I Use the Student Recreation Center, but I Would Use It More if…: Understanding Male and Female Constraints to Student Recreation Center Use

Studies have found that there is a positive relationship between the number of student visits to campus recreation and academic outcomes such as rates of graduation and grade point average (Huesman, Brown, Lee, Kellogg, & Radcliffe, 2009). Despite the strong correlation between use of fitness facilities and academic performance some students choose not to visit, while some who use the facilities may not be maximizing such use due to constraints (barriers). The purpose of this study was to understand the constraints to using the campus recreation facility at a midsized New England university. Moreover, this study sought to understand the types of management actions that would help increase use of the recreation center by current users. An online survey was distributed to a random sample (N = 2,400) of all campus recreation visitors in fall of 2013 using a modified Dillman method of distribution (2009). A total of 882 respondents completed the survey for a response rate of nearly 37%. Important results from this study included that female students were much more likely than male students to report being constrained by not knowing how to use the free weight section safely (M = 3.40, SD = 1.143; M = 2.68, SD = 1.166, respectively) and that male students suggested that they were more likely to participate than female students (M = 3.07, SD = 1.182; M = 2.96, SD = 1.235, respectively) at the Student Recreation Center (SRC) if they were not as involved with other activities. This information can be used to guide the expansion planning of future SRC projects and to help improve the participation habits of students at the case institution

Toward the integration of speciation research

Acknowledgements: We thank the staff of the Tvärminne Zoological Station (University of Helsinki) for their hospitality during the workshop. We are also grateful to everyone who applied to attend the workshop.Funder: European Society for Evolutionary Biology; DOI: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100013632Abstract Speciation research—the scientific field focused on understanding the origin and diversity of species—has a long and complex history. While relevant to one another, the specific goals and activities of speciation researchers are highly diverse, and scattered across a collection of different perspectives. Thus, our understanding of speciation will benefit from efforts to bridge scientific findings and the diverse people who do the work. In this paper, we outline two ways of integrating speciation research: (i) scientific integration, through the bringing together of ideas, data, and approaches; and (ii) social integration, by creating ways for a diversity of researchers to participate in the scientific process. We then discuss five challenges to integration: (i) the multidisciplinary nature of speciation research, (ii) the complex language of speciation; (iii) a bias toward certain study systems; (iv) the challenges of working across scales; and (v) inconsistent measures and reporting standards. We provide practical steps that individuals and groups can take to help overcome these challenges, and argue that integration is a team effort in which we all have a role to play.</jats:p

Toward the integration of speciation research

International audienceSpeciation research—the scientific field focused on understanding the origin and diversity of species—has a long and complex history. While relevant to one another, the specific goals and activities of speciation researchers are highly diverse, and scattered across a collection of different perspectives. Thus, our understanding of speciation will benefit from efforts to bridge scientific findings and the diverse people who do the work. In this paper, we outline two ways of integrating speciation research: (i) scientific integration, through the bringing together of ideas, data, and approaches; and (ii) social integration, by creating ways for a diversity of researchers to participate in the scientific process. We then discuss five challenges to integration: (i) the multidisciplinary nature of speciation research, (ii) the complex language of speciation; (iii) a bias toward certain study systems; (iv) the challenges of working across scales; and (v) inconsistent measures and reporting standards. We provide practical steps that individuals and groups can take to help overcome these challenges and argue that integration is a team effort in which we all have a role to play

Toward the integration of speciation research

Acknowledgements: We thank the staff of the Tvärminne Zoological Station (University of Helsinki) for their hospitality during the workshop. We are also grateful to everyone who applied to attend the workshop.Funder: European Society for Evolutionary Biology; DOI: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100013632Speciation research—the scientific field focused on understanding the origin and diversity of species—has a long and complex history. While relevant to one another, the specific goals and activities of speciation researchers are highly diverse, and scattered across a collection of different perspectives. Thus, our understanding of speciation will benefit from efforts to bridge scientific findings and the diverse people who do the work. In this paper, we outline two ways of integrating speciation research: (i) scientific integration, through the bringing together of ideas, data, and approaches; and (ii) social integration, by creating ways for a diversity of researchers to participate in the scientific process. We then discuss five challenges to integration: (i) the multidisciplinary nature of speciation research, (ii) the complex language of speciation; (iii) a bias toward certain study systems; (iv) the challenges of working across scales; and (v) inconsistent measures and reporting standards. We provide practical steps that individuals and groups can take to help overcome these challenges, and argue that integration is a team effort in which we all have a role to play

Toward the integration of speciation research

Acknowledgements: We thank the staff of the Tvärminne Zoological Station (University of Helsinki) for their hospitality during the workshop. We are also grateful to everyone who applied to attend the workshop.Funder: European Society for Evolutionary Biology; DOI: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100013632Speciation research—the scientific field focused on understanding the origin and diversity of species—has a long and complex history. While relevant to one another, the specific goals and activities of speciation researchers are highly diverse, and scattered across a collection of different perspectives. Thus, our understanding of speciation will benefit from efforts to bridge scientific findings and the diverse people who do the work. In this paper, we outline two ways of integrating speciation research: (i) scientific integration, through the bringing together of ideas, data, and approaches; and (ii) social integration, by creating ways for a diversity of researchers to participate in the scientific process. We then discuss five challenges to integration: (i) the multidisciplinary nature of speciation research, (ii) the complex language of speciation; (iii) a bias toward certain study systems; (iv) the challenges of working across scales; and (v) inconsistent measures and reporting standards. We provide practical steps that individuals and groups can take to help overcome these challenges, and argue that integration is a team effort in which we all have a role to play

C9ORF72 poly(GA) aggregates sequester and impair HR23 and nucleocytoplasmic transport proteins

Neuronal inclusions of poly(GA), a protein unconventionally translated from G(4)C(2) repeat expansions in C9ORF72, are abundant in patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) caused by this mutation. To investigate poly(GA) toxicity, we generated mice that exhibit poly(GA) pathology, neurodegeneration and behavioral abnormalities reminiscent of FTD and ALS. These phenotypes occurred in the absence of TDP-43 pathology and required poly(GA) aggregation. HR23 proteins involved in proteasomal degradation and proteins involved in nucleocytoplasmic transport were sequestered by poly(GA) in these mice. HR23A and HR23B similarly colocalized to poly(GA) inclusions in C9ORF72 expansion carriers. Sequestration was accompanied by an accumulation of ubiquitinated proteins and decreased xeroderma pigmentosum C (XPC) levels in mice, indicative of HR23A and HR23B dysfunction. Restoring HR23B levels attenuated poly(GA) aggregation and rescued poly(GA)-induced toxicity in neuronal cultures. These data demonstrate that sequestration and impairment of nuclear HR23 and nucleocytoplasmic transport proteins is an outcome of, and a contributor to, poly(GA) pathology