Unleashing Corporate Entrepreneurship

Noncompetition agreements (noncompetes), which prohibit employees from launching or working at competitive companies for certain periods, have become increasingly prevalent in the workplace. Employers claim they need noncompetes to protect their trade secrets and other legitimate business interests, but most workers do not have access to trade secrets—and when they do, such secrets can be better protected through confidentiality and intellectual property agreements. In practice, many companies appear to use noncompetes as an employee retention tool, but this is not a legitimate purpose for a noncompete. In addition, noncompetes have a disproportionately negative impact on women, people of color, and low-wage workers and are challenging to impose on the modern, remote workforce. Negative media attention concerning the proliferation and abuse of noncompetes has recently led numerous states to pass legislation limiting their use. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission recently issued a noncompete ban that, if upheld, would create a sweeping change in workplace law, but it is subject to judicial challenge. However, in the flurry of activity, policymakers have not sufficiently considered the employee retention motive underlying many employers’ noncompetes. Noncompetes are built on a corporate culture where employee exit is presumed—and feared. This article suggests a different approach: creating a culture that decreases employees’ incentives to exit while increasing their incentives to remain, thereby reducing the need for noncompetes. The article makes two main claims. First, it argues that the government should ban noncompetes, other than for highly compensated employees, because noncompetes are increasingly unenforceable, have adverse effects, and are often used for illegitimate reasons. Second, it argues that companies should encourage intrapreneurship—i.e., entrepreneurship within a company—rather than noncompetes, which discourage entrepreneurship. This counterintuitive approach is grounded in organizational behavior and sociological theories about the modern workplace, in which millennials are now the largest generation. Intrapreneurship fosters innovation and employee retention in a more effective and less harmful manner than noncompetes, which have become incongruent with the modern workforce

A large-scale genome-wide association study meta-analysis of cannabis use disorder

Summary Background Variation in liability to cannabis use disorder has a strong genetic component (estimated twin and family heritability about 50–70%) and is associated with negative outcomes, including increased risk of psychopathology. The aim of the study was to conduct a large genome-wide association study (GWAS) to identify novel genetic variants associated with cannabis use disorder. Methods To conduct this GWAS meta-analysis of cannabis use disorder and identify associations with genetic loci, we used samples from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Substance Use Disorders working group, iPSYCH, and deCODE (20 916 case samples, 363 116 control samples in total), contrasting cannabis use disorder cases with controls. To examine the genetic overlap between cannabis use disorder and 22 traits of interest (chosen because of previously published phenotypic correlations [eg, psychiatric disorders] or hypothesised associations [eg, chronotype] with cannabis use disorder), we used linkage disequilibrium score regression to calculate genetic correlations. Findings We identified two genome-wide significant loci: a novel chromosome 7 locus (FOXP2, lead single-nucleotide polymorphism [SNP] rs7783012; odds ratio [OR] 1·11, 95% CI 1·07–1·15, p=1·84 × 10−9) and the previously identified chromosome 8 locus (near CHRNA2 and EPHX2, lead SNP rs4732724; OR 0·89, 95% CI 0·86–0·93, p=6·46 × 10−9). Cannabis use disorder and cannabis use were genetically correlated (rg 0·50, p=1·50 × 10−21), but they showed significantly different genetic correlations with 12 of the 22 traits we tested, suggesting at least partially different genetic underpinnings of cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. Cannabis use disorder was positively genetically correlated with other psychopathology, including ADHD, major depression, and schizophrenia. Interpretation These findings support the theory that cannabis use disorder has shared genetic liability with other psychopathology, and there is a distinction between genetic liability to cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. Funding National Institute of Mental Health; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; National Institute on Drug Abuse; Center for Genomics and Personalized Medicine and the Centre for Integrative Sequencing; The European Commission, Horizon 2020; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Health Research Council of New Zealand; National Institute on Aging; Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium; UK Research and Innovation Medical Research Council (UKRI MRC); The Brain & Behavior Research Foundation; National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA); National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Australia; Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program of the University of California; Families for Borderline Personality Disorder Research (Beth and Rob Elliott) 2018 NARSAD Young Investigator Grant; The National Child Health Research Foundation (Cure Kids); The Canterbury Medical Research Foundation; The New Zealand Lottery Grants Board; The University of Otago; The Carney Centre for Pharmacogenomics; The James Hume Bequest Fund; National Institutes of Health: Genes, Environment and Health Initiative; National Institutes of Health; National Cancer Institute; The William T Grant Foundation; Australian Research Council; The Virginia Tobacco Settlement Foundation; The VISN 1 and VISN 4 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Centers of the US Department of Veterans Affairs; The 5th Framework Programme (FP-5) GenomEUtwin Project; The Lundbeck Foundation; NIH-funded Shared Instrumentation Grant S10RR025141; Clinical Translational Sciences Award grants; National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institute of General Medical Sciences.Peer reviewe

Shared genetic risk between eating disorder- and substance-use-related phenotypes:Evidence from genome-wide association studies

First published: 16 February 202

A large-scale genome-wide association study meta-analysis of cannabis use disorder

Background: Variation in liability to cannabis use disorder has a strong genetic component (estimated twin and family heritability about 50-70%) and is associated with negative outcomes, including increased risk of psychopathology. The aim of the study was to conduct a large genome-wide association study (GWAS) to identify novel genetic variants associated with cannabis use disorder. Methods: To conduct this GWAS meta-analysis of cannabis use disorder and identify associations with genetic loci, we used samples from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Substance Use Disorders working group, iPSYCH, and deCODE (20 916 case samples, 363 116 control samples in total), contrasting cannabis use disorder cases with controls. To examine the genetic overlap between cannabis use disorder and 22 traits of interest (chosen because of previously published phenotypic correlations [eg, psychiatric disorders] or hypothesised associations [eg, chronotype] with cannabis use disorder), we used linkage disequilibrium score regression to calculate genetic correlations. Findings: We identified two genome-wide significant loci: a novel chromosome 7 locus (FOXP2, lead single-nucleotide polymorphism [SNP] rs7783012; odds ratio [OR] 1·11, 95% CI 1·07-1·15, p=1·84 × 10-9) and the previously identified chromosome 8 locus (near CHRNA2 and EPHX2, lead SNP rs4732724; OR 0·89, 95% CI 0·86-0·93, p=6·46 × 10-9). Cannabis use disorder and cannabis use were genetically correlated (rg 0·50, p=1·50 × 10-21), but they showed significantly different genetic correlations with 12 of the 22 traits we tested, suggesting at least partially different genetic underpinnings of cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. Cannabis use disorder was positively genetically correlated with other psychopathology, including ADHD, major depression, and schizophrenia. Interpretation: These findings support the theory that cannabis use disorder has shared genetic liability with other psychopathology, and there is a distinction between genetic liability to cannabis use and cannabis use disorder

Transancestral GWAS of alcohol dependence reveals common genetic underpinnings with psychiatric disorders

Liability to alcohol dependence (AD) is heritable, but little is known about its complex polygenic architecture or its genetic relationship with other disorders. To discover loci associated with AD and characterize the relationship between AD and other psychiatric and behavioral outcomes, we carried out the largest genome-wide association study to date of DSM-IV-diagnosed AD. Genome-wide data on 14,904 individuals with AD and 37,944 controls from 28 case-control and family-based studies were meta-analyzed, stratified by genetic ancestry (European, n = 46,568; African, n = 6,280). Independent, genome-wide significant effects of different ADH1B variants were identified in European (rs1229984; P = 9.8 x 10(-13)) and African ancestries (rs2066702; P = 2.2 x 10(-9)). Significant genetic correlations were observed with 17 phenotypes, including schizophrenia, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, depression, and use of cigarettes and cannabis. The genetic underpinnings of AD only partially overlap with those for alcohol consumption, underscoring the genetic distinction between pathological and nonpathological drinking behaviors.Peer reviewe

Virus genomes reveal factors that spread and sustained the Ebola epidemic.

The 2013-2016 West African epidemic caused by the Ebola virus was of unprecedented magnitude, duration and impact. Here we reconstruct the dispersal, proliferation and decline of Ebola virus throughout the region by analysing 1,610 Ebola virus genomes, which represent over 5% of the known cases. We test the association of geography, climate and demography with viral movement among administrative regions, inferring a classic 'gravity' model, with intense dispersal between larger and closer populations. Despite attenuation of international dispersal after border closures, cross-border transmission had already sown the seeds for an international epidemic, rendering these measures ineffective at curbing the epidemic. We address why the epidemic did not spread into neighbouring countries, showing that these countries were susceptible to substantial outbreaks but at lower risk of introductions. Finally, we reveal that this large epidemic was a heterogeneous and spatially dissociated collection of transmission clusters of varying size, duration and connectivity. These insights will help to inform interventions in future epidemics

Retrospective evaluation of whole exome and genome mutation calls in 746 cancer samples

Funder: NCI U24CA211006Abstract: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) curated consensus somatic mutation calls using whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), respectively. Here, as part of the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium, which aggregated whole genome sequencing data from 2,658 cancers across 38 tumour types, we compare WES and WGS side-by-side from 746 TCGA samples, finding that ~80% of mutations overlap in covered exonic regions. We estimate that low variant allele fraction (VAF < 15%) and clonal heterogeneity contribute up to 68% of private WGS mutations and 71% of private WES mutations. We observe that ~30% of private WGS mutations trace to mutations identified by a single variant caller in WES consensus efforts. WGS captures both ~50% more variation in exonic regions and un-observed mutations in loci with variable GC-content. Together, our analysis highlights technological divergences between two reproducible somatic variant detection efforts

Unleashing Corporate Entrepreneurship

Noncompetition agreements (noncompetes), which prohibit employees from launching or working at competitive companies for certain periods, have become increasingly prevalent in the workplace. Employers claim they need noncompetes to protect their trade secrets and other legitimate business interests, but most workers do not have access to trade secrets—and when they do, such secrets can be better protected through confidentiality and intellectual property agreements. In practice, many companies appear to use noncompetes as an employee retention tool, but this is not a legitimate purpose for a noncompete. In addition, noncompetes have a disproportionately negative impact on women, people of color, and low-wage workers and are challenging to impose on the modern, remote workforce. Negative media attention concerning the proliferation and abuse of noncompetes has recently led numerous states to pass legislation limiting their use. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission recently issued a noncompete ban that, if upheld, would create a sweeping change in workplace law, but it is subject to judicial challenge. However, in the flurry of activity, policymakers have not sufficiently considered the employee retention motive underlying many employers’ noncompetes. Noncompetes are built on a corporate culture where employee exit is presumed—and feared. This article suggests a different approach: creating a culture that decreases employees’ incentives to exit while increasing their incentives to remain, thereby reducing the need for noncompetes. The article makes two main claims. First, it argues that the government should ban noncompetes, other than for highly compensated employees, because noncompetes are increasingly unenforceable, have adverse effects, and are often used for illegitimate reasons. Second, it argues that companies should encourage intrapreneurship—i.e., entrepreneurship within a company—rather than noncompetes, which discourage entrepreneurship. This counterintuitive approach is grounded in organizational behavior and sociological theories about the modern workplace, in which millennials are now the largest generation. Intrapreneurship fosters innovation and employee retention in a more effective and less harmful manner than noncompetes, which have become incongruent with the modern workforce