A Professional Development Program for Science Adjunct Faculty: The Mentoring-Learning Community (MLC)

Institutions of higher education have become increasingly dependent on adjunct faculty. These faculty members are often unfamiliar with current teaching strategies emphasizing an active learning approach. To support science adjunct faculty in learning about active learning, a professional development program was designed and implemented by the authors of this study, the Mentoring-Learning Community. The Mentoring-Learning Community program design was informed by literature regarding the use of professional development programs that focused on adjunct faculty. To determine the impact of this program, participants in the Mentoring-Learning Community were observed and interviewed over one semester. Mentoring-Learning Community participants transformed through all three Transformative Learning Theory dimensions, felt more empowered to utilize active learning approaches in their classrooms, and modified some aspects of their instruction

Redefining the role of urban studies Early Career Academics in the post-COVID-19 university

We are an international collective of Early Career Academics (ECAs) who met throughout 2020 to explore the implications of COVID-19 on precarious academics. With this intervention, our aims are to voice commonly shared experiences and concerns and to reflect on the extent to which the pandemic offers opportunities to redefine Higher Education and research institutions, in a context of ongoing precarity and funding cuts. Specifically, we explore avenues to build solidarity across institutions and geographies, to ensure that the conduct of urban research, and support offered to ECAs, allows for more inclusivity, diversity, security and equitability. *The Urban ECA Collective emerged from a workshop series described in this article which intended to foster international solidarity among self-defined early career academics working within urban research.ITESO, A.C

Synthesizing the scientific evidence to inform the development of the post-2020 Global Framework on Biodiversity

Fil: Díaz, Sandra. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina.Fil: Broadgate, Wendy. Future Earth; Suecia.Fil: Declerck, Fabrice. Bioversity International; Italia.Fil: Dobrota, Susanna. Future Earth; Suecia.Fil: Krug, Cornelia. bioDISCOVERY; Suecia.Fil: Moersberg, Hannah. Future Earth; Francia.Fil: Obura, David. Coastal Oceans Research and Development – Indian Ocean; Kenya.Fil: Spehn, Eva. Forum Biodiversity; Suiza.Fil: Tewksbury, Joshua. Future Earth; Estados Unidos.Fil: Verburg, Peter. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Países Bajos.Fil: Zafra Calvo, Noelia. Future Earth; Suecia.Fil: Bellon, Mauricio. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad; México.Fil: Burgess, Neil. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino Unido.Fil: Cariño, Joji. Forest Peoples Programme; Reino Unido.Fil: Castañeda Alvarez, Nora. Global Crop Diversity Trust; Alemania.Fil: Cavender-Bares, Jeannine. University of Minnesota; Estados Unidos.Fil: Chaplin Kramer, Rebecca. Stanford University; Estados Unidos.Fil: De Meester, Luc. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven; Bélgica.Fil: Dulloo, Ehsan. Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research; Francia.Fil: Fernández-Palacios, José María. Universidad de La Laguna; España.Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina.Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina.Fil: Hill, Samantha. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino Unido.Fil: Isbell, Forest. University of Minnesota; Estados Unidos.Fil: Leadley, Paul. Université Paris-Saclay; Francia.Fil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos.Fil: Mace, Georgina M. University College London; Reino Unido.Fil: Maron, Martine. The University of Queensland; Australia.Fil: Martín-López, Berta. Leuphana University Lüneburg; Alemania.Fil: McGowan, Philip. University of Newcastle; Australia.Fil: Pereira, Henrique. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania.Fil: Purvis, Andy. Imperial College London. Grand Challenges in Ecosystems and the Environment; Reino Unido.Fil: Reyes-García, Victoria. Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona; España.Fil: Rocha, Juan. Future Earth; Suecia.Fil: Rondinini, Carlo. Sapienza-Università di Roma; Italia.Fil: Shannon, Lynne. University of Cape Town; Sudáfrica.Fil: Shaw, Rebecca. World Wildlife Fund; Estados Unidos.Fil: Shin, Yunne Jai. University of Cape Town. Marine Research Institute. Department of Biological Sciences; Sudáfrica.Fil: Snelgrove, Paul. Memorial University of Newfoundland; Canadá.Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo. International Institute for Sustainability; Brasil.Fil: Subramanian, Suneetha.United Nations University; Japón.Fil: Visconti, Piero. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis; Austria.Fil: Watson, James. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados Unidos.Fil: Zanne, Amy. The George Washington University; Estados Unidos.Fil: Bruford, Michael. Cardiff University; Gales.Fil: Colli, Licia. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore; Italia.Fil: Azeredo de Dornelas, Maria. University of St Andrews; Escocia.Fil: Bascompte, Jordi. Universität Zürich; Suiza.Fil: Forest, Felix. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino Unido.Fil: Hoban, Sean. The Morton Arboretum; Estados Unidos.Fil: Jones, Sarah. Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research; Francia.Fil: Jordano, Pedro. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas; España.Fil: Kassen, Rees. University of Ottawa; Canadá.Fil: Khoury, Colin. Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research; Francia.Fil: Laikre, Linda. Stockholms Universitet; Suecia.Fil: Maxted, Nigel. University of Birmingham; Reino Unido.Fil: Miloslavich, Patricia. Universidad Simón Bolívar; Venezuela.Fil: Moreno Mateos, David. Basque Centre for Climate Change; España.Fil: Ogden, Rob. The University of Edinburgh; Reino Unido.Fil: Segelbacher, Gernot. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg; Alemania.Fil: Souffreau, Caroline. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven; Bélgica.Fil: Svenning, Jens Christian. Aarhus University; Dinamarca.Fil: Vázquez, Ella. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; México.This report is the result of a meeting which aimed to offer scientific guidance to the development under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework focussing on its contribution to the 2030 Mission and 2050 Vision. We provide a synthesis of the scientific and technical justification, evidence base and feasibility for outcome-oriented goals on nature and its contributions to people, including biodiversity at different levels from genes to biomes. The report is structured to respond to the Zero Draft of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

The seeds of divergence: the economy of French North America, 1688 to 1760

Generally, Canada has been ignored in the literature on the colonial origins of divergence with most of the attention going to the United States. Late nineteenth century estimates of income per capita show that Canada was relatively poorer than the United States and that within Canada, the French and Catholic population of Quebec was considerably poorer. Was this gap long standing? Some evidence has been advanced for earlier periods, but it is quite limited and not well-suited for comparison with other societies. This thesis aims to contribute both to Canadian economic history and to comparative work on inequality across nations during the early modern period. With the use of novel prices and wages from Quebec—which was then the largest settlement in Canada and under French rule—a price index, a series of real wages and a measurement of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are constructed. They are used to shed light both on the course of economic development until the French were defeated by the British in 1760 and on standards of living in that colony relative to the mother country, France, as well as the American colonies. The work is divided into three components. The first component relates to the construction of a price index. The absence of such an index has been a thorn in the side of Canadian historians as it has limited the ability of historians to obtain real values of wages, output and living standards. This index shows that prices did not follow any trend and remained at a stable level. However, there were episodes of wide swings—mostly due to wars and the monetary experiment of playing card money. The creation of this index lays the foundation of the next component. The second component constructs a standardized real wage series in the form of welfare ratios (a consumption basket divided by nominal wage rate multiplied by length of work year) to compare Canada with France, England and Colonial America. Two measures are derived. The first relies on a “bare bones” definition of consumption with a large share of land-intensive goods. This measure indicates that Canada was poorer than England and Colonial America and not appreciably richer than France. However, this measure overestimates the relative position of Canada to the Old World because of the strong presence of land-intensive goods. A second measure is created using a “respectable” definition of consumption in which the basket includes a larger share of manufactured goods and capital-intensive goods. This second basket better reflects differences in living standards since the abundance of land in Canada (and Colonial America) made it easy to achieve bare subsistence, but the scarcity of capital and skilled labor made the consumption of luxuries and manufactured goods (clothing, lighting, imported goods) highly expensive. With this measure, the advantage of New France over France evaporates and turns slightly negative. In comparison with Britain and Colonial America, the gap widens appreciably. This element is the most important for future research. By showing a reversal because of a shift to a different type of basket, it shows that Old World and New World comparisons are very sensitive to how we measure the cost of living. Furthermore, there are no sustained improvements in living standards over the period regardless of the measure used. Gaps in living standards observed later in the nineteenth century existed as far back as the seventeenth century. In a wider American perspective that includes the Spanish colonies, Canada fares better. The third component computes a new series for Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is to avoid problems associated with using real wages in the form of welfare ratios which assume a constant labor supply. This assumption is hard to defend in the case of Colonial Canada as there were many signs of increasing industriousness during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The GDP series suggest no long-run trend in living standards (from 1688 to circa 1765). The long peace era of 1713 to 1740 was marked by modest economic growth which offset a steady decline that had started in 1688, but by 1760 (as a result of constant warfare) living standards had sunk below their 1688 levels. These developments are accompanied by observations that suggest that other indicators of living standard declined. The flat-lining of incomes is accompanied by substantial increases in the amount of time worked, rising mortality and rising infant mortality. In addition, comparisons of incomes with the American colonies confirm the results obtained with wages— Canada was considerably poorer. At the end, a long conclusion is provides an exploratory discussion of why Canada would have diverged early on. In structural terms, it is argued that the French colony was plagued by the problem of a small population which prohibited the existence of scale effects. In combination with the fact that it was dispersed throughout the territory, the small population of New France limited the scope for specialization and economies of scale. However, this problem was in part created, and in part aggravated, by institutional factors like seigneurial tenure. The colonial origins of French America’s divergence from the rest of North America are thus partly institutional

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570