GENOME HACKERS. REBEL BIOLOGY, OPEN SOURCE AND SCIENCE ETHIC

Crack the code, share your data, have fun, save the world, be independent, become famous and make a lot of money. The remix between the Mertonian ethic of 20th century science and the hacker ethic is producing an emergent open science culture that is redefining the relation between researchers, scientific institutions and intellectual property is redefined. The case studies, analysed through extensive media analysis, interviews and participatory observation, include the open access turn of the American biologist Craig Venter, the rebellion of the Italian virologist Ilaria Capua against WHO data sharing policies and the emergence of citizen biology projects that explicitly refer to the hacking history. In these cases the problem of access to and sharing of the data emerge as a crucial public issue, and open science tools such as open databases, open access journals and open platforms for data sharing are used. Finally, they operate in different and often opposing institutional settings. These biologists can be a rich model for current transformations in both life sciences and informational capitalism. They use open access tools but also rebel against bureaucracy and claim independence from both academic and corporate institutions. Autonomy, independence and radical openness coexist with other elements such as a radical refusal of interference coming from both academic and corporate incumbents. They insist on bare information as good per se, as long as it is shared and accessible. They rebel against the mechanisms of scholarly publishing and peer review. In some cases they express an explicit drive towards profit and entrepreneurship. Their public images are part of a transformation that involves the proprietary structure of scientific information - who owns and disposes of biological data and knowledge? - and challenges the institutional environment in which biological research takes place. Open science means both open to more participation and cooperation and open to a more diverse set of modes of capitalist appropriation

GENOME HACKERS. REBEL BIOLOGY, OPEN SOURCE AND SCIENCE ETHIC

Crack the code, share your data, have fun, save the world, be independent, become famous and make a lot of money. The remix between the Mertonian ethic of 20th century science and the hacker ethic is producing an emergent open science culture that is redefining the relation between researchers, scientific institutions and intellectual property is redefined. The case studies, analysed through extensive media analysis, interviews and participatory observation, include the open access turn of the American biologist Craig Venter, the rebellion of the Italian virologist Ilaria Capua against WHO data sharing policies and the emergence of citizen biology projects that explicitly refer to the hacking history. In these cases the problem of access to and sharing of the data emerge as a crucial public issue, and open science tools such as open databases, open access journals and open platforms for data sharing are used. Finally, they operate in different and often opposing institutional settings. These biologists can be a rich model for current transformations in both life sciences and informational capitalism. They use open access tools but also rebel against bureaucracy and claim independence from both academic and corporate institutions. Autonomy, independence and radical openness coexist with other elements such as a radical refusal of interference coming from both academic and corporate incumbents. They insist on bare information as good per se, as long as it is shared and accessible. They rebel against the mechanisms of scholarly publishing and peer review. In some cases they express an explicit drive towards profit and entrepreneurship. Their public images are part of a transformation that involves the proprietary structure of scientific information - who owns and disposes of biological data and knowledge? - and challenges the institutional environment in which biological research takes place. Open science means both open to more participation and cooperation and open to a more diverse set of modes of capitalist appropriation

Minimally Invasive Stent Screw-Assisted Internal Fixation Technique Corrects Kyphosis in Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures with Severe Collapse: A Pilot "Vertebra Plana" Series.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Fractures with "vertebra plana" morphology are characterized by severe vertebral body collapse and segmental kyphosis; there is no established treatment standard for these fractures. Vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty might represent an undertreatment, but surgical stabilization is challenging in an often elderly osteoporotic population. This study assessed the feasibility, clinical outcome, and radiologic outcome of the stent screw-assisted internal fixation technique using a percutaneous implant of vertebral body stents and cement-augmented pedicle screws in patients with non-neoplastic vertebra plana fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty-seven consecutive patients with vertebra plana fractures were treated with the stent screw-assisted internal fixation technique. Vertebral body height, local and vertebral kyphotic angles, outcome scales (numeric rating scale and the Patient's Global Impression of Change), and complications were assessed. Imaging and clinical follow-up were obtained at 1 and 6 months postprocedure. RESULTS Median vertebral body height restoration was 7 mm (+74%), 9 mm (+150%), and 3 mm (+17%) at the anterior wall, middle body, and posterior wall, respectively. Median local and vertebral kyphotic angles correction was 8° and 10° and was maintained through the 6-month follow-up. The median numeric rating scale score improved from 8/10 preprocedure to 3/10 at 1 and 6 months (P < .001). No procedural complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS The stent screw-assisted internal fixation technique was effective in obtaining height restoration, kyphosis correction, and pain relief in patients with severe vertebral collapse

folfoxiri plus bevacizumab bev followed by maintenance with bev alone or bev plus metronomic chemotherapy metroct in mcrc final results of the phase ii randomized moma trial by gono

n/

In the social factory? Immaterial labour, precariousness and cultural work

This article introduces a special section concerned with precariousness and cultural work. Its aim is to bring into dialogue three bodies of ideas -- the work of the autonomous Marxist 'Italian laboratory'; activist writings about precariousness and precarity; and the emerging empirical scholarship concerned with the distinctive features of cultural work, at a moment when artists, designers and (new) media workers have taken centre stage as a supposed 'creative class' of model entrepreneurs. The paper is divided into three sections. It starts by introducing the ideas of the autonomous Marxist tradition, highlighting arguments about the autonomy of labour, informational capitalism and the 'factory without walls', as well as key concepts such as multitude and immaterial labour. The impact of these ideas and of Operaismo politics more generally on the precarity movement is then considered in the second section, discussing some of the issues that have animated debate both within and outside this movement, which has often treated cultural workers as exemplifying the experiences of a new 'precariat'. In the third and final section of the paper we turn to the empirical literature about cultural work, pointing to its main features before bringing it into debate with the ideas already discussed. Several points of overlap and critique are elaborated -- focusing in particular on issues of affect, temporality, subjectivity and solidarity

Intellectual Property, Open Science and Research Biobanks

In biomedical research and translational medicine, the ancient war between exclusivity (private control over information) and access to information is proposing again on a new battlefield: research biobanks. The latter are becoming increasingly important (one of the ten ideas changing the world, according to Time magazine) since they allow to collect, store and distribute in a secure and professional way a critical mass of human biological samples for research purposes. Tissues and related data are fundamental for the development of the biomedical research and the emerging field of translational medicine: they represent the “raw material” for every kind of biomedical study. For this reason, it is crucial to understand the boundaries of Intellectual Property (IP) in this prickly context. In fact, both data sharing and collaborative research have become an imperative in contemporary open science, whose development depends inextricably on: the opportunities to access and use data, the possibility of sharing practices between communities, the cross-checking of information and results and, chiefly, interactions with experts in different fields of knowledge. Data sharing allows both to spread the costs of analytical results that researchers cannot achieve working individually and, if properly managed, to avoid the duplication of research. These advantages are crucial: access to a common pool of pre-competitive data and the possibility to endorse follow-on research projects are fundamental for the progress of biomedicine. This is why the "open movement" is also spreading in the biobank's field. After an overview of the complex interactions among the different stakeholders involved in the process of information and data production, as well as of the main obstacles to the promotion of data sharing (i.e., the appropriability of biological samples and information, the privacy of participants, the lack of interoperability), we will firstly clarify some blurring in language, in particular concerning concepts often mixed up, such as “open source” and “open access”. The aim is to understand whether and to what extent we can apply these concepts to the biomedical field. Afterwards, adopting a comparative perspective, we will analyze the main features of the open models – in particular, the Open Research Data model – which have been proposed in literature for the promotion of data sharing in the field of research biobanks. After such an analysis, we will suggest some recommendations in order to rebalance the clash between exclusivity - the paradigm characterizing the evolution of intellectual property over the last three centuries - and the actual needs for access to knowledge. We argue that the key factor in this balance may come from the right interaction between IP, social norms and contracts. In particular, we need to combine the incentives and the reward mechanisms characterizing scientific communities with data sharing imperative

Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: results and open issues

The medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has progressively changed since the introduction of “targeted therapy”. The development of one of these molecular drug categories, e. g., the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine-kinase (TK) selective inhibitors, such as the orally active gefitinib and erlotinib, offers an interesting new opportunity. The clinical response rates obtained with their employment in unselected patient populations only account for approximately 10%. Because of this, over the last two years numerous studies have been performed in order to identify the patient subsets that could better benefit from these agents. Not only patient characteristics and clinical-pathological features, such as never-smoking status, female gender, East Asian origin, adenocarcinoma histology, bronchioloalveolar subtype, but also molecular findings, such as somatic mutations in the EGFR gene, emerge as potentially useful prognostic and predictive factors in advanced NSCLC. Further, specifically designed clinical trials are still needed to completely clarify these and other open issues that are reviewed in this paper, in order to clarify all the interesting findings available in the clinical practice

SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529)-related COVID-19 sequelae in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer: results from the OnCovid registry

Background COVID-19 sequelae can affect about 15% of patients with cancer who survive the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection and can substantially impair their survival and continuity of oncological care. We aimed to investigate whether previous immunisation affects long-term sequelae in the context of evolving variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2. Methods OnCovid is an active registry that includes patients aged 18 years or older from 37 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and a history of solid or haematological malignancy, either active or in remission, followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death. We evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae in patients who survived COVID-19 and underwent a formal clinical reassessment, categorising infection according to the date of diagnosis as the omicron (B.1.1.529) phase from Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022; the alpha (B.1.1.7)-delta (B.1.617.2) phase from Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021; and the pre-vaccination phase from Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020. The prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae was compared according to SARS-CoV-2 immunisation status and in relation to post-COVID-19 survival and resumption of systemic anticancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974. Findings At the follow-up update on June 20, 2022, 1909 eligible patients, evaluated after a median of 39 days (IQR 24-68) from COVID-19 diagnosis, were included (964 [ 50 center dot 7%] of 1902 patients with sex data were female and 938 [49 center dot 3%] were male). Overall, 317 (16 center dot 6%; 95% CI 14 center dot 8-18 center dot 5) of 1909 patients had at least one sequela from COVID-19 at the first oncological reassessment. The prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae was highest in the prevaccination phase (191 [19 center dot 1%; 95% CI 16 center dot 4-22 center dot 0] of 1000 patients). The prevalence was similar in the alpha-delta phase (110 [16 center dot 8%; 13 center dot 8- 20 center dot 3] of 653 patients, p=0 center dot 24), but significantly lower in the omicron phase (16 [6 center dot 2%; 3 center dot 5-10 center dot 2] of 256 patients, p<0 center dot 0001). In the alpha- delta phase, 84 (18 center dot 3%; 95% CI 14 center dot 6-22 center dot 7) of 458 unvaccinated patients and three (9 center dot 4%; 1 center dot 9- 27 center dot 3) of 32 unvaccinated patients in the omicron phase had sequelae. Patients who received a booster and those who received two vaccine doses had a significantly lower prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae than unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (ten [7 center dot 4%; 95% CI 3 center dot 5-13 center dot 5] of 136 boosted patients, 18 [9 center dot 8%; 5 center dot 8-15 center dot 5] of 183 patients who had two vaccine doses vs 277 [ 18 center dot 5%; 16 center dot 5-20 center dot 9] of 1489 unvaccinated patients, p=0 center dot 0001), respiratory sequelae (six [4 center dot 4%; 1 center dot 6-9 center dot 6], 11 [6 center dot 0%; 3 center dot 0-10 center dot 7] vs 148 [9 center dot 9%; 8 center dot 4- 11 center dot 6], p= 0 center dot 030), and prolonged fatigue (three [2 center dot 2%; 0 center dot 1-6 center dot 4], ten [5 center dot 4%; 2 center dot 6-10 center dot 0] vs 115 [7 center dot 7%; 6 center dot 3-9 center dot 3], p=0 center dot 037)