Attitudes and behaviour towards convenience food and food waste in the United Kingdom

Households in the UK discard much food. A reduction in such waste to mitigate environmental impact is part of UK government policy. This study investigated whether household food waste is linked to a lifestyle reliant on convenience food in younger consumers. A survey of 928 UK residents aged 18-40 years and responsible for the household food shopping (male n = 278; female n = 650) completed an online questionnaire designed to measure attitudes to convenience food and to quantify household food waste. Cluster analysis of 24 food-related lifestyle factors identified 5 consumer groups. General linear modelling techniques were used to test relationships between the purchase frequency of convenience food and household food waste. From the cluster analysis, five distinct convenience profiles emerged comprising: ‘epicures’ (n = 135), ‘traditional consumers’ (n = 255), ‘casual consumers’ (n = 246), ‘food detached consumers’ (n = 151) and ‘kitchen evaders’ (n = 141). Casual consumers and kitchen evaders were the most reliant on convenience food and notably were the most wasteful. The demographic profile of kitchen evaders matched the population groups currently targeted by UK food waste policy. Casual consumers represent a new and distinct group characterised by “buy a lot and waste a lot” behaviour. Household size, packaging format, price-awareness and marketing all appear to influence levels of food waste. However, it seems that subtle behavioural and sociocultural factors also have impact. Further research is needed to elucidate the factors that mediate the positive association between the purchase of convenience food and reported food waste in order to inform food waste policy and initiatives

‘Academic Freedom and World Class Universities: A virtuous circle?

Using empirical data from over 1500 respondents (drawn from across the UK) to a survey on academic freedom, and the Times Higher’s World University Rankings, this paper is a comparative assessment of the relationship between professed levels of defacto protection for academic freedom by teaching and research staff in individual UK universities, and their institution’s excellence, as evinced by world university rankings. The study reveals that normative protection for academic freedom is strongest in Russell Group universities and weakest in post-1992 institutions. Additionally, the professed level of protection for academic freedom reported by respondents to the survey is shown to have a positive relationship with the World Rankings’ positions of their institutions. Furthermore, the study considers whether academic freedom may be a prerequisite for, or defining characteristic of, a world-class university. Finally, the paper assesses the possible policy implications of this research for universities and their leaders, and higher educational policy makers, within the UK and beyond, seeking to improve the Times Higher’s World Ranking positions of their institutions

Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19

Altres ajuts: Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC); Illumina; LifeArc; Medical Research Council (MRC); UKRI; Sepsis Research (the Fiona Elizabeth Agnew Trust); the Intensive Care Society, Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship (223164/Z/21/Z); BBSRC Institute Program Support Grant to the Roslin Institute (BBS/E/D/20002172, BBS/E/D/10002070, BBS/E/D/30002275); UKRI grants (MC_PC_20004, MC_PC_19025, MC_PC_1905, MRNO2995X/1); UK Research and Innovation (MC_PC_20029); the Wellcome PhD training fellowship for clinicians (204979/Z/16/Z); the Edinburgh Clinical Academic Track (ECAT) programme; the National Institute for Health Research, the Wellcome Trust; the MRC; Cancer Research UK; the DHSC; NHS England; the Smilow family; the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (CTSA award number UL1TR001878); the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania; National Institute on Aging (NIA U01AG009740); the National Institute on Aging (RC2 AG036495, RC4 AG039029); the Common Fund of the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health; NCI; NHGRI; NHLBI; NIDA; NIMH; NINDS.Critical COVID-19 is caused by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. Host genetic variation influences the development of illness requiring critical care or hospitalization after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes-including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)-in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease