Risk Doctor Briefing - The definition debate continued

Risk Doctor Briefing - The definition debate continue

Using risk appetite and risk attitude to support appropriate risk-taking: a new taxonomy and model

The term ‘risk appetite’ is used widely and increasingly, but there is no commonly accepted definition for it. This situation is exacerbated by confusion between risk appetite and other risk-related terms, especially risk attitude. This paper offers a consistent and coherent taxonomy of these terms, showing how they relate to one another. This allows development of a rich model to explain the complementary and central roles of both risk appetite and risk attitude when individuals or organisations decide how much risk can be taken in a risky and important situation. By progressively deconstructing the full model, we conclude that the key step is to set risk thresholds. We derive a three-stage approach to setting risk thresholds that ensures that the outcomes properly reflect organisational risk culture and the individual risk propensities of key stakeholders, and also clarifies the essential role of risk attitude as a control point. This enables individuals and organisations to choose the appropriate risk attitude in order to influence the amount of risk that is taken in any given situation, so that the achievement of objectives is optimised

Results of a phase-I/II randomized, masked, placebo-controlled trial of recombinant human interleukin-11 (rhIL-11) in the treatment of subjects with active rheumatoid arthritis

Interleukin-11 (IL-11) is a pleiotropic cytokine that regulates the growth and development of hematopoietic stem cells and decreases the proinflammatory mediators of cytokine and nitric oxide production. In animal models of arthritis, treatment with recombinant human IL-11 (rhIL-11) reduces both the level of synovitis and the histologic lesion scores in the joints. The goal of this phase-I/II study in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was to evaluate the safety and clinical activity of different doses and schedules of rhIL-11 in patients with active RA for whom treatment with at least one disease-modifying antirheumatic drug had failed. This was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that evaluated the safety and tolerability of rhIL-11 in 91 patients with active RA. rhIL-11 was administered subcutaneously; patients were randomized into one of five treatment groups (ratio of rhIL-11 to placebo, 4:1). Patients were treated for 12 weeks with either 2.5 or 7.5 μg/kg of rhIL-11 or placebo twice per week or 5 or 15 μg/kg of rhIL-11 or placebo once per week. The status of each subject's disease activity in accordance with the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria was assessed before, during, and after completion of administration of the study drug. Administration of rhIL-11 was well tolerated at all doses and schedules. The most frequent adverse event was a reaction at the injection site. The data suggest a statistically significant reduction in the number of tender joints (P < 0.008) at the 15 μg/kg once-weekly dose schedule but showed no overall significant benefit at the ACR criterion of a 20% response. The trial showed rhIL-11 to be safe and well tolerated at a variety of doses and schedules over a 12-week treatment period in patients with active RA. The only adverse event clearly associated with rhIL-11 administration was reaction at the injection site

The Neanderthal teeth from Marillac (Charente, Southwestern France): Morphology, comparisons and paleobiology

Few European sites have yielded human dental remains safely dated to the end of MIS 4/beginning of MIS 3. One of those sites is Marillac (Southwestern France), a collapsed karstic cave where archeological excavations (1967–1980) conducted by B. Vandermeersch unearthed numerous faunal and human remains, as well as a few Mousterian Quina tools. The Marillac sinkhole was occasionally used by humans to process the carcasses of different prey, but there is no evidence for a residential use of the site, nor have any hearths been found. Rare carnivore bones were also discovered, demonstrating that the sinkhole was seasonally used, not only by Neanderthals, but also by predators across several millennia. The lithostratigraphic units containing the human remains were dated to ∼60 kyr. The fossils consisted of numerous fragments of skulls and jaws, isolated teeth and several post-cranial bones, many of them with traces of perimortem manipulations. For those already published, their morphological characteristics and chronostratigraphic context allowed their attribution to Neanderthals. This paper analyzes sixteen unpublished human teeth (fourteen permanent and two deciduous) by investigating the external morphology and metrical variation with respect to other Neanderthal remains and a sample from modern populations. We also investigate their enamel thickness distribution in 2D and 3D, the enamel-dentine junction morphology (using geometric morphometrics) of one molar and two premolars, the roots and the possible expression of taurodontism, as well as pathologies and developmental defects. The anterior tooth use and paramasticatory activities are also discussed. Morphological and structural alterations were found on several teeth, and interpreted in light of human behavior (tooth-pick) and carnivores' actions (partial digestion). The data are interpreted in the context of the available information for the Eurasian Neanderthals

Building a global alliance of biofoundries (vol 10, 2040, 2019)

The original version of this Comment contained errors in the legend of Figure 2, in which the locations of the fifteenth and sixteenth GBA members were incorrectly given as '(15) Australian Genome Foundry, Macquarie University; (16) Australian Foundry for Advanced Biomanufacturing, University of Queensland.'. The correct version replaces this with '(15) Australian Foundry for Advanced Biomanufacturing (AusFAB), University of Queensland and (16) Australian Genome Foundry, Macquarie University'. This has been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Comment

Managing risk in projects

Projects are risky undertakings, and modern approaches to managing projects recognise the central need to manage the risk as an integral part of the project management discipline. Managing Risk in Projects places risk management in its proper context in the world of project management and beyond, and emphasises the central concepts that are essential in order to understand why and how risk management should be implemented on all projects of all types and sizes, in all industries and in all countries. The generic approach detailed by David Hillson is consistent with current international best practice and guidelines (including 'A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge' (PMBoK) and the 'Project Risk Management Practice Standard' from PMI, the 'APM Body of Knowledge' and 'Project Risk Analysis & Management (PRAM) Guide' from APM, 'Management of Risk: Guidance for Practitioners' from OGC, and the forthcoming risk standard from ISO) but David also introduces key developments in the risk management field, ensuring readers are aware of recent thinking, focusing on their relevance to practical application. Throughout, the goal is to offer a concise description of current best practice in project risk management whilst introducing the latest relevant developments, to enable project managers, project sponsors and others responsible for managing risk in projects to do just that - effectively. Series Editor: Professor Darren Dalcher