U.S.-Russia Space Cooperation: Eroding Interdependence Followed by Symbolic Partnership

The current phase of U.S.-Russia space partnership is coming to an end as American companies begin to produce spacecraft for the U.S. to return to manned space flight and reduce dependence on Russian rocket engines. In the new era, both countries may seek to continue this relationship, even if its main benefit is symbolic rather than economic or technological

U.S.-Russian Relations

The topic of this issue is US–Russian Relations. Firstly, Alla Kassianova discusses US–Russia science cooperation, positing that the scientific communities of both countries have pressed for continued and increased engagement while both governments qualify their support in line with their respective political agendas. Secondly, Pavel Luzin analyses the US–Russia space partnership, commenting that both countries may seek to continue this relationship, even if its main benefit is symbolic. Thirdly, Oleg Anisimov, Robert Orttung, Kelsey Nyland, and Alexander Sergunin discuss the possibilities for US–Russian scientific cooperation in the Arctic, pointing to the success of the “Environmental Bilateral” agreement of 1972 as a model for the implementation of the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation. Lastly, Tina Burrett analyses reporting by four Russian-state-directed media outlets October 2019 to March 2020, to answer the question whether Russia sought to influence voting in the Democratic Party’s primaries.Das Thema dieser Ausgabe sind die amerikanisch-russischen Beziehungen. Zunächst erörtert Alla Kassianova die amerikanisch-russische Wissenschaftskooperation. Als Zweites analysiert Pavel Luzin die Weltraumpartnerschaft zwischen beiden Ländern. Als Drittes erörtern Oleg Anisimov, Robert Orttung, Kelsey Nyland und Alexander Sergunin die Möglichkeiten der amerikanisch-russischen Wissenschaftskooperation in der Arktis. Abschliessend analysiert Tina Burrett die Berichterstattung von vier vom russischen Staat gelenkten Presseagenturen von Oktober 2019 bis März 2020, um die Frage zu beantworten, ob Russland versucht hat, die US Primaries der demokratischen Partei zu beeinflussen.ISSN:1863-042

Current use of imaging and electromagnetic source localization procedures in epilepsy surgery centers across Europe

OBJECTIVE: In 2014 the European Union-funded E-PILEPSY project was launched to improve awareness of, and accessibility to, epilepsy surgery across Europe. We aimed to investigate the current use of neuroimaging, electromagnetic source localization, and imaging postprocessing procedures in participating centers. METHODS: A survey on the clinical use of imaging, electromagnetic source localization, and postprocessing methods in epilepsy surgery candidates was distributed among the 25 centers of the consortium. A descriptive analysis was performed, and results were compared to existing guidelines and recommendations. RESULTS: Response rate was 96%. Standard epilepsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols are acquired at 3 Tesla by 15 centers and at 1.5 Tesla by 9 centers. Three centers perform 3T MRI only if indicated. Twenty-six different MRI sequences were reported. Six centers follow all guideline-recommended MRI sequences with the proposed slice orientation and slice thickness or voxel size. Additional sequences are used by 22 centers. MRI postprocessing methods are used in 16 centers. Interictal positron emission tomography (PET) is available in 22 centers; all using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). Seventeen centers perform PET postprocessing. Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is used by 19 centers, of which 15 perform postprocessing. Four centers perform neither PET nor SPECT in children. Seven centers apply magnetoencephalography (MEG) source localization, and nine apply electroencephalography (EEG) source localization. Fourteen combinations of inverse methods and volume conduction models are used. SIGNIFICANCE: We report a large variation in the presurgical diagnostic workup among epilepsy surgery centers across Europe. This diversity underscores the need for high-quality systematic reviews, evidence-based recommendations, and harmonization of available diagnostic presurgical methods

Current use of imaging and electromagnetic source localization procedures in epilepsy surgery centers across Europe

OBJECTIVE: In 2014 the European Union-funded E-PILEPSY project was launched to improve awareness of, and accessibility to, epilepsy surgery across Europe. We aimed to investigate the current use of neuroimaging, electromagnetic source localization, and imaging postprocessing procedures in participating centers. METHODS: A survey on the clinical use of imaging, electromagnetic source localization, and postprocessing methods in epilepsy surgery candidates was distributed among the 25 centers of the consortium. A descriptive analysis was performed, and results were compared to existing guidelines and recommendations. RESULTS: Response rate was 96%. Standard epilepsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols are acquired at 3 Tesla by 15 centers and at 1.5 Tesla by 9 centers. Three centers perform 3T MRI only if indicated. Twenty-six different MRI sequences were reported. Six centers follow all guideline-recommended MRI sequences with the proposed slice orientation and slice thickness or voxel size. Additional sequences are used by 22 centers. MRI postprocessing methods are used in 16 centers. Interictal positron emission tomography (PET) is available in 22 centers; all using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). Seventeen centers perform PET postprocessing. Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is used by 19 centers, of which 15 perform postprocessing. Four centers perform neither PET nor SPECT in children. Seven centers apply magnetoencephalography (MEG) source localization, and nine apply electroencephalography (EEG) source localization. Fourteen combinations of inverse methods and volume conduction models are used. SIGNIFICANCE: We report a large variation in the presurgical diagnostic workup among epilepsy surgery centers across Europe. This diversity underscores the need for high-quality systematic reviews, evidence-based recommendations, and harmonization of available diagnostic presurgical methods

Current use of imaging and electromagnetic source localization procedures in epilepsy surgery centers across Europe

OBJECTIVE: In 2014 the European Union-funded E-PILEPSY project was launched to improve awareness of, and accessibility to, epilepsy surgery across Europe. We aimed to investigate the current use of neuroimaging, electromagnetic source localization, and imaging postprocessing procedures in participating centers. METHODS: A survey on the clinical use of imaging, electromagnetic source localization, and postprocessing methods in epilepsy surgery candidates was distributed among the 25 centers of the consortium. A descriptive analysis was performed, and results were compared to existing guidelines and recommendations. RESULTS: Response rate was 96%. Standard epilepsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols are acquired at 3 Tesla by 15 centers and at 1.5 Tesla by 9 centers. Three centers perform 3T MRI only if indicated. Twenty-six different MRI sequences were reported. Six centers follow all guideline-recommended MRI sequences with the proposed slice orientation and slice thickness or voxel size. Additional sequences are used by 22 centers. MRI postprocessing methods are used in 16 centers. Interictal positron emission tomography (PET) is available in 22 centers; all using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). Seventeen centers perform PET postprocessing. Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is used by 19 centers, of which 15 perform postprocessing. Four centers perform neither PET nor SPECT in children. Seven centers apply magnetoencephalography (MEG) source localization, and nine apply electroencephalography (EEG) source localization. Fourteen combinations of inverse methods and volume conduction models are used. SIGNIFICANCE: We report a large variation in the presurgical diagnostic workup among epilepsy surgery centers across Europe. This diversity underscores the need for high-quality systematic reviews, evidence-based recommendations, and harmonization of available diagnostic presurgical methods