Google expeditions and fieldwork: friends or foes?

Google Expeditions is a Virtual Reality (VR) approach being promoted by Google in schools globally. Google Expeditions are guided tours (field trips) of places that students experience on a smartphone through a virtual reality viewer called Google cardboard. The Open University (OU), UK are conducting a school-based research project (funded by Google and the OU; July 2016 - June 2017) on the potential use of VR via Google Expeditions in secondary school science and geography. The project is being co-led by Field Studies Council, and UK's Association for Science Education and Geographical Association are the two partnering organisations. This workshop provided an opportunity to try out Google Expeditions and to explore how they could be used to support teaching and learning, including fieldwork. Are Google Expeditions a threat to traditional field trips or could they become a complementary tool for strengthening the quality of outdoor learning, for example by providing an immersive technology which adds context and substance to pre-field preparation, in-field activities and post-field revision and reflection

The I SEE project : An approach to futurize STEM education

In the world where young people feel that the future is no longer a promise but a threat, and science and technology are sources of fears and global problems, a challenging task for education is to support students in imagining a future for the world and for themselves. The aim of the EU-funded project “I SEE” is to create an approach in science education that addresses the problems posed by global unsustainability, the uncertainty of the future, social liquidity and the irrelevance of STEM education for young people. This way, we believe, STEM education can support young people in projecting themselves into the future as agents and active persons, citizens and professionals, and open their minds to future possibilities. In this paper we propose a teaching and learning approach for futurizing science education, and describe how that approach was used to develop the first I SEE module implemented in summer school in June 2017 with students from three countries. In sum, the I SEE teaching and learning approach consists of three stages and learning outcomes connected to each of them: encountering the focal issue; engaging with the interaction between science ideas and future dimensions, and synthesizing the ideas and putting them into practice. The middle stage of the model is the main part, involving future-oriented practices that turn knowledge into future- scaffolding skills. We describe four kinds of such future-oriented practices: a) activities to flesh out the future-oriented structure of scientific discourse, language and concepts; b) activities inspired by futures studies or by the working life and societal matters; c) exposure activities to enlarge the imagination about possible future STEM careers; and d) action competence activities. We conclude the paper by reflecting on our experiences of the implementation of the climate change module with upper secondary school students.In the world where young people feel that the future is no longer a promise but a threat, and science and technology are sources of fears and global problems, a challenging task for education is to support students in imagining a future for the world and for themselves. The aim of the EU-funded project “I SEE” is to create an approach in science education that addresses the problems posed by global unsustainability, the uncertainty of the future, social liquidity and the irrelevance of STEM education for young people. This way, we believe, STEM education can support young people in projecting themselves into the future as agents and active persons, citizens and professionals, and open their minds to future possibilities. In this paper we propose a teaching and learning approach for futurizing science education, and describe how that approach was used to develop the first I SEE module implemented in summer school in June 2017 with students from three countries. In sum, the I SEE teaching and learning approach consists of three stages and learning outcomes connected to each of them: encountering the focal issue; engaging with the interaction between science ideas and future dimensions, and synthesizing the ideas and putting them into practice. The middle stage of the model is the main part, involving future-oriented practices that turn knowledge into future- scaffolding skills. We describe four kinds of such future-oriented practices: a) activities to flesh out the future-oriented structure of scientific discourse, language and concepts; b) activities inspired by futures studies or by the working life and societal matters; c) exposure activities to enlarge the imagination about possible future STEM careers; and d) action competence activities. We conclude the paper by reflecting on our experiences of the implementation of the climate change module with upper secondary school students.In the world where young people feel that the future is no longer a promise but a threat, and science and technology are sources of fears and global problems, a challenging task for education is to support students in imagining a future for the world and for themselves. The aim of the EU-funded project “I SEE” is to create an approach in science education that addresses the problems posed by global unsustainability, the uncertainty of the future, social liquidity and the irrelevance of STEM education for young people. This way, we believe, STEM education can support young people in projecting themselves into the future as agents and active persons, citizens and professionals, and open their minds to future possibilities. In this paper we propose a teaching and learning approach for futurizing science education, and describe how that approach was used to develop the first I SEE module implemented in summer school in June 2017 with students from three countries. In sum, the I SEE teaching and learning approach consists of three stages and learning outcomes connected to each of them: encountering the focal issue; engaging with the interaction between science ideas and future dimensions, and synthesizing the ideas and putting them into practice. The middle stage of the model is the main part, involving future-oriented practices that turn knowledge into future- scaffolding skills. We describe four kinds of such future-oriented practices: a) activities to flesh out the future-oriented structure of scientific discourse, language and concepts; b) activities inspired by futures studies or by the working life and societal matters; c) exposure activities to enlarge the imagination about possible future STEM careers; and d) action competence activities. We conclude the paper by reflecting on our experiences of the implementation of the climate change module with upper secondary school students.Peer reviewe

Treatment of rabbit cheyletiellosis with selamectin or ivermectin: a retrospective case study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A retrospective study of rabbits treated against cheyletiellosis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of selamectin or ivermectin in clinical practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Medical records from 53 rabbits with microscopically confirmed <it>Cheyletiella </it>infestation were collected from two small animal clinics. The rabbits were divided into three groups, based on treatment protocols. Group 1 included 11 rabbits treated with ivermectin injections at 200–476 μg kg^-1subcutaneously 2–3 times, with a mean interval of 11 days. In Group 2, 27 rabbits were treated with a combination of subcutaneous ivermectin injections (range 618–2185 μgkg^-1) and oral ivermectin (range 616–2732 μgkg^-1) administered by the owners, 3–6 times at 10 days interval. The last group (Group 3) included 15 rabbits treated with selamectin spot-on applications of 6.2–20,0 mgkg^-1, 1–3 times with an interval of 2–4 weeks. Follow-up time was 4 months–4.5 years.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Rabbits in remission were 9/11 (81,8%), 14/27 (51,9%) and 12/15 (80,8%) in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>All treatment protocols seemed to be sufficiently effective and safe for practice use. Though very high doses were used in Group 2 (ivermectin injections followed by oral administration), the protocol seemed less efficacious compared to ivermectin injections (Group 1) and selamectin spot on (Group 3), respectively, although not statistically significant. Controlled prospective studies including larger groups are needed to further evaluate efficacy of the treatment protocols.</p

A Snapshot of CNVs in the Pig Genome

Recent studies of mammalian genomes have uncovered the extent of copy number variation (CNV) that contributes to phenotypic diversity, including health and disease status. Here we report a first account of CNVs in the pig genome covering part of the chromosomes 4, 7, 14, and 17 already sequenced and assembled. A custom tiling oligonucleotide array was used with a median probe spacing of 409 bp for screening 12 unrelated Duroc boars that are founders of a large family material. After a strict CNV calling pipeline, 37 copy number variable regions (CNVRs) across all four chromosomes were identified, with five CNVRs overlapping segmental duplications, three overlapping pig unigenes and one overlapping a RefSeq pig mRNA. This CNV snapshot analysis is the first of its kind in the porcine genome and constitutes the basis for a better understanding of porcine phenotypes and genotypes with the prospect of identifying important economic traits

Nested inversion polymorphisms predispose chromosome 22q11.2 to meiotic rearrangements [RETRACTED]

Inversion polymorphisms between low-copy repeats (LCRs) might predispose chromosomes to meiotic non-allelic homologous recombination (NAHR) events and thus lead to genomic disorders. However, for the 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS), the most common genomic disorder, no such inversions have been uncovered as of yet. Using fiber-FISH, we demonstrate that parents transmitting the de novo 3 Mb LCR22A–D 22q11.2 deletion, the reciprocal duplication, and the smaller 1.5 Mb LCR22A–B 22q11.2 deletion carry inversions of LCR22B–D or LCR22C–D. Hence, the inversions predispose chromosome 22q11.2 to meiotic rearrangements and increase the individual risk for transmitting rearrangements. Interestingly, the inversions are nested or flanking rather than coinciding with the deletion or duplication sizes. This finding raises the possibility that inversions are a prerequisite not only for 22q11.2 rearrangements but also for all NAHR-mediated genomic disorders

Complete sequence of the 22q11.2 allele in 1,053 subjects with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome reveals modifiers of conotruncal heart defects

The 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS) results from non-allelic homologous recombination between low-copy repeats termed LCR22. About 60%-70% of individuals with the typical 3 megabase (Mb) deletion from LCR22A-D have congenital heart disease, mostly of the conotruncal type (CTD), whereas others have normal cardiac anatomy. In this study, we tested whether variants in the hemizygous LCR22A-D region are associated with risk for CTDs on the basis of the sequence of the 22q11.2 region from 1,053 22q11.2DS individuals. We found a significant association (FDR p &lt; 0.05) of the CTD subset with 62 common variants in a single linkage disequilibrium (LD) block in a 350 kb interval harboring CRKL. A total of 45 of the 62 variants were associated with increased risk for CTDs (odds ratio [OR) ranges: 1.64-4.75). Associations of four variants were replicated in a meta-analysis of three genome-wide association studies of CTDs in affected individuals without 22q11.2DS. One of the replicated variants, rs178252, is located in an open chromatin region and resides in the double-elite enhancer, GH22J020947, that is predicted to regulate CRKL (CRK-like proto-oncogene, cytoplasmic adaptor) expression. Approximately 23% of patients with nested LCR22C-D deletions have CTDs, and inactivation of Crkl in mice causes CTDs, thus implicating this gene as a modifier. Rs178252 and rs6004160 are expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs) of CRKL. Furthermore, set-based tests identified an enhancer that is predicted to target CRKL and is significantly associated with CTD risk (GH22J020946, sequence kernal association test (SKAT) p = 7.21&nbsp;× 10-5) in the 22q11.2DS cohort. These findings suggest that variance in CTD penetrance in the 22q11.2DS population can be explained in part by variants affecting CRKL expression

Genetic contributors to risk of schizophrenia in the presence of a 22q11.2 deletion

Schizophrenia occurs in about one in four individuals with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS). The aim of this International Brain and Behavior 22q11.2DS Consortium (IBBC) study was to identify genetic factors that contribute to schizophrenia, in addition to the ~20-fold increased risk conveyed by the 22q11.2 deletion. Using whole-genome sequencing data from 519 unrelated individuals with 22q11.2DS, we conducted genome-wide comparisons of common and rare variants between those with schizophrenia and those with no psychotic disorder at age ≥25 years. Available microarray data enabled direct comparison of polygenic risk for schizophrenia between 22q11.2DS and independent population samples with no 22q11.2 deletion, with and without schizophrenia (total n = 35,182). Polygenic risk for schizophrenia within 22q11.2DS was significantly greater for those with schizophrenia (padj = 6.73 × 10−6). Novel reciprocal case–control comparisons between the 22q11.2DS and population-based cohorts showed that polygenic risk score was significantly greater in individuals with psychotic illness, regardless of the presence of the 22q11.2 deletion. Within the 22q11.2DS cohort, results of gene-set analyses showed some support for rare variants affecting synaptic genes. No common or rare variants within the 22q11.2 deletion region were significantly associated with schizophrenia. These findings suggest that in addition to the deletion conferring a greatly increased risk to schizophrenia, the risk is higher when the 22q11.2 deletion and common polygenic risk factors that contribute to schizophrenia in the general population are both present