Setting the agenda for social science research on the human microbiome

The human microbiome is an important emergent area of cross, multi and transdisciplinary study. The complexity of this topic leads to conflicting narratives and regulatory challenges. It raises questions about the benefits of its commercialisation and drives debates about alternative models for engaging with its publics, patients and other potential beneficiaries. The social sciences and the humanities have begun to explore the microbiome as an object of empirical study and as an opportunity for theoretical innovation. They can play an important role in facilitating the development of research that is socially relevant, that incorporates cultural norms and expectations around microbes and that investigates how social and biological lives intersect. This is a propitious moment to establish lines of collaboration in the study of the microbiome that incorporate the concerns and capabilities of the social sciences and the humanities together with those of the natural sciences and relevant stakeholders outside academia. This paper presents an agenda for the engagement of the social sciences with microbiome research and its implications for public policy and social change. Our methods were informed by existing multidisciplinary science-policy agenda-setting exercises. We recruited 36 academics and stakeholders and asked them to produce a list of important questions about the microbiome that were in need of further social science research. We refined this initial list into an agenda of 32 questions and organised them into eight themes that both complement and extend existing research trajectories. This agenda was further developed through a structured workshop where 21 of our participants refined the agenda and reflected on the challenges and the limitations of the exercise itself. The agenda identifies the need for research that addresses the implications of the human microbiome for human health, public health, public and private sector research and notions of self and identity. It also suggests new lines of research sensitive to the complexity and heterogeneity of human–microbiome relations, and how these intersect with questions of environmental governance, social and spatial inequality and public engagement with science

Palatal development of preterm and low birthweight infants compared to term infants – What do we know? Part 3: Discussion and Conclusion

BACKGROUND: It has been hypothesized that prematurity and adjunctive neonatal care is 'a priori' a risk for disturbances of palatal and orofacial development which increases the need for later orthodontic or orthognathic treatment. As results on late consequences of prematurity are consistently contradictory, the necessity exists for a fundamental analysis of existing methodologies, confounding factors, and outcomes of studies on palatal development in preterm and low birthweight infants. METHOD: A search of the literature was conducted based on Cochrane search strategies including sources in English, German, and French. Original data were recalculated from studies which primarily dealt with both preterm and term infants. The extracted data, especially those from non-English paper sources, were provided unfiltered in tables for comparison (Parts 1 and 2). RESULTS: Morphology assessment of the infant palate is subject to non-standardized visual and metrical measurements. Most methodologies are inadequate for measuring a three-dimensional shape. Several confounding factors were identified as causes contributing to disturbances of palatal and orofacial development. CONCLUSION: Taking into account the abovementioned shortcomings, the following conclusions may be drawn for practitioners and prospective investigators of clinical studies. 1) The lack of uniformity in the anatomical nomenclature of the infant's palate underlines the need for a uniform definition. 2) Metrically, non-intubated preterm infants do not exhibit different palatal width or height compared to matched term infants up to the corrected age of three months. Beyond that age, no data on the subject are currently available. 3) Oral intubation does not invariably alter palatal morphology of preterm and low birthweight infants. 4) The findings on palatal grooving, height, and asymmetry as a consequence of orotracheal intubation up to the age of 11 years are inconsistent. 5) Metrically, the palates of orally intubated infants remain narrower posteriorly, beginning at the second deciduous molar, until the age of 11 years. Beyond that age, no data on the subject are currently available. 6) There is a definite need for further, especially metrical, longitudinal and controlled trials on palatal morphology of preterm and low birthweight infants with reliable measuring techniques. 7) None of the raised confounding factors for developmental disturbances may be excluded until evident results are presented. Thus, early orthodontic and logopedic control of formerly premature infants is recommended up to the late mixed dentition stage

Palatal development of preterm and low birthweight infants compared to term infants – What do we know? Part 2: The palate of the preterm/low birthweight infant

BACKGROUND: Well-designed clinical studies on the palatal development in preterm and low birthweight infants are desirable because the literature is characterized by contradictory results. It could be shown that knowledge about 'normal' palatal development is still weak as well (Part 1). The objective of this review is therefore to contribute a fundamental analysis of methodologies, confounding factors, and outcomes of studies on palatal development in preterm and low birthweight infants. METHODS: An electronic literature search as well as hand searches were performed based on Cochrane search strategies including sources of more than a century in English, German, and French. Original data were recalculated from studies which primarily dealt with both preterm and term infants. The extracted data, especially those from non-English paper sources, were provided unfiltered for comparison. RESULTS: Seventy-eight out of 155 included articles were analyzed for palatal morphology of preterm infants. Intubation, feeding tubes, feeding mode, tube characteristics, restriction of oral functions, kind of diet, cranial form and birthweight were seen as causes contributing to altered palatal morphology. Changes associated with intubation concern length, depth, width, asymmetry, crossbite, and contour of the palate. The phenomenon 'grooving' has also been described as a complication associated with oral intubation. However, this phenomenon suffers from lack of a clear-cut definition. Head flattening, pressure from the oral tube, pathologic or impaired tongue function, and broadening of the alveolar ridges adjacent to the tube have been raised as causes of 'grooving'. Metrically, the palates of intubated preterm infants remain narrower, which has been examined up to the age of the late mixed dentition. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that would justify the exclusion of any of the raised causes contributing to palatal alteration. Thus, early orthodontic and logopedic control of formerly orally intubated preterm infants is recommended, as opposed to non-intubated infants. From the orthodontic point of view, nasal intubation should be favored. The role that palatal protection plates and pressure-dispersing pads for the head have in palatal development remains unclear