The Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity: myths and reality

A conventional wisdom often perpetuated in the literature states that: (i) a 3+1 decomposition of space-time into space and time is synonymous with the canonical treatment and this decomposition is essential for any Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity (GR); (ii) the canonical treatment unavoidably breaks the symmetry between space and time in GR and the resulting algebra of constraints is not the algebra of four-dimensional diffeomorphism; (iii) according to some authors this algebra allows one to derive only spatial diffeomorphism or, according to others, a specific field-dependent and non-covariant four-dimensional diffeomorphism; (iv) the analyses of Dirac [Proc. Roy. Soc. A 246 (1958) 333] and of ADM [Arnowitt, Deser and Misner, in "Gravitation: An Introduction to Current Research" (1962) 227] of the canonical structure of GR are equivalent. We provide some general reasons why these statements should be questioned. Points (i-iii) have been shown to be incorrect in [Kiriushcheva et al., Phys. Lett. A 372 (2008) 5101] and now we thoroughly re-examine all steps of the Dirac Hamiltonian formulation of GR. We show that points (i-iii) above cannot be attributed to the Dirac Hamiltonian formulation of GR. We also demonstrate that ADM and Dirac formulations are related by a transformation of phase-space variables from the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ to lapse and shift functions and the three-metric $g_{km}$, which is not canonical. This proves that point (iv) is incorrect. Points (i-iii) are mere consequences of using a non-canonical change of variables and are not an intrinsic property of either the Hamilton-Dirac approach to constrained systems or Einstein's theory itself.Comment: References are added and updated, Introduction is extended, Subsection 3.5 is added, 83 pages; corresponds to the published versio

Conducting a team-based multi-sited focused ethnography in primary care

© 2017 The Author(s). Focused ethnography is an applied and pragmatic form of ethnography that explores a specific social phenomenon as it occurs in everyday life. Based on the literature a problem-focused research question is formulated before the data collection. The data generation process targets key informants and situations so that relevant results on the pre-defined topic can be obtained within a relatively short time-span. As part of a theory based evaluation of alternative forms of consultation (such as video, phone and email) in primary care we used the focused ethnographic method in a multisite study in general practice across the UK. To date there is a gap in the literature on using focused ethnography in healthcare research. The aim of the paper is to build on the various methodological approaches in health services research by presenting the challenges and benefits we encountered whilst conducing a focused ethnography in British primary care. Our considerations are clustered under three headings: constructing a shared understanding, dividing the tasks within the team, and the functioning of the focused ethnographers within the broader multi-disciplinary team. As a result of using this approach we experienced several advantages, like the ability to collect focused data in several settings simultaneously within in a short time-span. Also, the sharing of experiences and interpretations between the researchers contributed to a more holistic understanding of the research topic. However, mechanisms need to be in place to facilitate and synthesise the observations, guide the analysis, and to ensure that all researchers feel engaged. Reflection, trust and flexibility among the team members were crucial to successfully adopt a team focused ethnographic approach. When used for policy focussed applied healthcare research a team-based multi-sited focused ethnography can uncover practices and understandings that would not be apparent through surveys or interviews alone. If conducted with care, it can provide timely findings within the fast moving context of healthcare policy and research

AD51B in Familial Breast Cancer

Common variation on 14q24.1, close to RAD51B, has been associated with breast cancer: rs999737 and rs2588809 with the risk of female breast cancer and rs1314913 with the risk of male breast cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of RAD51B variants in breast cancer predisposition, particularly in the context of familial breast cancer in Finland. We sequenced the coding region of RAD51B in 168 Finnish breast cancer patients from the Helsinki region for identification of possible recurrent founder mutations. In addition, we studied the known rs999737, rs2588809, and rs1314913 SNPs and RAD51B haplotypes in 44,791 breast cancer cases and 43,583 controls from 40 studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) that were genotyped on a custom chip (iCOGS). We identified one putatively pathogenic missense mutation c.541C>T among the Finnish cancer patients and subsequently genotyped the mutation in additional breast cancer cases (n = 5259) and population controls (n = 3586) from Finland and Belarus. No significant association with breast cancer risk was seen in the meta-analysis of the Finnish datasets or in the large BCAC dataset. The association with previously identified risk variants rs999737, rs2588809, and rs1314913 was replicated among all breast cancer cases and also among familial cases in the BCAC dataset. The most significant association was observed for the haplotype carrying the risk-alleles of all the three SNPs both among all cases (odds ratio (OR): 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11–1.19, P = 8.88 x 10−16) and among familial cases (OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.16–1.32, P = 6.19 x 10−11), compared to the haplotype with the respective protective alleles. Our results suggest that loss-of-function mutations in RAD51B are rare, but common variation at the RAD51B region is significantly associated with familial breast cancer risk