Responses to \u3ci\u3eVarroa destructor\u3c/i\u3e and \u3ci\u3eNosema ceranae\u3c/i\u3e by several commercial strains of Australian and North American honeybees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

The potential impact of varroa (Varroa destructor, Anderson & Trueman) on Australian beekeeping and agriculture depends in part on the levels of resistance to this parasite expressed by Australian commercial honeybees (Apis mellifera). The responses of seven lines of Australian honeybees to V. destructor were compared with the responses of a stock of Italian honeybees from the United States known for its susceptibility to V. destructor and two stocks known for their resistance to V. destructor, Russian honeybees (RHB) and a stock expressing the varroa sensitive hygiene trait (VSH). The experiment began in May with uniform colonies having uniform infestation of V. destructor. V. destructor infestations measured as the percentage of adult bees infested in the Australian lines and the Italian stock rose from less than 10% in August to over 25% in October. From August to November, 44% of both the Australian and Italian colonies died while strongly exhibiting symptoms of parasitic mite syndrome. In contrast, RHB and VSH colonies displayed comparative resistance to V. destructor. Their infestation rates rose from about 5% in August to 10% (RHB) and 14% (VSH) in October. Likely, some of this increase resulted from invasion pressure by mites from the dying Australian and Italian colonies. During the August to November period, 4.4% of the RHB and 14.3% of the VSH colonies died. In comparisons of the seven Australian lines, only non-significant and trivial differences were found for infestation and mortality rates. All Australian lines were highly susceptible to V. destructor. Additionally, evaluations of rates of Nosema ceranae infections were made throughout the course of the experiment. Although high levels of infection were found across all stocks and lines, no stock or line exhibited an adverse effect from N. ceranae infection

Holier than thou? Identity buffers and adoption of controversial practices in the Islamic banking category

Existing scholarship on categories frequently highlights how some category members may violate codes that others diligently abide by. In this paper, we take into account the differences in identity across category members, and ask how these relative differences determine their response to a code-violating change. Taking a case where category members are clearly identified as ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’, we argue that insiders’ reaction to a code violation depends upon the extent to which they believe their identity to be distinct from the code violator’s, who might be an insider or an outsider. Specifically, we suggest that it is the presence or absence of an ‘identity buffer’ – i.e., a relative identity advantage – which determines insiders’ reaction. We hypothesize that when a code violation is introduced by a fellow category insider, the focal insider will be more likely to refrain from the practice. When it is an outsider who introduces the code violation, insiders will be more likely to adopt the code violation as long as they can retain an identity buffer. We further posit that when outsiders adopt code-preserving behavior, thus narrowing the identity buffer between insiders and outsiders, it will mitigate insiders’ likelihood of code violation adoption. We test and find support for our hypotheses using data on Islamic banking industry in 12 countries (2003-2014)

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

Toward a Common Ontology of Scaling Up in Development

Scaling up development measures to target global food insecurity has a distinctly spatial character and is often cited as a solution to the global hunger crisis. Development does not occur without scaling and consensus on the ontological meaning of scaling up is a vital component to developing sustainable solutions to the global hunger crisis across geographical scales. Yet ‘scaling up’, while frequently used throughout Research and Development (R&D) and Natural Resource Management (NRM) literature, lacks ontological agreement. We begin by considering the noun, ‘scale’ and existing literature on scaling up, then present a visual analysis of definitions provided for scaling up across development institutions. Our study finds that the organization of terms used across these definitions falls into three distinct categories: Interventions, Mechanisms, and Outcomes. Further, we contend that the continued uncertainty is linked to scale being applied in two fashions: as a noun (outcome) and verb (process). Rather than calling for reformed definitions, we argue for precision of definitions. To that end, we present a conceptual framework of scaling up that gives greater emphasis on separating the noun scale, from the verb, to scale. Further, Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) in our model complements scaling efforts beginning with how scaling up is defined by program, through to final evaluation of success