Diferencias entre áreas científicas en las prácticas de divulgación de la investigación: un estudio empírico en el CSIC

En las últimas décadas se han comenzado a desarrollar políticas gubernamentales e institucionales para la promoción de la divulgación del conocimiento científico. Este artículo explora la implicación de los investigadores en diversos tipos de actividades de divulgación, para identificar si se producen diferencias entre las diferentes áreas científicas. El estudio analiza una muestra amplia de investigadores pertenecientes a las ocho áreas científicas del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), a los que se ha realizado una encuesta sobre su participación en distintas actividades de divulgación. Mediante un análisis factorial se han construido dos indicadores que agrupan, respectivamente, las actividades de divulgación de carácter individual e institucional. Un contraste ANOVA permite identificar diferencias entre investigadores de ciencias humanas y sociales e investigadores de las ciencias experimentales, pero no muy acusadas. Los resultados pueden ser de interés para el enfoque futuro de las acciones de fomento de la divulgación de la ciencia.Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Castro-Martínez, E.; Fernández-Esquinas, M. (2014). Diferencias entre áreas científicas en las prácticas de divulgación de la investigación: un estudio empírico en el CSIC. Revista Española de Documentación Científica. 37(2):1-15. doi:10.3989/redc.2014.2.1096S11537

Aprendizaje-servicio (aps) en centros educativos de difícil desempeño: diseño y aplicación de una batería de estrategias de enseñanza coeducativa, para el fomento de la autonomía y las relaciones sociales en las clases de educación física

Las tendencias actuales a estereotipar ciertas actividades físicas y/o deportivas, es una realidad que, por desgracia, sigue siendo palpable en nuestra sociedad. Particularmente, en el contexto educativo de la educación física escolar, es una problemática caracterizada por la hipermasculinización del currículo educativo y, como consecuencia por conductas machistas entre los y las escolares. Este tipo de conductas, pudieran ser de mayor visibilidad, en aquellos centros educativos en los que el alumnado, pudiera considerarse vulnerable, en términos culturales, sociales y económicos. Así pues, el presente proyecto de innovación, plantea el diseño y aplicación de una batería de estrategias de enseñanza coeducativa para la mejora de la autonomía y de las relaciones sociales en las clases de educación física, entre alumnado escolarizado en los llamados centros de difícil desempeño. Para su desarrollo, se llevó a cabo una metodología de aprendizaje servicio entre alumnado universitario del grado de educación primaria, y el doble grado de educación primaria e infantil

Prevalence of the Phelan-McDermid Syndrome in Spain

Fundamentos: El Síndrome de Phelan-McDermid es una enfermedad poco frecuente de origen genético causada por la deleción del extremo terminal del cromosoma 22 región q13.3 o por mutaciones puntuales que afectan al gen SHANK3. Los objetivos de este trabajo fueron determinar la prevalencia de la enfermedad en la población española, establecer la distribución geográfica del síndrome entre las distintas comunidades autónomas, dilucidar el rango de edad en el que existen más pacientes y estudiar la relación enfermedad-sexo así como la edad media al diagnóstico. Métodos: Para la investigación se reclutaron pacientes diagnósticados con la enfermedad durante doce años en todo el territorio español. La información clínica de los pacientes se obtuvo de los médicos de referencia mediante dos cuestionarios estandarizados completados con datos de los informes médicos y la entrevista a los padres. El diagnóstico molecular de la enfermedad se realizó utilizando diferentes formatos de microarrays. Los datos se trataron utilizando Microsoft Excel y Statgraphics Centurion XVII. Resultados: Actualmente en España existen 201 personas diagnosticadas con la enfermedad siendo su prevalencia de 4x10-4/10.000 habitantes. La comunidad con más pacientes diagnosticados fue Madrid y no hubo diferencias significativas en cuanto al sexo y la enfermedad, la edad media al diagnóstico se sitúa en torno a los 6,67 años. Conclusiones: La prevalencia de la enfermedad en España es muy baja pudiéndose afirmar que es muy probable que en la población existan más personas con este síndrome.Background: Phelan-McDermid syndrome is a rare genetic condition caused by a deletion of the terminal end of chromosome 22 in the 13.3 region, as well as, by point mutations within SHANK3 gene. The aims of this research were to determine the prevalence of the disease in the Spanish population, to establish the geographical distribution of the syndrome among the different autonomous communities, to elucidate the age range that affects more patients, to study the disease-sex relationship, as well as the age at diagnosis. Methods: For the research, patients diagnosed with the disease for twelve years were recruited throughout the Spanish territory. The clinical patient information was obtained from the referral doctors using two standardized questionnaires completed with data from the medical reports and the interview with the parents. The molecular diagnosis of the disease was carried out using different formats of microarrays. Data were processed using Microsoft Excel and Statgraphics Centurion XVII. Results: Currently in Spain there are 201 people diagnosed with the disease. Currently in Spain there are 201 people diagnosed with the disease, its prevalence being 4x10-4/10,000 inhabitants. The community with the most diagnosed patients was Madrid and there were no significant differences in terms of sex and disease, the mean age at diagnosis was around 6.67 years. Conclusions: The prevalence of the disease in Spain is very low, and it can be stated that it is very likely that there are more people with this syndrome in the population.Medicin

COVID-19 Clinical Profile in Latin American Migrants Living in Spain: Does the Geographical Origin Matter?

COVID-19; Latin America; SeverityCOVID-19; Amèrica Llatina; GravetatCOVID-19; América Latina; GravedadThe aim of this study was to describe and compare the clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia according to their geographical origin. This is a retrospective case-control study of hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia treated at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital (Barcelona) during the first wave of the pandemic. Cases were defined as patients born in Latin America and controls were randomly selected among Spanish patients matched by age and gender. Demographic and clinical variables were collected, including comorbidities, symptoms, vital signs and analytical parameters, intensive care unit admission and outcome at 28 days after admission. Overall, 1080 hospitalized patients were registered: 774 (71.6%) from Spain, 142 (13.1%) from Latin America and the rest from other countries. Patients from Latin America were considered as cases and 558 Spanish patients were randomly selected as controls. Latin American patients had a higher proportion of anosmia, rhinorrhea and odynophagia, as well as higher mean levels of platelets and lower mean levels of ferritin than Spanish patients. No differences were found in oxygen requirement and mortality at 28 days after admission, but there was a higher proportion of ICU admissions (28.2% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.0310). An increased proportion of ICU admissions were found in patients from Latin America compared with native Spanish patients when adjusted by age and gender, with no significant differences in in-hospital mortality.Isabel Campos-Varela’s research activity is funded by grant PI19/00330 from Instituto de Salud Carlos III. CIBERehd is supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III. The work was independent of all funding. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors

What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach

Ambiguity surrounding the effect of external engagement on academic research has raised questions about what motivates researchers to collaborate with third parties. We argue that what matters for society is research that can be absorbed by users. We define openness as a willingness by researchers to make research more usable by external partners by responding to external influences in their own research practices. We ask what kinds of characteristics define those researchers who are more open to creating usable knowledge. Our empirical study analyses a sample of 1583 researchers working at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). Results demonstrate that it is personal factors (academic identity and past experience) that determine which researchers have open behaviours. The paper concludes that policies to encourage external engagement should focus on experiences which legitimate and validate knowledge produced through user encounters, both at the academic formation career stage as well as through providing ongoing opportunities to engage with third parties.The data used for this study comes from the IMPACTO project funded by the Spanish Council for Scientific Research - CSIC (Ref. 200410E639). The work also benefited from a mobility grant awarded by Eu-Spri Forum to Julia Olmos Penuela & Paul Benneworth for her visiting research to the Center of Higher Education Policy Studies. Finally, Julia Olmos Penuela also benefited from a post-doctoral grant funded by the Generalitat Valenciana (APOSTD-2014-A-006).Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach. Minerva. 53(4):381-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9283-4S381410534Abreu, Maria, Vadim Grinevich, Alan Hughes, and Michael Kitson. 2009. Knowledge exchange between academics and the business, public and third sectors. Cambridge: Centre for Business Research and UK-IRC.Aghion, Philippe, Mathias Dewatripont, and Jeremy C. Stein. 2008. Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics 39: 617–635.Ajzen, Icek. 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 27–58.Alrøe, Hugo Fjelsted, and Erik Steen Kristensen. 2002. Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science. Agriculture and Human Values 19(1): 3–23.Audretsch, David B., Werner Bönte, and Stefan Krabel. 2010. Why do scientists in public research institutions cooperate with private firms. In DRUID Working Paper, 10–27.Baldini, Nicola, Rosa Grimaldi, and Maurizio Sobrero. 2007. To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics 70(2): 333–354.Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Barnett, R. 2009. Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education 34(4): 429–440.Becher, Tony. 1994. The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education 19(2): 151–161.Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. McGraw-Hill International.Bekkers, Rudi, and Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas. 2008. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy 37(10): 1837–1853.Belderbos, René, Martin Carree, Bert Diederen, Boris Lokshin, and Reinhilde Veugelers. 2004. Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22(8): 1237–1263.Benner, Mats, and Ulf Sandström. 2000. Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy 29(2): 291–301.Bercovitz, Janet, and Maryann Feldman. 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science 19(1): 69–89.Berman, Elizabeth Popp. 2011. Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton University Press.Bleiklie, Ivar, and Roar Høstaker. 2004. Modernizing research training-education and science policy between profession, discipline and academic institution. Higher Education Policy 17(2): 221–236.Bozeman, Barry, Daniel Fay, and Catherine P. Slade. 2013. Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer 38(1): 1–67.Collini, Stefan. 2009. Impact on humanities: Researchers must take a stand now or be judged and rewarded as salesmen. The Times Literary Supplement 5563: 18–19.D’Este, Pablo, and Markus Perkmann. 2011. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer 36(3): 316–339.D’Este, Pablo, Oscar Llopis, and Alfredo Yegros. 2013. Conducting pro-social research: Cognitive diversity, research excellence and awareness about the social impact of research: INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series.Deem, Rosemary, and Lisa Lucas. 2007. Research and teaching cultures in two contrasting UK policy contexts: Academic life in education departments in five English and Scottish universities. Higher Education 54(1): 115–133.DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.Downing, David B. 2005. The knowledge contract: Politics and paradigms in the academic workplace. Lincoln: Nebraska University of Nebraska Press.Donovan, Claire. 2007. The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy 34(8): 585–597.Durning, Bridget. 2004. Planning academics and planning practitioners: Two tribes or a community of practice? Planning Practice and Research 19(4): 435–446.Edquist, Charles. 1997. System of innovation approaches: Their emergence and characteristics. In Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations, ed. C. Edquist, 1–35. London: Pinter.Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29(2): 109–123.Fromhold-Eisebith, Martina, Claudia Werker, and Marcel Vojnic. 2014. Tracing the social dimension in innovation networks. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Geuna, Aldo, and Alessandro Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva 47(1): 93–114.Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Gläser, Jochen. 2012. How does Governance change research content? On the possibility of a sociological middle-range theory linking science policy studies to the sociology of scientific knowledge. Technical University Berlin. Technology Studies Working Papers. http://www.ts.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg226/TUTS/TUTS-WP-1-2012.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2015.Goethner, Maximilian, Martin Obschonka, Rainer K. Silbereisen, and Uwe Cantner. 2012. Scientists’ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants. Journal of Economic Psychology 33(3): 628–641.Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Jens-Christian Smeby. 2005. Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy 34(6): 932–950.Haeussler, Carolin, and Jeannette Colyvas. 2011. Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy 40(1): 41–54.Hessels, Laurens K., Harro van Lente, John Grin, and Ruud E.H.M. Smits. 2011. Changing struggles for relevance in eight fields of natural science. Industry and Higher Education 25(5): 347–357.Hessels, Laurens K., and Harro Van Lente. 2008. Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy 37(4): 740–760.Hoye, Kate, and Fred Pries. 2009. ‘Repeat commercializers’, the ‘habitual entrepreneurs’ of university–industry technology transfer. Technovation 29(10): 682–689.Jacobson, Nora, Dale Butterill, and Paula Goering. 2004. Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers’ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication 25(3): 246–259.Jain, Sanjay, Gerard George, and Mark Maltarich. 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy 38(6): 922–935.Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2013. Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture 22(2): 189–196.Jensen, Pablo. 2011. A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science 20(1): 26–36.Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Kronenberg, Kristin, and Marjolein Caniëls. 2014. Professional proximity in research collaborations. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Krueger, Rob, and David Gibbs. 2010. Competitive global city regions and sustainable development’: An interpretive institutionalist account in the South East of England. Environment and planning A 42: 821–837.Lam, Alice. 2011. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy 40(10): 1354–1368.Landry, Réjean, Malek Saïhi, Nabil Amara, and Mathieu Ouimet. 2010. Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy 39(10): 1387–1403.Lee, Alison, and David Boud. 2003. Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education 28(2): 187–200.Lee, Yong S. 1996. ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy 25(6): 843–863.Lee, Yong S. 2000. The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer 25(2): 111–133.Leisyte, Liudvika, Jürgen Enders, and Harry De Boer. 2008. The freedom to set research agendas—illusion and reality of the research units in the Dutch Universities. Higher Education Policy 21(3): 377–391.Louis, Karen Seashore, David Blumenthal, Michael E. Gluck, and Michael A. Stoto. 1989. Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 34(1): 110–131.Lowe, Philip, Jeremy Phillipson, and Katy Wilkinson. 2013. Why social scientists should engage with natural scientists. Contemporary Social Science 8(3): 207–222.Martín-Sempere, María José, Belén Garzón-García, and Jesús Rey-Rocha. 2008. Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science 17(3): 349–367.Martin, Ben. 2003. The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance, eds. A. Geuna, A.J. Salter, and W.E. Steinmueller, 7–29. Cheltenhan: Edward Elgar.Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Miller, Thaddeus R., and Mark W. Neff. 2013. De-facto science policy in the making: how scientists shape science policy and why it matters (or, why STS and STP scholars should socialize). Minerva 51(3): 295–315.Muthén, Bengt O. 1998–2004. Mplus Technical Appendices. Muthén & Muthén. Los Angeles, CA.: Muthén & Muthén.Nedeva, Maria. 2013. Between the global and the national: Organising European science. Research Policy 42(1): 220–230.Neff, Mark William. 2014. Research prioritization and the potential pitfall of path dependencies in coral reef science. Minerva 52(2): 213–235.Nelson, Richard R. 2001. Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1): 13–19.Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Paul Benneworth, and Elena Castro-Martínez. 2014a. Are ‘STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus’? Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research’s social value. Science and Public Policy 41: 384–400.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Elena Castro-Martínez, and Manuel Fernández-Esquinas. 2014b. Diferencias entre áreas científicas en las prácticas de divulgación de la investigación: un estudio empírico en el CSIC. Revista Española de Documentación Científica. doi: 10.3989/redc.2014.2.1096 .Ouimet, Mathieu, Nabil Amara, Réjean Landry, and John Lavis. 2007. Direct interactions medical school faculty members have with professionals and managers working in public and private sector organizations: A cross-sectional study. Scientometrics 72(2): 307–323.Perkmann, Markus, Valentina Tartari, Maureen McKelvey, Erkko Autio, Anders Brostrom, Pablo D’Este, Riccardo Fini, et al. 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy 42(2): 423–442.Philpott, Kevin, Lawrence Dooley, Caroline O’Reilly, and Gary Lupton. 2011. The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation 31(4): 161–170.Rutten, Roel, and Frans Boekema. 2012. From learning region to learning in a socio-spatial context. Regional Studies 46(8): 981–992.Sarewitz, Daniel, and Roger A. Pielke. 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy 10(1): 5–16.Sauermann, Henry, and Paula Stephan. 2013. Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science 24(3): 889–909.Schein, Edgar H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Shane, Scott. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science 11(4): 448–469.Spaapen, Jack, and Leonie van Drooge. 2011. Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation 20(3): 211–218.Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Tartari, Valentina, and Stefano Breschi. 2012. Set them free: scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university–industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change 21(5): 1117–1147.Tinker, Tony, and Rob Gray. 2003. Beyond a critique of pure reason: From policy to politics to praxis in environmental and social research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16(5): 727–761.van Rijnsoever, Frank J., Laurens K. Hessels, and Rens L.J. Vandeberg. 2008. A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy 37(8): 1255–1266.Venkataraman, Sankaran. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth 3: 119–138.Verspagen, Bart. 2006. University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems. Journal of Economic Surveys 20(4): 607–632.Villanueva-Felez, Africa, Jordi Molas-Gallart, and Alejandro Escribá-Esteve. 2013. Measuring personal networks and their relationship with scientific production. Minerva 51(4): 465–483.Watermeyer, Richard. 2015. Lost in the ‘third space’: the impact of public engagement in higher education on academic identity, research practice and career progression. European Journal of Higher Education (online first, doi: 10.1080/21568235.2015.1044546 ).Weingart, Peter. 2009. Editorial for Issue 47/3. Minerva 47(3): 237–239.Ziman, John. 1996. ‘Postacademic science’: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies 1: 67–80.Zomer, Arend H., Ben W.A. Jongbloed, and Jürgen Enders. 2010. Do spin-offs make the academics’ heads spin? The impacts of spin-off companies on their parent research organisation. Minerva 48(3): 331–353

Biomarkers Predicting Clinical Outcome of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor–Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

The monoclonal antibodies panitumumab and cetuximab that target the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have expanded the range of treatment options for metastatic colorectal cancer. Initial evaluation of these agents as monotherapy in patients with EGFR-expressing chemotherapy-refractory tumors yielded response rates of approximately 10%. The realization that detection of positive EGFR expression by immunostaining does not reliably predict clinical outcome of EGFR-targeted treatment has led to an intense search for alternative predictive biomarkers. Oncogenic activation of signaling pathways downstream of the EGFR, such as mutation of KRAS, BRAF, or PIK3CA oncogenes, or inactivation of the PTEN tumor suppressor gene is central to the progression of colorectal cancer. Tumor KRAS mutations, which may be present in 35%–45% of patients with colorectal cancer, have emerged as an important predictive marker of resistance to panitumumab or cetuximab treatment. In addition, among colorectal tumors carrying wild-type KRAS, mutation of BRAF or PIK3CA or loss of PTEN expression may be associated with resistance to EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibody treatment, although these additional biomarkers require further validation before incorporation into clinical practice. Additional knowledge of the molecular basis for sensitivity or resistance to EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibodies will allow the development of new treatment algorithms to identify patients who are most likely to respond to treatment and could also provide rationale for combining therapies to overcome primary resistance. The use of KRAS mutations as a selection biomarker for anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody (eg, panitumumab or cetuximab) treatment is the first major step toward individualized treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

“Viceversos SocioArquitectónicos”: líneas de transversalidad entre Sociología, Geografía y Arquitectura

Introduciendo en los espacios de discusión al Departamento de Geografía Humana, el objetivo de la Red para retro-alimentar prácticas docentes mediante la aplicación de metodologías aparentemente exclusivas se mantiene, como también que dichas metodologías compartidas se aplican en acciones participadas por estudiantes y que acaban constituyendo prácticas para ser presentadas como TFGs o PFCs. El balance en cuanto a materiales producidos cuya visibilidad es ahora pública es: una comunicación presentada y leída; otra comunicación presentada y prevista su lectura en Noviembre; dos resúmenes presentados, una comunicación y organización de la Jornada “Competencias Cívicas”; y el inicio de otros campos de trabajo que se apuntan para el curso próximo. El último formato de debate y expositivo tuvo lugar fuera de la Universidad, con una jornada de investigación abierta al público y que actuó como motor de iniciativas de contenidos o metodologías sobre desarrollo local, técnicas de diseño compartido, patrimonio, medición de impactos en proyectos, fabricación digital y virtualización

Jardins per a la salut

Facultat de Farmàcia, Universitat de Barcelona. Ensenyament: Grau de Farmàcia. Assignatura: Botànica farmacèutica. Curs: 2014-2015. Coordinadors: Joan Simon, Cèsar Blanché i Maria Bosch.Els materials que aquí es presenten són el recull de les fitxes botàniques de 128 espècies presents en el Jardí Ferran Soldevila de l’Edifici Històric de la UB. Els treballs han estat realitzats manera individual per part dels estudiants dels grups M-3 i T-1 de l’assignatura Botànica Farmacèutica durant els mesos de febrer a maig del curs 2014-15 com a resultat final del Projecte d’Innovació Docent «Jardins per a la salut: aprenentatge servei a Botànica farmacèutica» (codi 2014PID-UB/054). Tots els treballs s’han dut a terme a través de la plataforma de GoogleDocs i han estat tutoritzats pels professors de l’assignatura. L’objectiu principal de l’activitat ha estat fomentar l’aprenentatge autònom i col·laboratiu en Botànica farmacèutica. També s’ha pretès motivar els estudiants a través del retorn de part del seu esforç a la societat a través d’una experiència d’Aprenentatge-Servei, deixant disponible finalment el treball dels estudiants per a poder ser consultable a través d’una Web pública amb la possibilitat de poder-ho fer in-situ en el propi jardí mitjançant codis QR amb un smartphone

Floating macro litter in European rivers - top items

The JRC exploratory project RIMMEL provides information about litter, mainly plastic waste, entering the European Seas through river systems. RIMMEL has collected data on riverine floating macro litter inputs to the sea. Data acquisition was based on the Riverine Litter Observation Network (RiLON) activities, which collected data from rivers in the European marine basins over a period of one year (September 2016 – September 2017). Data was collected by visual observations and documented with the JRC Floating Litter Monitoring Application for mobile devices, allowing a harmonized reporting, compatible with the MSFD Master List of Categories for Litter Items. This report includes the Top Items lists of riverine floating macro litter, based on the total amount of litter items identified during RiLON activities and ranked by abundance. Top Items lists have been elaborated considering the whole database for the European Seas and further detailed for each individual European regional sea: Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and North-East Atlantic. The North-East Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea regions showed similar litter categories in their Top 20 Items. These two regions provided most of the available data, influencing the general Top Items list. In the Black Sea and Baltic Sea regions, where data availability was limited, the Top Items lists showed more differences among the different regions. Overall, the general Top Items list for the European Seas showed a predominance of plastic item categories (artificial polymer materials). As a whole, plastic items made up to 80.8% of all objects, with plastic and polystyrene fragments comprising 45% of the identified items in the database. Additionally, Single Use Plastics such as bottles, cover/packaging and bags were also ranked among the most frequently found floating litter. The similarities in the Top 10 and Top 20 items for the different regions, and the appearance of Single Use Plastics scoring high in the ranking, support the need for common actions against plastic pollution at EU level.JRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resource