Establishing National Ocean Service Priorities for Estuarine, Coastal, and Ocean Modeling: Capabilities, Gaps, and Preliminary Prioritization Factors

This report was developed to help establish National Ocean Service priorities and chart new directions for research and development of models for estuarine, coastal and ocean ecosystems based on user-driven requirements and supportive of sound coastal management, stewardship, and an ecosystem approach to management. (PDF contains 63 pages

Foundational Skills for Science Communication: A Preliminary Framework

Because science communication training programs are often developed by individuals or programs, different curricula frequently emphasize different skills. While there is great value in sharing these diverse approaches to this training, we saw an opportunity for the field to develop greater coherence. To that end, we examined work from science communication researchers, evaluators, and trainers and synthesized a set of recommendations for core skills that scientists should develop to communicate effectively with different publics.In order to work towards greater coherence across different training approaches supporting science communication and public engagement efforts, we present a preliminary framework that outlines foundational science communication skills. This framework categorizes different skills and their component parts and includes: identifying and aligning engagement goals; adapting to communication landscape and audience; messaging; language; narrative; design; nonverbal communication; writing style; and providing space for dialogue. Through this framework and associated practical, research, and evaluative literatures, we aim to support the training community to explore more concretely opportunities that bridge research and practice and to collectively discuss core competencies in science communication and public engagement.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/150489/1/Foundational Science Communication Skills paper - final, formatted 7-30-19_A.pdfDescription of Foundational Science Communication Skills paper - final, formatted 7-30-19_A.pdf : Main Articl

Introducing the JMBE themed issue on science communication

No Abstrac

A collaboratively derived international research agenda on legislative science advice

The quantity and complexity of scientific and technological information provided to policymakers have been on the rise for decades. Yet little is known about how to provide science advice to legislatures, even though scientific information is widely acknowledged as valuable for decision-making in many policy domains. We asked academics, science advisers, and policymakers from both developed and developing nations to identify, review and refine, and then rank the most pressing research questions on legislative science advice (LSA). Experts generally agree that the state of evidence is poor, especially regarding developing and lower-middle income countries. Many fundamental questions about science advice processes remain unanswered and are of great interest: whether legislative use of scientific evidence improves the implementation and outcome of social programs and policies; under what conditions legislators and staff seek out scientific information or use what is presented to them; and how different communication channels affect informational trust and use. Environment and health are the highest priority policy domains for the field. The context-specific nature of many of the submitted questions—whether to policy issues, institutions, or locations—suggests one of the significant challenges is aggregating generalizable evidence on LSA practices. Understanding these research needs represents a first step in advancing a global agenda for LSA research.Fil: Akerlof, Karen. George Mason University; Estados UnidosFil: Tyler, Chris. University College London;Fil: Foxen, Sarah Elizabeth. University College London;Fil: Heath, Erin. American Association for the Advancement of Science; Estados UnidosFil: Gual Soler, Marga. American Association for the Advancement of Science; Estados UnidosFil: Allegra, Alessandro. University College London;Fil: Cloyd, Emily T.. American Association for the Advancement of Science; Estados UnidosFil: Hird, John A.. University of Massachussets; Estados UnidosFil: Nelson, Selena M.. George Mason University; Estados UnidosFil: Nguyen, Christina T.. George Mason University; Estados UnidosFil: Gonnella, Cameryn J.. Herndon; Estados UnidosFil: Berigan, Liam A.. Kansas State University; Estados UnidosFil: Abeledo, Carlos R.. Universidad de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Al Yakoub, Tamara Adel. Yarmouk University; JordaniaFil: Andoh, Harris Francis. Tshwane University Of Technology; Sudáfrica. Tshwane University of Technology; GhanaFil: dos Santos Boeira, Laura. Veredas Institute; BrasilFil: van Boheemen, Pieter. Rathenau Instituut; Países BajosFil: Cairney, Paul. University of Stirling; Reino UnidoFil: Cook Deegan, Robert. Arizona State University; Estados UnidosFil: Costigan, Gavin. Foundation For Science And Technology; Reino UnidoFil: Dhimal, Meghnath. Nepal Health Research Council; NepalFil: Di Marco, Martín Hernán. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Instituto de Investigaciones "Gino Germani"; ArgentinaFil: Dube, Donatus. National University of Science and Technology; Zimbabu

A collaboratively-derived international research agenda on legislative science advice

We seek to collaboratively develop an international research agenda for an emerging subfield within science policy—legislative science advice—that has been relatively ignored within the study of policy advisory systems. We will identify promising theoretical areas, opportunities for multidisciplinary partnerships, and the research questions of most relevance to policymakers and interest to academics. Our approach starts with the proposition that there are likely differences among academics and practitioners in conceptualizing the relationship between science and policymaking, and therefore also likely varying research priorities, with corresponding theoretical models and units of analysis. We hypothesize that influential factors include not just the discipline (academic/practitioner) of the study participants, but characteristics of the governments with which they identify or study (economic development, political system, and democratization). Using quantitative techniques that identify both areas of consensus and disagreement, we will explore nuances that might otherwise escape notice in other forms of expert consultation. Because most academic attention has been paid to developed Western nations, we anticipate that the current range of policy theories most frequently called upon to explain the role of science advice in the evolution of policy issues is insufficient for a global agenda for science advice to legislatures

Efficacy of levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate for established status epilepticus by age group (ESETT): a double-blind, responsive-adaptive, randomised controlled trial

BackgroundBenzodiazepine-refractory, or established, status epilepticus is thought to be of similar pathophysiology in children and adults, but differences in underlying aetiology and pharmacodynamics might differentially affect response to therapy. In the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT) we compared the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate in established status epilepticus, and here we describe our results after extending enrolment in children to compare outcomes in three age groups.MethodsIn this multicentre, double-blind, response-adaptive, randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients from 58 hospital emergency departments across the USA. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 2 years or older, had been treated for a generalised convulsive seizure of longer than 5 min duration with adequate doses of benzodiazepines, and continued to have persistent or recurrent convulsions in the emergency department for at least 5 min and no more than 30 min after the last dose of benzodiazepine. Patients were randomly assigned in a response-adaptive manner, using Bayesian methods and stratified by age group (<18 years, 18-65 years, and >65 years), to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, or valproate. All patients, investigators, study staff, and pharmacists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was absence of clinically apparent seizures with improved consciousness and without additional antiseizure medication at 1 h from start of drug infusion. The primary safety outcome was life-threatening hypotension or cardiac arrhythmia. The efficacy and safety outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01960075.FindingsBetween Nov 3, 2015, and Dec 29, 2018, we enrolled 478 patients and 462 unique patients were included: 225 children (aged <18 years), 186 adults (18-65 years), and 51 older adults (>65 years). 175 (38%) patients were randomly assigned to levetiracetam, 142 (31%) to fosphenyltoin, and 145 (31%) were to valproate. Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatments within age groups. The primary efficacy outcome was met in those treated with levetiracetam for 52% (95% credible interval 41-62) of children, 44% (33-55) of adults, and 37% (19-59) of older adults; with fosphenytoin in 49% (38-61) of children, 46% (34-59) of adults, and 35% (17-59) of older adults; and with valproate in 52% (41-63) of children, 46% (34-58) of adults, and 47% (25-70) of older adults. No differences were detected in efficacy or primary safety outcome by drug within each age group. With the exception of endotracheal intubation in children, secondary safety outcomes did not significantly differ by drug within each age group.InterpretationChildren, adults, and older adults with established status epilepticus respond similarly to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate, with treatment success in approximately half of patients. Any of the three drugs can be considered as a potential first-choice, second-line drug for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus.FundingNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health