceutique, Dominique Costantini a accompagné de nombreuses innovations thérapeutiques au plan international dans le domaine de l’oncologie. Au cours de sa carrière, elle a occupé des postes de management au sein de HMR (aujourd’hui Sanofi) où elle a dirigé les activités médico-marketing de mise sur le marché (notamment en immunologie, endocrinologie, infectiologie et oncologie). En 1997, Dominique Costantini a co-fondé BioAlliance Pharma, société de biotechnologie spécialisée en oncologie et dans les soins de support, dont elle fut Directrice générale jusqu’en 2011. A ce titre, elle a piloté l’introduction en bourse de la société sur Euronext (2005) et est à l’origine de nombreux partenariats industriels internationaux (Europe, Etats-Unis, Chine, Japon, Corée). Elle y a par ailleurs mené l’enregistrement de produits en Europe et aux Etats-Unis et à ce jour, BioAlliance Pharma (renommée Onxeo en 2014) est la seule société de biotechnologie française à avoir obtenu l’enregistrement de trois médicaments auprès de la FDA (Beleodaq®, Livatag® et Validive®). En 2012, Dominique Costantini a co-fondé et pris la Direction générale d’OSE Pharma, une société de biotechnologie développant des produits d’immunothérapie contre les cancers au stade invasif. En mai 2016, elle a mené la fusion d’OSE Pharma avec Effimune pour co-fonder OSE Immunotherapeutics, biotech spécialisée dans l’activation et la régulation immunitaire en immuno-oncologie, dans les maladies auto-immunes et en transplantation, dont elle est Directrice générale et Administrateur. Dominique Costantini est médecin (Paris V), spécialisée en immunologie. Dominique Takizawa est Secrétaire générale de l’Institut Mérieux depuis 2006. Ayant rejoint le groupe Mérieux en 2001, elle a été notamment associée au développement stratégique du groupe, en particulier lors des opérations de fusion-acquisition, dans la gestion des relations avec les actionnaires et les investisseurs. Dominique Takizawa a géré des opérations de marché et a notamment accompagné l’introduction en bourse de la société bioMérieux. Auparavant, elle a occupé les fonctions de Directeur financier auprès de différentes sociétés, dont Pasteur-Mérieux Connaught (aujourd’hui Sanofi Pasteur) et Rhône Mérieux/Mérial, en particulier lors d'évolutions stratégiques majeures. Dominique Takizawa est également Administrateur et Présidente du comité d’audit des sociétés cotées en bourse April et Adocia. Dominique Takizawa est diplômée d’HEC (École des Hautes Études Commerciales) et titulaire du DECF (Diplôme d’Études Comptables et Financières). A propos de Theradiag Forte de son expertise dans la distribution, le développement et la fabrication de tests de diagnostic in vitro, Theradiag innove et développe des tests de théranostic (alliance du traitement et du diagnostic), qui mesurent l’efficacité des biothérapies dans le traitement des maladies auto-immunes, du cancer et du SIDA. Theradiag participe ainsi au développement de la « médecine personnalisée », favorisant l’individualisation des traitements, la mesure de leur efficacité et la prévention des résistances médicamenteuses. Theradiag commercialise la gamme Lisa Tracker®, marquée CE, une solution complète de diagnostic multiparamétrique pour la prise en charge des patients atteints de maladies auto-immunes et traités par biothérapies. Via sa filiale Prestizia, Theradiag développe également de nouveaux marqueurs de diagnostic grâce à la plateforme microARN, pour la détection et le suivi du cancer du rectum et du VIH/SIDA. La société est basée à Marne-la-Vallée et Montpellier et compte plus de 75 collaborateurs. Pour de plus amples renseignements sur Theradiag, visitez notre site web : www.theradiag.com
News Article | February 27, 2017
WALTHAM, Mass., Feb. 27, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- TESARO, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSRO), an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company, today announced that the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has rendered a positive opinion for the Company’s marketing authorization application (MAA) for VARUBY® (oral rolapitant tablets) for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly and moderately emetogenic cancer chemotherapy in adults. The VARUBY MAA submission was supported by data from four controlled studies covering a spectrum of patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. One study enrolled patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), and three studies enrolled patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The top-line results of each of the three Phase 3 studies of rolapitant were presented in detail at the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting in June 2014. Oral rolapitant was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on September 1, 2015 and is marketed by TESARO in the United States under the brand name VARUBI®. “Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a significant unmet need, with more than half of patients treated with emetogenic chemotherapy experiencing this debilitating side effect for up to five days,” said Mary Lynne Hedley, Ph.D., President and COO of TESARO. “The positive CHMP opinion for VARUBY is an important milestone for the Company. VARUBY is positioned to be TESARO’s first commercial product in Europe, and we look forward to bringing this important medicine to patients as quickly as possible.” “TESARO has an exciting pipeline of oncology therapeutics, and with the positive CHMP opinion for VARUBY today and our planned product launches in Europe this year, we are globalizing our mission of providing transformative therapies to people bravely facing cancer,” said Orlando Oliveira, Senior Vice President and General Manager of TESARO International. “Following today’s positive CHMP opinion, and subject to final approval and completion of pricing and reimbursement discussions, TESARO plans to launch VARUBY in Europe beginning in the first half of 2017, on a country-by-country basis. Our international organization now spans 17 European countries and is well prepared to make this treatment available in each country as soon as possible.” VARUBI is a substance P/neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist that is approved in the United States for use in combination with other antiemetic agents in adults for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of emetogenic cancer chemotherapy, including, but not limited to, highly emetogenic chemotherapy. VARUBI is contraindicated in patients receiving thioridazine, a CYP2D6 substrate. The inhibitory effect of a single dose of VARUBI on CYP2D6 lasts at least seven days and may last longer. Avoid use of pimozide; monitor for adverse events if concomitant use with other CYP2D6 substrates with a narrow therapeutic index cannot be avoided. Please see full prescribing information, including additional important safety information, available at www.varubirx.com. Rolapitant will be marked under the trade name VARUBY in Europe. TESARO is an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company devoted to providing transformative therapies to people bravely facing cancer. For more information, visit www.tesarobio.com, and follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn. To the extent that statements contained in this press release are not descriptions of historical facts regarding TESARO, they are forward-looking statements reflecting the current beliefs and expectations of management made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as "may," "will," "expect," "anticipate," "estimate," "intend," and similar expressions (as well as other words or expressions referencing future events, conditions, or circumstances) are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Examples of forward-looking statements contained in this press release include, among others, statements regarding TESARO’s plans to launch two products in Europe in 2017, including VARUBY in the first half of 2017. Forward-looking statements in this release involve substantial risks and uncertainties that could cause our future results, performance, or achievements, including the potential approval and launch of VARUBY in Europe, to differ significantly from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, among others, the uncertainties inherent in drug development and the execution and completion of clinical trials, uncertainties surrounding our ongoing discussions with and potential actions by the EMA, risks related to manufacturing and supply, and other matters that could affect the ultimate approval, availability or commercial potential of VARUBY. TESARO undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements. For a further description of the risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ from those expressed in these forward-looking statements, as well as risks relating to the business of the Company in general, see TESARO's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.
News Article | February 24, 2017
SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Heron Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:HRTX), a commercial-stage biotechnology company focused on developing novel best-in-class treatments to address some of the biggest unmet patient needs, today announced the inclusion of SUSTOL® (granisetron) extended-release injection as part of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for Antiemesis Version 1.2017. The NCCN has given SUSTOL a Category 1 recommendation, the highest level category of evidence and consensus, for use in the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving HEC or MEC regimens. Importantly, the guidelines identify SUSTOL as a “preferred” agent for preventing CINV following MEC. Further, the guidelines highlight the unique, extended-release formulation of SUSTOL. “Unfortunately, CINV remains an all too common reality associated with modern-day cancer treatment, and novel agents that can prevent or reduce the severity of this debilitating chemotherapy side effect have the potential to not only improve the quality of life of patients, but also enable patients to complete potentially life-saving treatment,” said Barry D. Quart, Pharm.D., Chief Executive Officer of Heron Therapeutics. “We greatly appreciate NCCN’s thorough evaluation of SUSTOL and recognition of the role it may play in improving cancer care.” NCCN is a not-for-profit alliance that includes 27 of the world’s leading cancer institutions. The NCCN Guidelines document evidence-based, consensus-driven management to ensure that all patients receive preventive, diagnostic, treatment, and supportive services that are most likely to lead to optimal outcomes. SUSTOL was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on August 9, 2016 for use in combination with other antiemetics in adults for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of MEC or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) combination chemotherapy regimens. It is the first approved therapy that utilizes Heron’s Biochronomer® polymer-based drug delivery technology, allowing it to maintain therapeutic levels of granisetron for ≥5 days, covering both the acute and delayed phases of CINV. SUSTOL is contraindicated in patients with hypersensitivity to granisetron, any of the components of SUSTOL, or any other 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Injection site reactions (ISRs), including infection, bleeding, pain and tenderness, nodules, swelling, and induration, have occurred with SUSTOL. Monitor for ISRs following SUSTOL injection. Inform patients that some ISRs may occur 2 weeks or more after SUSTOL administration. In patients receiving antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, consider the increased risk of bruising or severe hematoma prior to the use of SUSTOL. Monitor for constipation and decreased bowel activity and consider optimizing patients’ current bowel regimens used for managing preexisting constipation. Instruct patients to seek immediate medical care if signs and symptoms of ileus occur. Hypersensitivity reactions have been reported and may occur up to 7 days or longer following SUSTOL administration and may have an extended course. If a reaction occurs, administer appropriate treatment and monitor until signs and symptoms resolve. Serotonin syndrome has been reported with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists alone but particularly with concomitant use of serotonergic drugs. Avoid SUSTOL in patients with severe renal impairment. In patients with moderate renal impairment, administer SUSTOL not more frequently than once every 14 days. Most common adverse reactions (≥3%) are injection site reactions, constipation, fatigue, headache, diarrhea, abdominal pain, insomnia, dyspepsia, dizziness, asthenia, and gastroesophageal reflux. Please see accompanying Full Prescribing Information at www.SUSTOL.com While chemotherapy is one of the most effective and common used therapies to help patients fight cancer, it is accompanied by debilitating side effects, including varying degrees of nausea and vomiting, often attributed as a leading cause of premature discontinuation of cancer treatment. Delayed nausea and vomiting, which occurs 2-5 days following chemotherapy treatment, is considered particularly debilitating for patients. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) have categorized chemotherapy regimens based on the degree to which they cause nausea and vomiting: low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC), moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Heron Therapeutics, Inc. is a commercial-stage biotechnology company focused on improving the lives of patients by developing best-in-class medicines that address major unmet medical needs. Heron is developing novel, patient-focused solutions that apply its innovative science and technologies to already-approved pharmacological agents for patients suffering from cancer or pain. For more information, visit www.herontx.com. This news release contains "forward-looking statements" as defined by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Heron cautions readers that forward-looking statements are based on management’s expectations and assumptions as of the date of this news release and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially, including, but not limited to, those associated with the potential market opportunity for SUSTOL and other risks and uncertainties identified in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Forward-looking statements reflect our analysis only on their stated date, and Heron takes no obligation to update or revise these statements except as may be required by law.
News Article | March 1, 2017
THERADIAG (Paris:ALTER) (ISIN: FR0004197747, Ticker: ALTER), a company specialized in in vitro diagnostics and theranostics, has today announced the appointment of Dominique Costantini, MD and Dominique Takizawa to its Board of Directors subject to ratification by shareholders at the forthcoming Annual General Meeting. “We are delighted to welcome Dominique Costantini and Dominique Takizawa to Theradiag as independent board members. Their complementary expertise in immunology, the biotech sector and finance will be tremendous assets, supporting our development strategy. As we continue to pursue international expansion through partnerships with major pharma and diagnostics groups, their insight and counsel will be invaluable”, commented Gérard Tobelem, Chairman of Theradiag’s Board of Directors. They are taking over from Truffle Capital, a company represented by Philippe Pouletty and Antoine Pau. These appointments are subject to ratification by shareholders at the forthcoming Annual General Meeting on April 27, 2017. Following these appointments, Theradiag’s Board of Directors has the following members: With over 20 years’ experience in the pharmaceutical industry, Dominique Costantini has supported numerous therapeutic innovations in the international oncology sector. During her career, she has held various management positions at HMR (now Sanofi), where she ran the medico-marketing launch activities (immunology, endocrinology, infectiology and oncology). In 1997, Dominique Costantini co-founded BioAlliance Pharma, a biotechnology company specialized in oncology and supportive care, and was its Chief Executive Officer until 2011. During her tenure, she oversaw the Company’s IPO on Euronext (2005) and was the architect behind various international industry partnerships (Europe, United States, China, Japan, South Korea). She also oversaw the marketing approval process for new products in Europe and the United States. To date, BioAlliance Pharma (renamed Onxeo in 2014) is the only French biotechnology company to have obtained marketing approval from the FDA for three drugs (Beleodaq®, Livatag® and Validive®). In 2012, Dominique Costantini co-founded and became Chief Executive Officer of OSE Pharma, a biotechnology company developing immunotherapy products to treat invasive stage cancers. In May 2016, she led the merger between OSE Pharma and Effimune to jointly found OSE Immunotherapeutics, a biotech company specialized in the activation and regulation of the immune response in immuno-oncology, in autoimmune conditions and in transplantation, and is its Chief Executive Officer and Director. Dominique Costantini is a doctor (Paris V) specialized in immunology. Dominique Takizawa has been Secretary General of the Institut Mérieux since 2006. After joining the Mérieux group in 2001, she contributed to its strategic development, through her involvement in mergers & acquisitions, and in the management of relations with shareholders and investors. Dominique Takizawa managed market transactions and supported bioMérieux’s IPO. Previously, she was Chief Financial Officer for various companies, including Pasteur-Mérieux Connaught (now Sanofi Pasteur) and Rhône Mérieux/Mérial, during a period of major strategic change. Dominique Takizawa is also a Director and Chairman of the Audit Committee of listed companies April and Adocia. Dominique Takizawa is a graduate of the HEC business school (Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales) and holds a DECF diploma in finance and accounting. About Theradiag Capitalizing on its expertise in the distribution, development and manufacturing of in vitro diagnostic tests, Theradiag innovates and develops theranostics tests (combining treatment and diagnosis) that measure the efficiency of biotherapies in the treatment of autoimmune diseases, cancer and AIDS. Theradiag notably markets the Lisa Tracker® range (CE marked), which is a comprehensive multiparameter theranostic solution for patients with autoimmune diseases treated with biotherapies. With its subsidiary Prestizia, Theradiag is developing new biomarkers based on microRNAs for the diagnosis and monitoring of rectal cancer, auto-immune and inflammatory diseases and HIV/AIDS. Theradiag is thus participating in the development of customized treatment, which favors the individualization of treatments, the evaluation of their efficacy and the prevention of drug resistance. The Company is based in Marne-la-Vallée, near Paris, and in Montpellier, and has over 75 employees. For more information about Theradiag, please visit our website: www.theradiag.com
News Article | February 27, 2017
ROSEMÈRE, QUÉBEC--(Marketwired - 27 fév. 2017) - Investissements, modernisation, réaménagement et actualisation. Voilà ce qui attend les membres du Club de golf de Rosemère, plus ouvert que jamais ! Tous ces changements paveront la voie aux célébrations, dans moins de cinq ans, du centenaire de ce prestigieux parcours, l'un des plus beaux au Québec. Destination urbaine de renom, le Club de golf de Rosemère est un véritable joyau qui inspire la fierté par son histoire, la beauté de son site, sa situation géographique enviable aux portes de Montréal et des Laurentides, de même que la qualité de son parcours exceptionnel. En marge de cet important jalon de son histoire, le Club de golf de Rosemère prend un nouvel élan afin d'améliorer son offre de service pour ainsi mieux répondre aux besoins de sa clientèle et demeurer un chef de file dans l'industrie du golf au Québec. Nouvelle grille tarifaire des plus avantageuses, dont un tarif privilégié pour les citoyens de Rosemère ; travaux de réaménagement suivant la vente de la parcelle de terrain à l'intérieur du parcours (trou no 13) ; rénovation du salon principal, assouplissement du code vestimentaire, mise en place d'un service de conciergerie et ajout d'activités sociales et familiales pour dynamiser la vie au Club de golf ne sont que quelques-uns des avantages dont bénéficieront les anciens comme les nouveaux membres du Club de golf de Rosemère. Une nouvelle administration et un ambassadeur de marque Pour adapter le produit aux nouvelles exigences des golfeurs d'aujourd'hui, les membres du conseil d'administration du golf ont entrepris de réaliser un plan de relance quinquennal. Celui-ci misera, entre autres, sur des stratégies innovantes qui permettront d'offrir une expérience des plus agréables aux membres, actuels et futurs, tout en assurant la pérennité des installations. Le conseil d'administration a élu Marc Belliveau à titre de président pour mener à bien les destinées du Club. Ayant fait ses études aux HEC en administration des affaires, monsieur Belliveau est depuis plus de 11 ans à la tête de Canam Supply Link Inc., une entreprise qui ouvre les marchés pour les manufacturiers des produits de bois dont l'exploitation se fait tant aux États-Unis qu'au Canada. Passionné de golf, monsieur Belliveau est membre du Club de golf de Rosemère depuis le début des années 2000. S'impliquant depuis dans toutes les sphères de la vie au Club, il a rallié le conseil d'administration en 2010. « Le Club de golf de Rosemère fait partie de ces institutions qui ont permis à une communauté comme la nôtre de devenir aussi dynamique qu'elle l'est aujourd'hui. Les citoyens de Rosemère tout comme ceux des municipalités environnantes ont de quoi être fiers d'avoir accès facilement à cet espace vert de 60 hectares, en plein milieu urbain. C'est un héritage que nous devons à tout prix préserver et transmettre aux générations futures », a souligné monsieur Belliveau. Par ailleurs, le Club de golf de Rosemère profitera aussi de la renommée et de l'amour du golf de son nouvel ambassadeur, l'acteur et scénariste québécois Roc Lafortune, qui personnifiait Julien dans le populaire film Les Boys. Résident de Rosemère, Roc s'impliquera dans la promotion du Club de golf en collaborant à diverses activités publicitaires et de relations publiques. Il sera présenté aux membres ce printemps, dans le cadre d'une activité marquant le coup d'envoi de la saison estivale 2017. D'ici là, des sessions publiques d'information auront lieu les 3 et 12 mars prochains au Club de golf de Rosemère, situé au 282, boulevard Labelle à Rosemère. Pour obtenir plus de renseignements sur ces sessions et en savoir davantage sur nos activités et forfaits 2017, les amateurs de golf n'ont qu'à composer le 450 437-7555, poste 210, à écrire à coordonnateur@golfrosemère.ca ou à visiter notre nouveau site Internet ou encore notre page Facebook. À propos du Club de golf de Rosemère Avec ses 60 hectares en plein milieu urbain, le Club de golf de Rosemère est un site prestigieux et magnifique qui a de quoi rendre fiers tous les amateurs de golf et les citoyens de la région. Situé à proximité de Montréal et facilement accessible pour tous les golfeurs de la Rive-Nord de Montréal, ce véritable joyau compte de nombreux atouts susceptibles de faire le bonheur de tous ses membres, tant sur le terrain que dans le cadre des activités sociales qui leur permettent de fraterniser entre amis ou en famille. Plus ouvert que jamais, le Club de golf de Rosemère se donne un nouvel élan grâce auquel il demeurera un chef de file au Québec, sur la voie de son centenaire.
News Article | February 21, 2017
Top Scientific Minds You Probably Never Heard Of The grandeur a science super-campus in France is trying to achieve by 2020 hit a snag after government auditors said it lacks strategy and governance. Incorporated in 2014, the University of Paris-Saclay aims to give birth to Europe's multi-disciplinary university to equal, if not surpass, top American universities, such as MIT and Harvard. The auditors, in a report published on Feb. 8, saw differently. The Paris-Saclay grouping of higher educational and research institutions is said to be without "real coherence and international visibility." The Court of Auditors, in Chapter III of its annual report, maintained that the science cluster's road to the future has remained ambiguous. The Saclay plateau was home to a technological cluster made up of private and public research facilities in 2004. Known as the French Silicon Valley where 25,000 people worked, including thousands of scientists, the university attracted several global companies and more than 200 small- and medium-size firms. Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy saw the potential of the Saclay plateau to become the French MIT to boost the country's poor ranking among universities worldwide. Sarkozy's idea was to put in one place the different academic and research institutions into one hub. The plan required the transfer of a number of elite schools to Saclay plateau where thousands of student and researchers moved into what is now known as the University of Paris-Saclay. Since 2014, the university has become a federation of universities, 10 big institutions for higher education, and seven national research institutions. These institutions, which were previously autonomous and enjoyed a certain degree of prestige, included the University of Paris-Orsay, Ecole Polytechnique, Ecole Normale Superieure de Cachan, HEC Business School, laboratories of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, and the Commissarat a l'Energie Atomique. With the super-campus on Saclay, the French government is poised to redeem the country's name among prestigious universities around the world. The auditors, however, said there are risks that the university in Saclay would only be a grouping of academic and research institutions as they noted the lack of "real coherence and international visibility." Public spending went into the Paris-Saclay science cluster but without visible results so far. A total of $5.7 billion has been allocated for the project. The auditors concluded that there is a real risk of "diluting a great ambition" despite the huge investment of public funds. Gilles Bloch, president of the university, did not agree with the conclusion of the Court of Auditors. Calling it "totally false," Bloch claimed that steps had already been taken to address the situation after last year's government order. Last year, the French Senate report pointed out that the institutions at the plateau had destroyed the collective image of one super science campus by trying to maintain their own individual identity. Funding to the project would be cut off unless the situation improved. Bloch said an ad hoc committee had already been created to draw up proposals to strengthen links in research, teaching, and human resources. Bloch admitted the work to arrive at a cohesive multi-disciplinary campus is not easy. At least two big schools specializing in engineering, one of which is the well-known Ecole Polytechnique, do not subscribe to the idea of closer links with their partners in the plateau. The university should be more like the Silicon Valley than an MIT, Polytechnique President Jacques Biot explained. The valley needs no real governance, he added. Bloch, amid challenges, maintained that the university must fulfill its mandate to be the country's science and technology cluster. He is still hopeful that everything will fall into place once the proposal is drawn up. The government will decide by December whether the university deserves funding and the label of "excellence initiative." © 2017 Tech Times, All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.