LSE festival Beveridge 2.0 preview: the five giants by Nicholas Timmins

On Monday 19 February, LSE Festival opened with ‘The Five Giants and the Ministers Who Made a Difference’. Chaired by LSE Director Minouche Shafik, Nicholas Timmins, author of The Five Giants: A Biography of the Welfare State, and Professor Sir Julian Le Grand debated the key UK politicians who really made a difference when it came to Beveridge’s ‘Five Giants’: listen to the podcast here. Ahead of the event, Nicholas Timmins gives insight into the reception and impact of Beveridge’s 1942 report, as well as its enduring significance in today’s global, 21st-century context

Three-dimensional cell culture and tissue engineering in a T-CUP (tissue culture under perfusion)

The aim of this study was to develop and validate a simple and compact bioreactor system for perfusion cell seeding and culture through 3-dimensional porous scaffolds. The developed Tissue Culture Under Perfusion (T-CUP) bioreactor is based on the concept of controlled and confined alternating motion of scaffolds through a cell suspension or culture medium, as opposed to pumping of the fluid through the scaffolds. Via the T-CUP, articular chondrocytes and bone marrow stromal cells could be seeded into porous scaffolds of different compositions and architectures (chronOS, Hyaff-11, and Polyactive) at high efficiency (greater than 75%), uniformity (cells were well distributed throughout the scaffold pores), and viability (greater than 97%). Culture of articular chondrocytes seeded into 4-mm thick Polyactive scaffolds for 2 weeks in the T-CUP resulted in uniform deposition of cartilaginous matrix. Cultivation of freshly isolated human bone marrow nucleated cells seeded into ENGipore ceramic scaffolds for 19 days in the T-CUP resulted in stromal cell-populated constructs capable of inducing ectopic bone formation in nude mice. The T-CUP bioreactor represents an innovative approach to simple, efficient, and reliable 3D cell culture, and could be used either as a model to investigate mechanisms of tissue development or as a graft manufacturing system in the context of regenerative medicine

Paradigmatic Approaches to Studying Environment and Human Health: (Forgotten) Implications for Interdisciplinary Research

Copyright © 2013 ElsevierInterdisciplinary research is increasingly promoted in a wide range of fields, especially so in the study of relationships between the environment and human health. However, many projects and research teams struggle to address exactly how researchers from a multitude of disciplinary and methodological backgrounds can best work together to maximize the value of this approach to research. In this paper, we briefly review the role of interdisciplinary research, and emphasize that it is not only our discipline and methods, but our research paradigms, that shape the way that we work. We summarize three key research paradigms - positivism, postpositivism and interpretivism - with an example of how each might approach a given environment-health research issue. In turn, we argue that understanding the paradigm from which each researcher operates is fundamental to enabling and optimizing the integration of research disciplines, now argued by many to be necessary for our understanding of the complexities of the interconnections between human health and our environment as well as their impacts in the policy arena. We recognize that a comprehensive interrogation of research approaches and philosophies would require far greater length than is available in a journal paper. However, our intention is to instigate debate, recognition, and appreciation of the different worlds inhabited by the multitude of researchers involved in this rapidly expanding field

The cultural politics of human rights and neoliberalism

Do human rights offer the potential to challenge neo-liberalism? I argue that rather than understanding human rights as ideology, as obscuring or legitimating neo-liberalism, it is more productive to see both human rights and neo-liberalism as hegemonic projects. In this article I explore convergences and divergences between dominant discourses and practices of human rights and neo-liberalism around key ideas ‘the state’, ‘the individual’ and ‘the nation’, to clear a space for appreciation of the cultural politics of human rights: divergences in constructions of responsibility and hierarchies of value of concrete individuals offer openings for challenging ideas and practices of neo-liberalism through campaigns for human rights

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome