Growth, decline, or metamorphosis?

The first day of the Second International Symposium on New Problems of Advanced Societies held from May 3 to 7, 1976, in Hamburg, was devoted to “Basic Political and Social Problems of the 1980’s”. In the following article those problems are traced back to a number of fundamental failures. Their removal requires, in the authors’ view, a thoroughgoing societal transformation. Subsequently we publish a contribution by Professor Bernard Cazes that also represents an excerpt from his report at the Symposium

Cambio de supuestos y ciencia ampliada

El autor plantea que la cosmovisión científica moderna tiene el desafío de  adaptarse a las nuevas evidencias, lo que reviste una gran dificultad por la densa red de supuestos teóricos en que ella está envuelta. Aclara que no busca atacar el espíritu de la ciencia sino motivar su propia evolución, que debe ir en la dirección de una ciencia más holística o ciencia de la totalidad, de la que describe sus características, para la cual considera que el tiempo está maduro.L’auteur affirme que la cosmovision scientifique moderne a pour défi de s’adapter aux nouvelles évidences, ce qui présente une difficulté considérable face au dense réseau de présupposés théoriques dans lequel elle s’inscrit. Il ne s’agit pas d’attaquer l’esprit de la science mais plutôt de motiver sa propre évolution, qui doit s’orienter vers une science plus holistique ou science de la totalité, dont l’auteur décrit les caractéristiques, jugeant le présent propice à cela.The author argues that modern scientific worldview is challenged to adapt to new evidence, which is of great difficulty for the dense network of theoretical assumptions on which it is involved. He clarifies that he does not aims to attack the spirit of science but motivate its own evolution, which should go in the direction of a more holistic science or science of totality, of which he describes its characteristics, for which believes that the time is ripe

El lugar de la metáfora de la conciencia en el pensamiento científico

El autor nos invita a considerar la paradoja de que siendo una cosmovisión científica tan efectivamente demostrable de tantas maneras, no tenga espacio para concebir la mente y el espíritu; y que, siendo la ciencia una manera de entender que se basa en la creación de modelos o metáforas, se produce un daño cuando restringimos estos modelos y metáforas y los consideramos como la “verdadera” descripción de la realidad. Frente a esto, el artículo explora la posibilidad de incorporar metáforas alternativas, y en particular la metáfora de la conciencia, para aportar con ella una más amplia comprensión del mundo para la ciencia.L’auteur nous invite à prendre en considération le paradoxe d’une cosmovision scientifique démontrable de nombreuses manières en termes d’effets, mais incapable de concevoir l’esprit et la force ; et il affirme que la science constituant une manière de comprendre se fondant sur la création de modèles ou de métaphores, un dommage se produit lorsque nous réduisons ces modèles et métaphores et les considérons comme la « véritable » description de la réalité. Face à une telle situation, l’article explore la possibilité d’incorporer des métaphores alternatives, et en particulier la métaphore de la conscience, pour contribuer grâce à elle à une plus ample compréhension du monde par la science.The author invites us to consider the paradox that, being a scientific paradigm as effectively demonstrable in so many ways, it has no place for conceiving mind and spirit, and that being science a way of understanding which is based on the creation of models or metaphors, damage occurs when we restrict these models and metaphors and treat them as the "true" description of reality. Against this, the article explores the possibility of incorporating alternative metaphors, especially the metaphor of consciousness, to bring with it a broader understanding of the world for science

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome