Selecting committee witnesses: experts back the call for a more even gender balance

Democratic Audit recently published a new report which analysed the identity of select committee witnesses in view of their increasing prominence and influence. Our research found that there was a substantial gender imbalance between those who speak in front of committees. We asked a number of democracy experts to give their views on the research, the reasons for this disparity, the consequences for women’s role in public life and what, if anything, can be done to address the problem

Transferability of Military-Specific Cognitive Research to Military Training and Operations

The influence of acute aerobic exercise on cognitive function is well documented (e.g., Lambourne and Tomporowski, 2010; Chang et al., 2012). However, the influence of military specific exercise on aspects of cognitive function relevant to military operations is less well understood. With the increasing physical and cognitive loads placed on military personnel (Mahoney et al., 2007), this interaction is fundamental to understanding operational performance (Russo et al., 2005). As such, ensuring the transferability of military-specific cognitive research to military training and operations, is of great importance, particularly for the development of both mitigation and enhancement strategies (see Brunyé et al., 2020). Despite this, studies have not always considered whether meaningful translations can be made. We suggest that researchers should endeavor to strike the balance between external validity and experimental control (Figure 1), and consider the concept of representative design (Pinder et al., 2011). External validity refers to the transferability of research findings from the research to the target population, whilst representative design refers to methodological approaches chosen to ensure that the experimental task constraints characterize those experienced during performance (i.e., the training or operational environment) (Pinder et al., 2011). Herein, we will focus on representative design during load carriage investigations, due to its mission criticality (Knapik and Reynolds, 2012), and it being the primary physical activity choice during military specific exercise-cognition research. Specifically, we discuss the inclusion of dual-/multi-tasking, implications of study population, cognitive task selection, and the data collection environment

The Development, and Day-to-Day Variation, of a Military-Specific Auditory N-Back Task and Shoot-/Don’t-Shoot Task

During military operations, soldiers are required to successfully complete numerous physical and cognitive tasks concurrently. Understanding the typical variance in research tools that may be used to provide insight into the interrelationship between physical and cognitive performance is therefore highly important. This study assessed the inter-day variability of two military-specific cognitive assessments; a Military-Specific Auditory N-Back Task (MSANT) and a Shoot-/Don’t-Shoot Task (SDST) in 28 participants. Limits of agreement ± 95% Confidence Intervals, Standard Error of the Mean, and Smallest Detectable Change were calculated to quantify the typical variance in task performance. All parameters within the MSANT and SDST demonstrated no mean difference for trial visit in either the seated or walking condition, with equivalency demonstrated for the majority of comparisons. Collectively, these data provided an indication of the typical variance in MSANT and SDST performance, whilst demonstrating that both assessments can be used during seated and walking conditions

Cognitive, psychophysiological, and perceptual responses to a repeated military-specific load carriage treadmill simulation

Background: Dismounted military operations require soldiers to complete cognitive tasks whilst undertaking demanding and repeated physical taskings. Objective: To assess the effects of repeated fast load carriage bouts on cognitive performance, perceptual responses, and psychophysiological markers. Methods: Twelve civilian males (age, 28 ± 8 y; stature, 186 ± 6 cm; body mass 84.3 ± 11.1 kg; V̇O2max, 51.5 ± 6.4 mL·kg-1·min-1) completed three ~65-minute bouts of a Fast Load Carriage Protocol (FLCP), each interspersed with a 65-minute recovery period, carrying a representative combat load of 25 kg. During each FLCP, cognitive function was assessed using a Shoot-/Don’t-Shoot Task (SDST) and a Military-Specific Auditory N-Back Task (MSANT), along with subjective ratings. Additional psychophysiological markers (heart rate variability, salivary cortisol, and dehydroepiandrosterone-sulfate concentrations) were also measured. Results: A main effect of bout on MSANT combined score metric (p<0.001, Kendall’s W=69.084) and for time on the accuracy-speed trade-off parameter of the SDST (p=0.025, Ѡ2=0.024) was evident. These likely changes in cognitive performance were coupled with subjective data indicating that participants perceived that they increased their mental effort to maintain cognitive performance (bout: p<0.001, Ѡ2=0.045; time: p<0.001, Ѡ2=0.232). Changes in HRV and salivary markers were also evident, likely tracking increased stress. Conclusion: Despite the increase in physiological and psychological stress, cognitive performance was largely maintained; purportedly a result of increased mental effort. Application: Given the likely increase in dual-task interference in the field environment compared with the laboratory, military commanders should seek approaches to manage cognitive load where possible, to maintain soldier performance

Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA mutation

BACKGROUND Olaparib is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that has promising antitumor activity in patients with metastatic breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. METHODS We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which olaparib monotherapy was compared with standard therapy in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received no more than two previous chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 2: 1 ratio, to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or standard therapy with single-agent chemotherapy of the physician's choice (capecitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine in 21-day cycles). The primary end point was progression-free survival, which was assessed by blinded independent central review and was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS Of the 302 patients who underwent randomization, 205 were assigned to receive olaparib and 97 were assigned to receive standard therapy. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the standardtherapy group (7.0 months vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.43 to 0.80; P<0.001). The response rate was 59.9% in the olaparib group and 28.8% in the standard-therapy group. The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 36.6% in the olaparib group and 50.5% in the standard-therapy group, and the rate of treatment discontinuation due to toxic effects was 4.9% and 7.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation, olaparib monotherapy provided a significant benefit over standard therapy; median progression-free survival was 2.8 months longer and the risk of disease progression or death was 42% lower with olaparib monotherapy than with standard therapy. (Funded by AstraZeneca; OlympiAD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02000622.