Philosophical and Educational Perspectives on Engineering and Technological Literacy, IV

In this fourth edition of Philosophical Perspectives on Engineering and Technological Literacy, the divisional publication of the Technological and Engineering Literacy and Philosophy of Engineering (TELPhE) Division of ASEE, is trying a new format. Over the years members of the division have noted that many of us keep coming back to the annual ASEE conference year after year not only for the technical papers, but the deep and wide-ranging conversations that crop up organically and spontaneously at the conference like flowers in the desert after a rain. This may be an appropriate metaphor since within our own academic institutions the opportunities to have wide ranging conversations with others who have similar interests in the larger questions that underlie engineering education are often difficult to start or hard to find. Such conversations matter; dialog is fundamental to the practice of both philosophy and literacy. It is a truism to say that we learn through interacting with others and refine our own ideas by sharpening them against those of others. However the practical reality of a conference is to at least not lose money and that of today’s academic life is to publish one’s work. In conjunction, however, these have the effect of steering academic writing towards papers and presentations rather than free ranging dialog. For TELPhE, a group focused on the ideas and narratives that underlie the learning of engineering, it is not clear that such outward facing, many-to-one, ways of communicating are by themselves meeting the Division’s needs. As Mark Twain is alleged to have said, “Let us make a special effort to stop communicating with each other, so we can have some conversation.” This edition begins with an anchoring paper, John Heywood’s Why Technological Literacy and for Whom? which was presented at the 2016 ASEE Annual Conference and Exhibition in New Orleans, Louisiana. In this paper Professor Heywood’s intent was “raise questions about the intent of technological literacy in society at the present time.” Following the ASEE conference a call was put out to all members of the TELPhE Division asking for short responses to Professor Heywood’s paper. These responses, in random order, follow the anchoring paper. Unlike more traditional journals each author was free to comment in the style and form they best saw fit; instruction for style and formatting were minimal to non-existent. The author’s papers have been left mostly “as is” with only consistency between fonts, layout, and similar issues addressed. In cases where a title was not provided by the author one was inserted; apologies to the authors in advance. It is hoped that this form of “dialog journal” will enable a wider ranging conversation within TELPhE that spans not only those who can attend the ASEE conference and whom stumble in to conversation, but also those whose time, circumstance, and resources don’t give them opportunities to attend. The larger goal of this format is to stimulate ongoing dialogs and capture them in ways that are both readable and archival.https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ece_books/1003/thumbnail.jp

Sex-Specific Genetic Associations for Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

Acknowledgments We thank Dr Stuart MacGregor for his input on the study proposal and review of prior versions of this manuscript. We also thank all patients and controls for participating in this study. The MD Anderson controls were drawn from dbGaP (study accession: phs000187.v1.p1). Genotyping of these controls were done through the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (UTMDACC) and the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). We acknowledge the principal investigators of this study: Christopher Amos, Qingyi Wei, and Jeffrey E. Lee. Controls from the Genome-Wide Association Study of Parkinson Disease were obtained from dbGaP (study accession: phs000196.v2.p1). This work, in part, used data from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) dbGaP database from the CIDR: NeuroGenetics Research Consortium Parkinson’s disease study. We acknowledge the principal investigators and coinvestigators of this study: Haydeh Payami, John Nutt, Cyrus Zabetian, Stewart Factor, Eric Molho, and Donald Higgins. Controls from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) were drawn from dbGaP (study accession: phs000524.v1.p1). The CRIC study was done by the CRIC investigators and supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Data and samples from CRIC reported here were supplied by NIDDK Central Repositories. This report was not prepared in collaboration with investigators of the CRIC study and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the CRIC study, the NIDDK Central Repositories, or the NIDDK. We acknowledge the principal investigators and the project officer of this study: Harold I Feldman, Raymond R Townsend, Lawrence J. Appel, Mahboob Rahman, Akinlolu Ojo, James P. Lash, Jiang He, Alan S Go, and John W. Kusek. The following UK hospitals participated in sample collection through the Stomach and Oesophageal Cancer Study (SOCS) collaboration network: Addenbrooke’s Hospital, University College London, Bedford Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Peterborough City Hospital, West Suffolk Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Churchill Hospital, John Hospital, Velindre Hospital, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Queen’s Burton, Queen Elisabeth Hospital, Diana Princess of Wales, Scunthorpe General Hospital, Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital, New Cross Hospital, Belfast City Hospital, Good Hope Hospital, Heartlands Hospital, South Tyneside District General Hospital, Cumberland Infirmary, West Cumberland Hospital, Withybush General Hospital, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Wycombe General Hospital, Wexham Park Hospital, Southend Hospital, Guy’s Hospital, Southampton General Hospital, Bronglais General Hospital, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Manor Hospital, Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, Lincoln County Hospital, Pilgrim Hospital, Grantham & District Hospital, St Mary’s Hospital London, Croydon University Hospital, Whipps Cross University Hospital, Wansbeck General Hospital, Hillingdon Hospital, Milton Keynes General Hospital, Royal Gwent Hospital, Tameside General Hospital, Castle Hill Hospital, St Richard’s Hospital, Ipswich Hospital, St Helens Hospital, Whiston Hospital, Countess of Chester Hospital, St Mary’s Hospital IOW, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Glan Clwyd Hospital, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Darent Valley Hospital, Royal Derby Hospital, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, Scarborough General Hospital, Kettering General Hospital, Kidderminster General Hospital, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Furness General Hospital, Westmorland General Hospital, James Cook University Hospital, Friarage Hospital, Stepping Hill Hospital, St George’s Hospital London, Doncaster Royal Infirmary, Maidstone Hospital, Tunbridge Hospital, Prince Charles Hospital, Hartlepool Hospital, University Hospital of North Tees, Ysbyty Gwynedd, St. Jame’s University Hospital, Leeds General Infirmary, North Hampshire Hospital, Royal Preston Hospital, Chorley and District General, Airedale General Hospital, Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, Calderdale Royal Hospital, Torbay District General Hospital, Leighton Hospital, Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Burnley General Hospital, Royal Blackburn Hospital, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Freeman Hospital, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Victoria Hospital Blackpool, Weston Park Hospital, Royal Hampshire County Hospital, Conquest Hospital, Royal Bournemouth General Hospital, Mount Vernon Hospital, Lister Hospital, William Harvey Hospital, Kent and Canterbury Hospital, Great Western Hospital, Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary, Poole General Hospital, St Hellier Hospital, North Devon District Hospital, Salisbury District Hospital, Weston General Hospital, University Hospital Coventry, Warwick Hospital, George Eliot Hospital, Alexandra Hospital, Nottingham University Hospital, Royal Chesterfield Hospital, Yeovil District Hospital, Darlington Memorial Hospital, University Hospital of North Durham, Bishop Auckland General Hospital, Musgrove Park Hospital, Rochdale Infirmary, North Manchester General, Altnagelvin Area Hospital, Dorset County Hospital, James Paget Hospital, Derriford Hospital, Newham General Hospital, Ealing Hospital, Pinderfields General Hospital, Clayton Hospital, Dewsbury & District Hospital, Pontefract General Infirmary, Worthing Hospital, Macclesfield Hospital, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Salford Royal Hospital, Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, and Manchester Royal Infirmary. Conflict of interest The authors disclose no conflicts. Funding This work was primarily funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01CA136725). The funders of the study had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the data, nor in writing or publication decisions related to this article. Jing Dong was supported by a Research Training Grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT; RP160097) and the Research and Education Program Fund, a component of the Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin endowment at the Medical College of Wisconsin (AHW). Quinn T. Ostrom was supported by RP160097. Puya Gharahkhani was supported by a grant from National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (1123248). Geoffrey Liu was supported by the Alan B. Brown Chair in Molecular Genomics and by the CCO Chair in Experimental Therapeutics and Population Studies. The University of Cambridge received salary support for Paul D. Pharoah from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve. Brian J. Reid was supported by a grant (P01CA91955) from the NIH/National Cancer Institute (NCI). Nicholas J. Shaheen was supported by a grant (P30 DK034987) from NIH. Thomas L. Vaughan was supported by NIH Established Investigator Award K05CA124911. Michael B. Cook was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NCI, NIH, Department of Health and Human Services. Douglas A. Corley was supported by the NIH grants R03 KD 58294, R21DK077742, and RO1 DK63616 and NCI grant R01CA136725. Carlo Maj was supported by the BONFOR-program of the Medical Faculty, University of Bonn (O-147.0002). Jesper Lagergren was supported by the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Research Prize. David C. Whiteman was supported by fellowships from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (1058522, 1155413).Peer reviewedPostprin

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Philosophical and Educational Perspectives on Engineering and Technological Literacy, IV

In this fourth edition of Philosophical Perspectives on Engineering and Technological Literacy, the divisional publication of the Technological and Engineering Literacy and Philosophy of Engineering (TELPhE) Division of ASEE, is trying a new format. Over the years members of the division have noted that many of us keep coming back to the annual ASEE conference year after year not only for the technical papers, but the deep and wide-ranging conversations that crop up organically and spontaneously at the conference like flowers in the desert after a rain. This may be an appropriate metaphor since within our own academic institutions the opportunities to have wide ranging conversations with others who have similar interests in the larger questions that underlie engineering education are often difficult to start or hard to find. Such conversations matter; dialog is fundamental to the practice of both philosophy and literacy. It is a truism to say that we learn through interacting with others and refine our own ideas by sharpening them against those of others. However the practical reality of a conference is to at least not lose money and that of today’s academic life is to publish one’s work. In conjunction, however, these have the effect of steering academic writing towards papers and presentations rather than free ranging dialog. For TELPhE, a group focused on the ideas and narratives that underlie the learning of engineering, it is not clear that such outward facing, many-to-one, ways of communicating are by themselves meeting the Division’s needs. As Mark Twain is alleged to have said, “Let us make a special effort to stop communicating with each other, so we can have some conversation.” This edition begins with an anchoring paper, John Heywood’s Why Technological Literacy and for Whom? which was presented at the 2016 ASEE Annual Conference and Exhibition in New Orleans, Louisiana. In this paper Professor Heywood’s intent was “raise questions about the intent of technological literacy in society at the present time.” Following the ASEE conference a call was put out to all members of the TELPhE Division asking for short responses to Professor Heywood’s paper. These responses, in random order, follow the anchoring paper. Unlike more traditional journals each author was free to comment in the style and form they best saw fit; instruction for style and formatting were minimal to non-existent. The author’s papers have been left mostly “as is” with only consistency between fonts, layout, and similar issues addressed. In cases where a title was not provided by the author one was inserted; apologies to the authors in advance. It is hoped that this form of “dialog journal” will enable a wider ranging conversation within TELPhE that spans not only those who can attend the ASEE conference and whom stumble in to conversation, but also those whose time, circumstance, and resources don’t give them opportunities to attend. The larger goal of this format is to stimulate ongoing dialogs and capture them in ways that are both readable and archival.© 2017 The copyright of each paper is vested in its author; All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by means-graphic, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or information storage and retrieval system without the prior written permission of the author or authors.</p