For science, Brexit isn't done yet

If there's one sentiment that papers over the cracks in a once-United Kingdom, it's bone-weariness over Brexit. Wherever one entered the debate back in 2016—on the side of the United Kingdom leaving or remaining in the European Union (EU)—most people simply want an end to the saga, which has spewed uncertainty and paralyzed decision-making for almost 4 years. A pre-Christmas campaign pledge to “get Brexit done” propelled Prime Minister Boris Johnson back into Downing Street with a Conservative dominance of the political landscape unseen since Margaret Thatcher's heyday. One week after its reelection, the government passed the Brexit withdrawal bill, and at midnight on 31 January, the United Kingdom departed. With the democratic die now cast, universities, scientific organizations, and individual researchers must figure out how to constructively engage with Europe. Is there a soft landing for science on the other side of the leap into the dark that has just been taken

Analysts, advocates and applicators : three discourse coalitions of UK evidence and policy

Background: Continued growth of the evidence and policy field has prompted calls to consolidate findings in pursuit of a more holistic understanding of theory and practice. Aims and objectives: The aim of this paper is to develop and explore an analytical typology that offers a way to consider the heterogeneity of different actors in UK evidence and policy. Methods: We draw upon a discourse coalitions approach to analyse a series of semi-structured interviews with a cross-section of professionals in the evidence and policy field. Findings: We describe an analytical typology that is composed of three discourse coalitions, each with their own framings of the problems of evidence and policy relations, the practices needed to address these, the organisation of people, and their priorities for future development. These are: the analytical coalition, which typically theorises evidence and policy relations in a way that matches empirical observations; the advocacy coalition, which typically normatively refines and prescribes particular evidence and policy relations; and the application coalition, which typically evaluates contextual conditions and enacts techniques to bring evidence into policy and practice. Discussion and conclusions: We discuss the potential of this analytical lens to inform recognised tensions in evidence and policy relations, and consider how greater awareness of the positioning of individuals within these coalitions may help to foster improved collaboration and consolidation in the field. Ultimately, we note that distinct priorities in the three coalitions signify different visions for progress within the field that need to be negotiated

The Challenges of Community Engagement

Lyons and Whelan provide a useful list of recommendations as to how community engagement on nanotechnology could be improved, which very few people working in community engagement could disagree with. However, as the conclusions of any study are dependent on the data obtained, if more data had been obtained and analysed then different conclusions might have been reached. Addressing the key issues in the paper and providing more data, also allows an opportunity to expand on current issues relating to community engagement on nanotechnology and the challenges it provides for practitioners

Imatinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumour: Northern Cancer Network experience

Imatinib treatment in metastatic or inoperable gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) has shifted the paradigm of treatment of this disease. Successful clinical trials of imatinib led to rapid regulatory approval and, in England and Wales, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on use of this technology. NICE recommend detailed audit of their guidelines in clinical practice. This audit reflects that guidance and was designed to document the use of imatinib in routine clinical practice

Ethical governance is essential to building trust in robotics and artificial intelligence systems

© 2018 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved. This paper explores the question of ethical governance for robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) systems. We outline a roadmap-which links a number of elements, including ethics, standards, regulation, responsible research and innovation, and public engagement-as a framework to guide ethical governance in robotics and AI. We argue that ethical governance is essential to building public trust in robotics and AI, and conclude by proposing five pillars of good ethical governance. This article is part of the theme issue 'Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal, and technical opportunities and challenges'

Next-generation metrics: responsible metrics and evaluation for open science

This is the final report of the European Commission's Expert Group on Altmetrics, which undertook its work over the course of 2016. The report outlines a framework for next-generation metrics in the context of the EC's Open Science agenda and includes a series of recommendations for how responsible metrics can be built into the design and evaluation of the EU's Ninth Framework Programme (FP9)

Towards an analytical framework of science communication models

This chapter reviews the discussion in science communication circles of models for public communication of science and technology (PCST). It questions the claim that there has been a large-scale shift from a ‘deficit model’ of communication to a ‘dialogue model’, and it demonstrates the survival of the deficit model along with the ambiguities of that model. Similar discussions in related fields of communication, including the critique of dialogue, are briefly sketched. Outlining the complex circumstances governing approaches to PCST, the author argues that communications models often perceived to be opposed can, in fact, coexist when the choices are made explicit. To aid this process, the author proposes an analytical framework of communication models based on deficit, dialogue and participation, including variations on each