The Bureau International des Poids et Mesures: establishing standards in the physical sciences

In a vault on the outskirts of Paris, a cylinder of platinum-iridium sits in a safe under three layers of glass. It is the kilogram, kept by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM), which is the international home of metrology. Metrology is the science of measurement, and it is of fundamental importance to us all. It is essential for trade, commerce, navigation, transport, communication, surveying, engineering, and construction. It is essential for medical diagnosis and treatment, health and safety, food and consumer protection, and for preserving the environment—e.g., measuring ozone in the atmosphere. Many of these applications are of particular relevance to chemistry and thus to IUPAC. In all these activities we need to make measurements reliably—to an appropriate and known level of uncertainty. The financial implications of metrology are enormous. In the United States, for example, some 15% of the gross domestic product is spent on healthcare, involving reliable quantitative measurements for both diagnosis and treatment

An update on the kilogram

We need a new definition for the kilogram! The present definition was sanctioned by the first General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM, Conférence Général des Poids et Mesures) in 1889, with a minor revision to the words in 1901, and remains unchanged after 116 years. It is the only base unit of the International System of Units (the SI) that is still defined in terms of a prototype artifact, the International Prototype of the Kilogram (IPK), which is kept in a safe at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (the BIPM, Bureau International des Poids et Mesures) in Sèvres, near Paris

A concise summary of the International System of Units, the SI

The Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, the BIPM, was established by Article 1 of the Convention du Mètre, on 20 May 1875, and is charged with providing the basis for a single, coherent system of measurements to be used throughout the world. The decimal metric system, dating from the time of the French Revolution, was based on the metre and the kilogram. Under the terms of the 1875 Convention, new international prototypes of the metre and kilogram were made and formally adopted by the first Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) in 1889. Over time this system developed, so that it now includes seven base units. In 1960 it was decided at the 11th CGPM that it should be called the Système International d’Unités, the SI (in English: the International System of Units). The SI is not static but evolves to match the world’s increasingly demanding requirements for measurements at all levels of precision and in all areas of science, technology, and human endeavour. This document is a summary of the SI Brochure, a publication of the BIPM which is a statement of the current status of the SI. The seven base units of the SI, listed in Table 1, provide the reference used to define all the measurement units of the International System. As science advances, and methods of measurement are refined, their definitions have to be revised. The more accurate the measurements, the greater the care required in the realization of the units of measurement

High dose atorvastatin associated with increased risk of significant hepatotoxicity in comparison to simvastatin in UK GPRD cohort

Background and Aims: Occasional risk of serious liver dysfunction and autoimmune hepatitis during atorvastatin therapy has been reported. We compared the risk of hepatotoxicity in atorvastatin relative to simvastatin treatment. Methods: The UK GPRD identified patients with a first prescription for simvastatin [164,407] or atorvastatin [76,411] between 1997 and 2006, but with no prior record of liver disease, alcohol-related diagnosis, or liver dysfunction. Incident liver dysfunction in the following six months was identified by biochemical value and compared between statin groups by Cox regression model adjusting for age, sex, year treatment started, dose, alcohol consumption, smoking, body mass index and comorbid conditions. Results: Moderate to severe hepatotoxicity [bilirubin >60μmol/L, AST or ALT >200U/L or alkaline phosphatase >1200U/L] developed in 71 patients on atorvastatin versus 101 on simvastatin. Adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] for all atorvastatin relative to simvastatin was 1.9 [95% confidence interval 1.4–2.6]. High dose was classified as 40–80mg daily and low dose 10–20mg daily. Hepatotoxicity occurred in 0.44% of 4075 patients on high dose atorvastatin [HDA], 0.07% of 72,336 on low dose atorvastatin [LDA], 0.09% of 44,675 on high dose simvastatin [HDS] and 0.05% of 119,732 on low dose simvastatin [LDS]. AHRs compared to LDS were 7.3 [4.2–12.7] for HDA, 1.4 [0.9–2.0] for LDA and 1.5 [1.0–2.2] for HDS. Conclusions: The risk of hepatotoxicity was increased in the first six months of atorvastatin compared to simvastatin treatment, with the greatest difference between high dose atorvastatin and low dose simvastatin. The numbers of events in the analyses were small

Advancing leadership in sport: Time to 'actually' take the blinkers off?

In a recent article entitled Advancing Leadership in Sport: Time to Take off the Blinkers?’ Cruickshank and Collins presented what they deemed to be a critical analysis of extant leadership research in sport, attempting to establish a rationale for a greater emphasis on both the cognitive and ‘darker’ (i.e., socially undesirable) sides of leadership. The purpose of the present article is to challenge and clarify a number of misrepresentations in the arguments made in the foundation article, and to question some of the resultant recommendations made. Specifically, the present response will focus on Cruickshank and Collins’ (a) lack of specificity regarding the actual ‘dark’ traits they are apparently purporting to be effective leadership traits, (b) the dearth of theoretical and empirical support for their claims relating to the benefits of ‘dark’ leadership (c) misrepresentation of transformational leadership theory, (d) decision to ignore other relevant theoretical frameworks when presenting their arguments, and (e) apparent confirmation bias in the selective use of literature to support their arguments. Leadership research in sport may well benefit from new directions and methodological advancements and on this level we concur with the aims of Cruickshank and Collins’ article. However, we believe their misrepresentations and inappropriate recommendations do little to advance this area of research, and potentially serve to take it backwards not forwards

Development and initial validation of an indirect measure of transformational leadership integrity

An indirect measure of transformational leadership integrity was developed across three studies. In Study 1, the transformational leadership integrity implicit association test (TLI-IAT) was developed and tested with 65 leaders across heterogeneous organizational contexts. Study 2 involved 51 coaches from 18 sports. Results from Studies 1 and 2 supported the construct validity of the instrument, providing evidence of the instrument's convergent and discriminant validity. Study 3 involved 32 coaches and 133 players from six sports. Findings supported the criterion validity of the measure, providing evidence for the instrument's predictive validity. In sum, evidence is presented that supports the TLI-IATs construct and criterion validity. As such, the present research has made significant advancements to the transformational leadership integrity literature and provides researchers with an indirect measure of automatic transformational leadership integrity self-attitudes