Diversity and Inclusion in International Communications: Applications for Today’s Work World

Verna Myers (2016) advocated that “Diversity is being invited to the party, but inclusion is being asked to dance.” Cultural competence demands a strategic understanding of the importance of harnessing the power of diversity and inclusion in every action in organizations, communities, and nations throughout the world. Today’s work world cannot undervalue the importance of having diverse and inclusive representation in all areas of the organization, especially including international communication. By creating an environment that continually asks questions, values and embraces diversity - then collaborates and reconciles potential solutions to create positive outcomes - creates an inclusive environment in which all can thrive

Constraints from High Redshift Supernovae upon Scalar Field Cosmologies

Recent observations of high-redshift Type Ia supernovae have placed stringent constraints on the cosmological constant $\Lambda$. We explore the implications of these SNe observations for cosmological models in which a classically evolving scalar field currently dominates the energy density of the Universe. Such models have been shown to share the advantages of $\Lambda$ models: compatibility with the spatial flatness predicted inflation; a Universe older than the standard Einstein-de Sitter model; and, combined with cold dark matter, predictions for large-scale structure formation in good agreement with data from galaxy surveys. Compared to the cosmological constant, these scalar field models are consistent with the SNe observations for a lower matter density, $\Omega_{m0} \sim 0.2$, and a higher age, $H_0 t_0 \gtrsim 1$. Combined with the fact that scalar field models imprint a distinctive signature on the cosmic microwave background anisotropy, they remain currently viable and should be testable in the near future.Comment: RevTex style format, 14 pages, 11 eps figures included with epsf, submitted to Phys. Rev.

A Thermophilic Ionic Liquid-Tolerant Cellulase Cocktail for the Production of Cellulosic Biofuels

Generation of biofuels from sugars in lignocellulosic biomass is a promising alternative to liquid fossil fuels, but efficient and inexpensive bioprocessing configurations must be developed to make this technology commercially viable. One of the major barriers to commercialization is the recalcitrance of plant cell wall polysaccharides to enzymatic hydrolysis. Biomass pretreatment with ionic liquids (ILs) enables efficient saccharification of biomass, but residual ILs inhibit both saccharification and microbial fuel production, requiring extensive washing after IL pretreatment. Pretreatment itself can also produce biomass-derived inhibitory compounds that reduce microbial fuel production. Therefore, there are multiple points in the process from biomass to biofuel production that must be interrogated and optimized to maximize fuel production. Here, we report the development of an IL-tolerant cellulase cocktail by combining thermophilic bacterial glycoside hydrolases produced by a mixed consortia with recombinant glycoside hydrolases. This enzymatic cocktail saccharifies IL-pretreated biomass at higher temperatures and in the presence of much higher IL concentrations than commercial fungal cocktails. Sugars obtained from saccharification of IL-pretreated switchgrass using this cocktail can be converted into biodiesel (fatty acid ethyl-esters or FAEEs) by a metabolically engineered strain of E. coli. During these studies, we found that this biodiesel-producing E. coli strain was sensitive to ILs and inhibitors released by saccharification. This cocktail will enable the development of novel biomass to biofuel bioprocessing configurations that may overcome some of the barriers to production of inexpensive cellulosic biofuels

Common Variants at 9p21 and 8q22 Are Associated with Increased Susceptibility to Optic Nerve Degeneration in Glaucoma

Optic nerve degeneration caused by glaucoma is a leading cause of blindness worldwide. Patients affected by the normal-pressure form of glaucoma are more likely to harbor risk alleles for glaucoma-related optic nerve disease. We have performed a meta-analysis of two independent genome-wide association studies for primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) followed by a normal-pressure glaucoma (NPG, defined by intraocular pressure (IOP) less than 22 mmHg) subgroup analysis. The single-nucleotide polymorphisms that showed the most significant associations were tested for association with a second form of glaucoma, exfoliation-syndrome glaucoma. The overall meta-analysis of the GLAUGEN and NEIGHBOR dataset results (3,146 cases and 3,487 controls) identified significant associations between two loci and POAG: the CDKN2BAS region on 9p21 (rs2157719 [G], OR = 0.69 [95%CI 0.63–0.75], p = 1.86×10−18), and the SIX1/SIX6 region on chromosome 14q23 (rs10483727 [A], OR = 1.32 [95%CI 1.21–1.43], p = 3.87×10−11). In sub-group analysis two loci were significantly associated with NPG: 9p21 containing the CDKN2BAS gene (rs2157719 [G], OR = 0.58 [95% CI 0.50–0.67], p = 1.17×10−12) and a probable regulatory region on 8q22 (rs284489 [G], OR = 0.62 [95% CI 0.53–0.72], p = 8.88×10−10). Both NPG loci were also nominally associated with a second type of glaucoma, exfoliation syndrome glaucoma (rs2157719 [G], OR = 0.59 [95% CI 0.41–0.87], p = 0.004 and rs284489 [G], OR = 0.76 [95% CI 0.54–1.06], p = 0.021), suggesting that these loci might contribute more generally to optic nerve degeneration in glaucoma. Because both loci influence transforming growth factor beta (TGF-beta) signaling, we performed a genomic pathway analysis that showed an association between the TGF-beta pathway and NPG (permuted p = 0.009). These results suggest that neuro-protective therapies targeting TGF-beta signaling could be effective for multiple forms of glaucoma

Effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI): a single-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Remote ischaemic conditioning with transient ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We investigated whether remote ischaemic conditioning could reduce the incidence of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months. METHODS: We did an international investigator-initiated, prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI) at 33 centres across the UK, Denmark, Spain, and Serbia. Patients (age >18 years) with suspected STEMI and who were eligible for PPCI were randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre with a permuted block method) to receive standard treatment (including a sham simulated remote ischaemic conditioning intervention at UK sites only) or remote ischaemic conditioning treatment (intermittent ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of an automated cuff device) before PPCI. Investigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary combined endpoint was cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02342522) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2013, and March 31, 2018, 5401 patients were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=2701) or the remote ischaemic conditioning group (n=2700). After exclusion of patients upon hospital arrival or loss to follow-up, 2569 patients in the control group and 2546 in the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months post-PPCI, the Kaplan-Meier-estimated frequencies of cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure (the primary endpoint) were 220 (8·6%) patients in the control group and 239 (9·4%) in the remote ischaemic conditioning group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·91-1·32], p=0·32 for intervention versus control). No important unexpected adverse events or side effects of remote ischaemic conditioning were observed. INTERPRETATION: Remote ischaemic conditioning does not improve clinical outcomes (cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure) at 12 months in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, University College London Hospitals/University College London Biomedical Research Centre, Danish Innovation Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, TrygFonden

State Regulation Fosters Autonomous Vehicle Development

One morning, two tractor trailers drove away from a loading dock in Pittsburgh. A human drove the leading truck, and the one tailing behind autonomously followed along using cameras, connectivity technology, and automated driving systems. Over the course of two days, this “truck platoon” made it to Detroit and back to Pittsburgh, stopping only to unload its cargo at a food bank. In the distant future, truck platooning and autonomous vehicle technology promise greater efficiency and mobility. In the short term, autonomous vehicle testing creates local jobs. State and city governments are trying to attract autonomous vehicle companies to test their new technologies but face political and regulatory challenges. Until the federal government provides a unified framework for assuring the safety of autonomous vehicles, states and local governments must assess risk, manage public expectations, and work together with neighboring jurisdictions to harmonize regulation. Mark Kopko, director of the Office of Transformational Technology in the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, explained in an interview that each state must have its own regulation. But Kopko emphasized that states should work together to make sure that autonomous vehicles can seamlessly move from one state to the next. In fact, the test run from Pittsburgh to Detroit was the result of a collaboration between Locomotion, a Pittsburgh-based autonomous vehicle company, and the Smart Belt Coalition, a longstanding partnership between multiple states’ departments of transportation, turnpike commissions, and academic institutions. The automotive industry has a long history of managing differences in safety regulations between jurisdictions. State and local regulations exist alongside federal rules governing autonomous vehicle testing and deployment. Twenty-nine states have recently enacted legislation related to vehicle driver definition updates and commercial requirements related to truck platooning. Regulatory permitting for general autonomous vehicle testing is less common. Even in California, a leader in autonomous vehicle testing, prohibits operation of a vehicle without a driver prepared to take control of the vehicle and prohibits compensating autonomous vehicle testers for providing rides to members of the public. Arizona, Nevada, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are state leaders in developing laws related to the permitting and deployment of autonomous vehicles. States that have passed legislation in this area tend to be accommodating to autonomous vehicle developers, as states lawmakers often believe they are in competition with other states for the location of new development and economic growth. Passing permissive regulation and developing local government expertise related to autonomous vehicles is an increasingly common approach to attracting autonomous vehicle companies to a particular locality. The Mayor of Pittsburgh, William Peduto, has reportedly said that when autonomous vehicle companies choose a location for testing, they are seeking both regulatory clarity and local authorities who have experience governing and accommodating autonomous vehicle testing. According to Mayor Peduto, by the time that autonomous vehicle companies were looking for a commercial proving ground, the City of Pittsburgh already had years of experience making allowances for autonomous vehicle testing near Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics Institute. Autonomous vehicle companies seeking a place to test new products find a favorable environment in Pittsburgh. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation offers permits for on road testing with few requirements other than submission of a safety self-assessment report which most companies already develop to meet federal guidelines set by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. The safety report required in Pennsylvania must include a description of the weather, maximum speeds, location types, and road conditions. Pittsburgh requires a yearly report describing the location of testing, the number of crashes that cause injury or more than $5,000 of damage, and the number of jobs supported by the testing. The city uses this information to herald the creation of local jobs and to communicate with local residents about where they can expect to see autonomous vehicles. The information collected by Pennsylvania and the City of Pittsburgh is not likely to be enough to form the basis of a public safety analysis. The RAND corporation estimates that using on-road testing alone would take more than 500 years at current testing rates to show that autonomous vehicles are as safe as human drivers. The same RAND study concluded that autonomous vehicles “cannot drive their way to safety” and suggested that more rigorous data needs to be collected. California has adopted a similar approach to Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh but requires companies that wish to test autonomous vehicles to report slightly more detailed information. The California Department of Motor Vehicles requires that any operator of an autonomous vehicle within the state obtain a permit and have extensive personal accident and liability insurance. California also requires autonomous vehicle developers to report all collisions and instances where a human safety back up driver re-takes control of the vehicle. Despite criticisms of California’s requirement to report autonomous vehicle failures, more than 50 companies hold testing permits in the state. However, when reporting these issues, autonomous vehicle developers still report almost no safety relevant information about each incident. They only report high level information such as number of vehicles involved and whether the autonomous vehicle was moving or stopped. The approach taken by most state and local governments grants broad permission to test new technologies on public roads, and it provides limited oversight that does not significantly limit autonomous vehicle developers. Too much focus on accommodating new industry growth, however, can sometimes end in disaster. For instance, according to a report from the National Transportation Safety Board, Arizona’s relaxed permitting process contributed to a fatal crash in 2018. The accident in Arizona demonstrates that although there are opportunities at the state and local level for development of autonomous vehicles, a favorable regulatory environment is not without risk

Regulatory Sandboxes Slowed the Spread of COVID-19

The World Health Organization reports that COVID-19 has caused over 194 million confirmed cases and over 4 million deaths worldwide. In the global fight against the virus, fast development of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostic testing has been critical to prevent even more catastrophic loss of life. Based on pre-vaccine infection and mortality rates, many more deaths would have occurred if normal technology development protocols had been followed. In a forthcoming article, Jacob Sherkow of the University of Illinois College of Law argues that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) emergency use authorizations were a type of “regulatory sandbox”—a “safe space” in which regulations are relaxed on a case-by-case basis to speed up innovation. Sherkow explains that ensuring public safety is the primary objective of traditional regulation. He argues that this objective prompts government agencies to protect the public by locking in status quos in an effort to prevent new risks. Sherkow explains that sandboxes, by contrast, allow experimental flexibility while still providing some limitations. Well-designed sandbox programs also require developers to document how their new innovation performs in unpredictable conditions of the real world and to share data with the agency for real-time monitoring. Sherkow also suggests that sandboxes have certain process elements that make them effective: procedures to adapt regulation in response to input from industry; authorizations that are broad enough to cover iterations of new technologies; and limitations on scope and duration. The COVID-19 pandemic created a perfect scenario for a sandbox procedural approach in place of typical FDA governance. The normal process for FDA drug approval and authorization can take years, cost millions of dollars, and require clear demonstration that new drugs are safe and effective. During a national emergency, however, Section 564 of the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act allows the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services to authorize drugs under different rules. Such authorizations are called emergency use authorizations (EUAs). Under an EUA, FDA may grant limited authorization, but not full approval, to new drugs. Sherkow describes several characteristics of EUAs that qualify them as a type of regulatory sandbox. First, FDA may authorize a drug under more relaxed evidentiary standards if there is a “reasonable belief” that the product will be effective. Sherkow explains that, while the minimum evidentiary standard for the “reasonable belief” threshold is set at a “totality of scientific evidence,” the risk-benefit analysis part of the framework allows FDA to tailor its requirements for EUAs to the specific situations in which a new drug or therapeutic will be used. For instance, Sherkow describes how FDA still required extensive pre-EUA human clinical trials for vaccine safety, recognizing that maintaining public trust in the agency is an important part of national public health strategy. Second, to qualify as a regulatory sandbox, a risk-benefit analysis must be made in the context of the emergency situation. Third, if FDA has already approved adequate alternate drugs, then a new drug cannot be authorized under an EUA. Finally, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act limits tort liability against companies that produce and distribute products under an EUA. Even if the COVID-19 EUAs can be considered regulatory sandboxes, Sherkow worries that the unique circumstances of the pandemic limit how useful the experience will be for the implementation of future regulatory sandboxes. Sherkow argues that regulatory sandboxes, including the COVID-19 EUAs, can diminish public trust in government agencies. He reported that polling data suggests that Americans are both skeptical of the vaccines and less confident in FDA because of perceptions about the transparency of vaccine data. EUAs may come with other costs as well. Sherkow notes that the existence of a regulatory fast-track environment can be difficult to contain when public pressure for solutions is mounting. For instance, political pressure from the White House in 2020 to support hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, Regeneron’s antibody therapy, and vaccines made legitimate evaluation of scientific evidence more challenging. Sherkow also notes that the pressing need for fast innovation during the COVID-19 pandemic made the use of EUAs exceptional and claims that the need for innovation in most other areas is not as critical. In addition, Sherkow describes FDA itself as a “uniquely protective institution” with a broad reach and a unique power to influence product development even without taking formal agency actions. Sherkow nonetheless argues that the use of EUAs demonstrates that sandbox approaches can be beneficial in other areas where real-world experimentation can help hasten innovation. In the end, the EUAs are only temporary authorizations. Companies producing vaccines and other drugs under EUAs will still need to go through the traditional FDA approval process to keep producing them. Some companies, such as Pfizer and Moderna, have already submitted Biological License Applications to FDA seeking full approval of their COVID-19 vaccines. Full approval would allow the companies to market their vaccines directly to consumers

Improvement of Electrochromic Windows through Materials Optimization

The electrochromic polymer made by template polymerization of aniline on poly(2-acryl-amido-2-methyl-1propanesulfonic acid (PAAMPSA) has shown potential in independent visible and near-infrared modulating smart window applications. PANI-PAAMPSA can be switched reversibly by an applied voltage through three oxidation states that change the polymer from clear to green/IR absorbing to dark blue. A suitable counter electrode is an electrochromic polymer which is colored in its oxidized state and clear in its reduced state, which is opposite the behavior of PANI-PAAMPSA. This thesis examines the potential to use ECP-magenta, an ethylhexyl substituted version of the homopolymer ProDOT (3,4 propylenedioxythiophene), as the counter electrode. The charge required to fully switch states for PANI-PAAMPSA is double that required for ECP-magenta for the same thickness, meaning the required thickness for PANI-PAAMPSA can be significantly less and still provide a balanced charge capacity for the cell

State Regulation Fosters Autonomous Vehicle Development

One morning, two tractor trailers drove away from a loading dock in Pittsburgh. A human drove the leading truck, and the one tailing behind autonomously followed along using cameras, connectivity technology, and automated driving systems. Over the course of two days, this “truck platoon” made it to Detroit and back to Pittsburgh, stopping only to unload its cargo at a food bank. In the distant future, truck platooning and autonomous vehicle technology promise greater efficiency and mobility. In the short term, autonomous vehicle testing creates local jobs. State and city governments are trying to attract autonomous vehicle companies to test their new technologies but face political and regulatory challenges. Until the federal government provides a unified framework for assuring the safety of autonomous vehicles, states and local governments must assess risk, manage public expectations, and work together with neighboring jurisdictions to harmonize regulation. Mark Kopko, director of the Office of Transformational Technology in the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, explained in an interview that each state must have its own regulation. But Kopko emphasized that states should work together to make sure that autonomous vehicles can seamlessly move from one state to the next. In fact, the test run from Pittsburgh to Detroit was the result of a collaboration between Locomotion, a Pittsburgh-based autonomous vehicle company, and the Smart Belt Coalition, a longstanding partnership between multiple states’ departments of transportation, turnpike commissions, and academic institutions. The automotive industry has a long history of managing differences in safety regulations between jurisdictions. State and local regulations exist alongside federal rules governing autonomous vehicle testing and deployment. Twenty-nine states have recently enacted legislation related to vehicle driver definition updates and commercial requirements related to truck platooning. Regulatory permitting for general autonomous vehicle testing is less common. Even in California, a leader in autonomous vehicle testing, prohibits operation of a vehicle without a driver prepared to take control of the vehicle and prohibits compensating autonomous vehicle testers for providing rides to members of the public. Arizona, Nevada, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are state leaders in developing laws related to the permitting and deployment of autonomous vehicles. States that have passed legislation in this area tend to be accommodating to autonomous vehicle developers, as states lawmakers often believe they are in competition with other states for the location of new development and economic growth. Passing permissive regulation and developing local government expertise related to autonomous vehicles is an increasingly common approach to attracting autonomous vehicle companies to a particular locality. The Mayor of Pittsburgh, William Peduto, has reportedly said that when autonomous vehicle companies choose a location for testing, they are seeking both regulatory clarity and local authorities who have experience governing and accommodating autonomous vehicle testing. According to Mayor Peduto, by the time that autonomous vehicle companies were looking for a commercial proving ground, the City of Pittsburgh already had years of experience making allowances for autonomous vehicle testing near Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics Institute. Autonomous vehicle companies seeking a place to test new products find a favorable environment in Pittsburgh. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation offers permits for on road testing with few requirements other than submission of a safety self-assessment report which most companies already develop to meet federal guidelines set by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. The safety report required in Pennsylvania must include a description of the weather, maximum speeds, location types, and road conditions. Pittsburgh requires a yearly report describing the location of testing, the number of crashes that cause injury or more than $5,000 of damage, and the number of jobs supported by the testing. The city uses this information to herald the creation of local jobs and to communicate with local residents about where they can expect to see autonomous vehicles. The information collected by Pennsylvania and the City of Pittsburgh is not likely to be enough to form the basis of a public safety analysis. The RAND corporation estimates that using on-road testing alone would take more than 500 years at current testing rates to show that autonomous vehicles are as safe as human drivers. The same RAND study concluded that autonomous vehicles “cannot drive their way to safety” and suggested that more rigorous data needs to be collected. California has adopted a similar approach to Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh but requires companies that wish to test autonomous vehicles to report slightly more detailed information. The California Department of Motor Vehicles requires that any operator of an autonomous vehicle within the state obtain a permit and have extensive personal accident and liability insurance. California also requires autonomous vehicle developers to report all collisions and instances where a human safety back up driver re-takes control of the vehicle. Despite criticisms of California’s requirement to report autonomous vehicle failures, more than 50 companies hold testing permits in the state. However, when reporting these issues, autonomous vehicle developers still report almost no safety relevant information about each incident. They only report high level information such as number of vehicles involved and whether the autonomous vehicle was moving or stopped. The approach taken by most state and local governments grants broad permission to test new technologies on public roads, and it provides limited oversight that does not significantly limit autonomous vehicle developers. Too much focus on accommodating new industry growth, however, can sometimes end in disaster. For instance, according to a report from the National Transportation Safety Board, Arizona’s relaxed permitting process contributed to a fatal crash in 2018. The accident in Arizona demonstrates that although there are opportunities at the state and local level for development of autonomous vehicles, a favorable regulatory environment is not without risk