Doing what others do: norms, science, and collective action on global warming

Does rhetoric highlighting social norms or mentioning science in a communication affect individuals’ beliefs about global warming and/or willingness to take action? We draw from framing theory and collective-interest models of action to motivate hypotheses that are tested in two large web-based survey-experiments using convenience samples. Our results show that attitudes about global warming, support for policies that would reduce carbon emissions, and behavioral intentions to take voluntary action are strongly affected by norm- and science-based interventions. This has implications for information campaigns targeting voluntary efforts to promote lifestyle changes that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Climate projections and their impact on policy and practice

This article examines the relationship between projections of climate change and the responses to those projections. First, it discusses uncertainty and its role in shaping not only the production of climate projections but also the use of these projections by decision makers. We find that uncertainty critically affects the way climate projections move from useful to usable, where usefulness is defined by scientists' perception of users' needs, and usability is defined by users' perception of what knowledge can be readily applied to their decision. From the point of view of the natural scientist, we pose that there is an uncertainty fallacy, that is, a belief that the systematic reduction of uncertainty in climate projections is required in order for the projections to be used by decision makers. Second, we explore the implications of climate projections for policy and decision making, using examples from the seasonal climate forecast applications literature as an analog. We examine constraints and opportunities for their application in policy and practice and find that over-reliance on science and technical solutions might crowd out the moral imperative to do what is needed to improve livelihoods and to guarantee ecosystems' long-term sustainability. We conclude that, in the context of high uncertainty, decision makers should not look for ‘perfect’ forecasts, but seek to implement knowledge systems that integrate climate projections with other kinds of knowledge and that consider the multiple stressors that shape their decision environment. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs websitePeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78059/1/71_ftp.pd

Five ways to enhance the impact of climate science

Policy-making is rarely driven by evidence alone. Thus, climate scientists who adopt an ‘evidence-based’ mindset, expecting more science to lead automatically to better policy, are likely to be disappointed. Instead, embracing an ‘evidence-informed’ attitude to policy-making will be more productive, recognising that evidence must be deployed in such a way as to interact persuasively with other factors. Using the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC as inspiration, this commentary argues that climate scientists would do well to consider five ideas and ultimately embrace an evidence-informed approach to presenting evidence.This work is taken from a larger PhD project currently being undertaken in the Department of Geography at the University of Cambridge. This work is very kindly funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number ES/I901957/1) and by the Homerton College Charter Scholarship scheme. I would like to thank S. E. Owens, A. Donovan and W. M. Adams for comments, and D. Watson for help with the figures.This is the accepted manuscript. The final version is available in Nature Climate Change 4, 522–524 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2270 . http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n7/full/nclimate2270.htm

Essential features of responsible governance of agricultural biotechnology

Agricultural biotechnology continues to generate considerable controversy. We argue that to address this controversy, serious changes to governance are needed. The new wave of genomic tools and products (e.g., CRISPR, gene drives, RNAi, synthetic biology, and genetically modified [GM] insects and fish), provide a particularly useful opportunity to reflect on and revise agricultural biotechnology governance. In response, we present five essential features to advance more socially responsible forms of governance. In presenting these, we hope to stimulate further debate and action towards improved forms of governance, particularly as these new genomic tools and products continue to emerge

A minimum data set-Core outcome set, core data elements, and core measurement set-For degenerative cervical myelopathy research (AO Spine RECODE DCM): A consensus study

BACKGROUND Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a progressive chronic spinal cord injury estimated to affect 1 in 50 adults. Without standardised guidance, clinical research studies have selected outcomes at their discretion, often underrepresenting the disease and limiting comparability between studies. Utilising a standard minimum data set formed via multi-stakeholder consensus can address these issues. This combines processes to define a core outcome set (COS)-a list of key outcomes-and core data elements (CDEs), a list of key sampling characteristics required to interpret the outcomes. Further "how" these outcomes should be measured and/or reported is then defined in a core measurement set (CMS). This can include a recommendation of a standardised time point at which outcome data should be reported. This study defines a COS, CDE, and CMS for DCM research. METHODS AND FINDINGS A minimum data set was developed using a series of modified Delphi processes. Phase 1 involved the setup of an international DCM stakeholder group. Phase 2 involved the development of a longlist of outcomes, data elements, and formation into domains. Phase 3 prioritised the outcomes and CDEs using a two-stage Delphi process. Phase 4 determined the final DCM minimal data set using a consensus meeting. Using the COS, Phase 5 finalised definitions of the measurement construct for each outcome. In Phase 6, a systematic review of the literature was performed, to scope and define the psychometric properties of measurement tools. Phase 7 used a modified Delphi process to inform the short-listing of candidate measurement tools. The final measurement set was then formed through a consensus meeting (Phase 8). To support implementation, the data set was then integrated into template clinical research forms (CRFs) for use in future clinical trials (Phase 9). In total, 28 outcomes and 6 domains (Pain, Neurological Function, Life Impact, Radiology, Economic Impact, and Adverse Events) were entered into the final COS. Thirty two outcomes and 4 domains (Individual, Disease, Investigation, and Intervention) were entered into the final CDE. Finally, 4 outcome instruments (mJOA, NDI, SF-36v2, and SAVES2) were identified for the CMS, with a recommendation for trials evaluating outcomes after surgery, to include baseline measurement and at 6 months from surgery. CONCLUSIONS The AO Spine RECODE-DCM has produced a minimum data set for use in DCM clinical trials today. These are available at https://myelopathy.org/minimum-dataset/. While it is anticipated the CDE and COS have strong and durable relevance, it is acknowledged that new measurement tools, alongside an increasing transition to study patients not undergoing surgery, may necessitate updates and adaptation, particularly with respect to the CMS

Physician Attitudes towards Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement: Safety Concerns Are Paramount

The ethical dimensions of pharmacological cognitive enhancement have been widely discussed in academic circles and the popular media, but missing from the conversation have been the perspectives of physicians - key decision makers in the adoption of new technologies into medical practice. We queried primary care physicians in major urban centers in Canada and the United States with the aim of understanding their attitudes towards cognitive enhancement. Our primary hypothesis was that physicians would be more comfortable prescribing cognitive enhancers to older patients than to young adults. Physicians were presented with a hypothetical pharmaceutical cognitive enhancer that had been approved by the regulatory authorities for use in healthy adults, and was characterized as being safe, effective, and without significant adverse side effects. Respondents overwhelmingly reported increasing comfort with prescribing cognitive enhancers as the patient age increased from 25 to 65. When asked about their comfort with prescribing extant drugs that might be considered enhancements (sildenafil, modafinil, and methylphenidate) or our hypothetical cognitive enhancer to a normal, healthy 40 year old, physicians were more comfortable prescribing sildenafil than any of the other three agents. When queried as to the reasons they answered as they did, the most prominent concerns physicians expressed were issues of safety that were not offset by the benefit afforded the individual, even in the face of explicit safety claims. Moreover, many physicians indicated that they viewed safety claims with considerable skepticism. It has become routine for safety to be raised and summarily dismissed as an issue in the debate over pharmacological cognitive enhancement; the observation that physicians were so skeptical in the face of explicit safety claims suggests that such a conclusion may be premature. Thus, physician attitudes suggest that greater weight be placed upon the balance between safety and benefit in consideration of pharmacological cognitive enhancement