Development of Incentives for Data Sharing in Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology

Ready access to data is a key concern in both basic research and problem-solving in the biological sciences, as the scale and scope of the questions that researchers ask expand, and as global problems demand data collected from around the world. With a grant from the National Science Foundation, from 2004 through 2009, the Ecological Society of America (ESA) has led a series of five workshops on data sharing, to help the ecology, evolution, and organismal biology communities find common ground on how to make data more readily discoverable and accessible in their own disciplines. The most recent of these focused in the development of incentives for data sharing, both at the individual and organizational level. This presentation will summarize the workshop recommendations, with a focus on preservation, curation, and access to data; access to analytical and visualization tools; and the need to make data archiving simple and routine. The roles of funders and publishers of research are also key and will be highlighted. 

*Background/Question/Methods*
Ready access to data is a key concern in both basic research and problem-solving in the biological sciences, as the scale and scope of the questions that researchers ask expand, and as global problems demand data collected from around the world. With a grant from the National Science Foundation, from 2004 through 2009, the Ecological Society of America (ESA) has led a series of five workshops on data sharing, to help the ecology, evolution, and organismal biology communities find common ground on how to make data more readily discoverable and accessible in their own disciplines. The most recent of these focused in the development of incentives for data sharing, both at the individual and organizational level. 

*Results/Conclusions*
This presentation will summarize the workshop recommendations, with a focus on preservation, curation, and access to data; access to analytical and visualization tools; and the need to make data archiving simple and routine. The roles of funders and publishers of research are also key and will be highlighted. 
&#xa

Prevalence and predictors of 6-month exclusive breastfeeding among Canadian women: a national survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In spite of the evidence supporting the importance of breastfeeding during the first year of life, data on breastfeeding practices remain limited in Canada. The study aimed to examine the prevalence and predictors of 6-month exclusive breastfeeding among Canadian women.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The analysis was based on the Maternity Experience Survey targeting women aged ≥ 15 years who had singleton live births between February 2006 - May 2006 in the Canadian provinces and November 2005 - February 2006 in the territories. The main outcome was exclusive breastfeeding based on the World Health Organization definition. Socioeconomic, demographic, maternal, pregnancy and delivery related variables were considered for a multivariate logistic regression using stepwise modeling. Bootstrapping was performed to account for the complex sampling design.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The sample size in this study was 5,615 weighted to represent 66,810 Canadian women. While ever breastfeeding was 90.3%, the 6-month exclusive breastfeeding rate was 13.8%. Based on the regression model, having higher years of education, residing in the Northern territories and Western provinces, living with a partner, having had previous pregnancies, having lower pre-pregnancy body mass index and giving birth at older age were associated with increased likelihood of 6-month exclusive breastfeeding. Moreover, smoking during pregnancy, Caesarean birth, infant's admission to the intensive care unit and maternal employment status before 6 months of infant's age were negatively associated with exclusive breastfeeding. Mothers choosing to deliver at home were more likely to remain exclusively breastfeeding for 6 months (Odds Ratio: 5.29, 95% Confidence Interval: 2.95-9.46).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The 6-month exclusive breastfeeding rate is low in Canada. The study results constitute the basis for designing interventions that aim to bridge the gap between the current practices of breastfeeding and the World Health Organization recommendation.</p

Top 40 Priorities for Science to Inform US Conservation and Management Policy

To maximize the utility of research to decisionmaking, especially given limited financial resources, scientists must set priorities for their efforts. We present a list of the top 40 high-priority, multidisciplinary research questions directed toward informing some of the most important current and future decisions about management of species, communities, and ecological processes in the United States. The questions were generated by an open, inclusive process that included personal interviews with decisionmakers, broad solicitation of research needs from scientists and policymakers, and an intensive workshop that included scientifically oriented individuals responsible for managing and developing policy related to natural resources. The process differed from previous efforts to set priorities for conservation research in its focus on the engagement of decisionmakers in addition to researchers. The research priorities emphasized the importance of addressing societal context and exploration of trade-offs among alternative policies and actions, as well as more traditional questions related to ecological processes and functions.Keywords: Priority setting, Natural resource management, Ecosystems, Conservation, Decisionmaker

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). CONCLUSIONS: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients

Scaling Up: Concurrent Workshops on Continental‐scale Population and Community Ecology and the Future of Environmental Decisions: An ESA Workshop Report

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/116343/1/bes2201495186.pd