Duty of care: amplifying the impact of planetary health research at oncology conferences

Editorials are the voice of a journal [ 1 ]. While most published articles are incremental steps that build on existing knowledge, articles that receive an editorial are generally those that introduce significant, paradigm-shifting, or highly controversial findings that necessitate expert interpretation to contextualise their impact [ 2 ]. Why, therefore, did the article by Delaye and colleagues [ 3 ] published in this issue of BJC Reports warrant an editorial? Was it because the article's findings were controversial? Was it because it would cause a paradigm shift? Was it because it would lead to a patient impact? The answer is No, Yes and Yes. It was not selected because we believe that in the context of the current triple planetary crisis, which consists of climate change, loss of biodiversity and pollution, its findings were controversial [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. It was selected because, as a healthcare community, we need to see how we practice through an environmental sustainability lens. It was selected because we believe that medical conferences are influential spaces that can amplify that planetary health message, and that our health is reliant on the health of our planet [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Previously, publications have focused on reducing the environmental impact of in-person conference attendance and conduct [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. We believe this is the first article in the oncology literature that has horizon-scanned meeting presentations for their planetary health impacts.