A Lens-Calibrated Active Marker Metrology System

This paper presents a prototypical marker tracking system, MT, which is capable of recording multiple mobile robot trajectories in parallel for offline analysis. The system is also capable of providing trajectory data in realtime to agents (such as robots in an arena) and implements several multi-agent operators to simplify agent-based perception. The latter characteristic provides an ability to minimise the normally expensive process of implementing agent-centric perceptual mechanisms and provides a means for multiagent "global knowledge" (Parker 1993)

Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30–50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515. Findings: Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68–0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (<1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (<1%) deaths in the albiglutide group. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline

Contemporary Scientists and their Interactions with Non-Scientists: Alternative Companion Stories for School Curricula

Students learn more than science knowledge in a science classroom; they also acquire important messages about the purposes and contexts of science. Roberts (2011) calls these messages a companion story. In this article, we present a case study of high-profile Australian contemporary scientists to argue that there is a need to broaden the range of companion stories presented to students. A key companion story presently conveyed in schools is that the products of science are more important than the involvement of scientists in the construction of scientific knowledge. By contrast, the experiences and insights of the scientists in this case study shifts our understanding away from the idea that science is something that humans do - although that is true - to a deeper understanding that science is a discipline in which being human is important. We identify fresh companion stories that arise from these data and argue that the inclusion of such companion stories in the science curriculum is likely to better meet the needs of all citizens, scientists and non-scientists alike

Contemporary Scientists Discuss the Need for Openness and Open-Mindedness in Science and Society

We report on findings from a qualitative study of Australian scientists whose work brings them into contact with the public. This research sought to understand how a school science curriculum could better represent the work of scientists today. We discuss the views expressed by our participant scientists about the importance of openness and open-mindedness in their work, including their engagement with the public. They described openness as an important characteristic of science. Our participants also see open-mindedness on the part of both scientists and members of the public as important for productive relationships. They see the development of such relationships as an essential facet of their work. The views expressed by these scientists provide a provocative insight into the ways in which contemporary scientists see their work and relationships with their communities. Their perspectives have important implications for approaches to teaching science in schools

Contemporary high-profile scientists and their interactions with the community

This article presents a case study of 10 high-profile Australian research scientists. These scientists are highly committed to engaging with the public. They interact with a wide range of groups in the community, including the traditional media. They are aware that they are seen as representatives of science at a time when the authority of science and scientists is threatened in Australia by controversy around issues such as climate change and vaccination. Through their experiences of interacting with non-scientists, they have developed views about qualities, characteristics and knowledge that contribute to, or inhibit, positive interactions between scientists and non-scientists. Their experiences and insights highlight aspects of contemporary science that are not generally acknowledged in science curricula

What Account of Science Shall We Give? A Case Study of Scientists Teaching First-year University Subjects

This article presents a case study of four academic scientists. These academics teach in the first year of a Bachelor of Science degree at a large research-focused Australian university that has demanded and supported a greater focus on undergraduate learning. Taken as a whole, the accounts of science that the first-year academics in this case study gave, and which they are presenting to their students, challenge the images of science and scientists typically presented in school science curricula. Using Roberts' heuristic of Vision 1 and Vision 2 for the broad purposes of learning science, we consider various accounts given of science by these academic scientists and consider how science might appear to a student who takes all four of their subjects