American Society for Bone and Mineral Research-Orthopaedic Research Society Joint Task Force Report on Cell-Based Therapies.

Cell-based therapies, defined here as the delivery of cells in vivo to treat disease, have recently gained increasing public attention as a potentially promising approach to restore structure and function to musculoskeletal tissues. Although cell-based therapy has the potential to improve the treatment of disorders of the musculoskeletal system, there is also the possibility of misuse and misrepresentation of the efficacy of such treatments. The medical literature contains anecdotal reports and research studies, along with web-based marketing and patient testimonials supporting cell-based therapy. Both the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) and the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) are committed to ensuring that the potential of cell-based therapies is realized through rigorous, reproducible, and clinically meaningful scientific discovery. The two organizations convened a multidisciplinary and international Task Force composed of physicians, surgeons, and scientists who are recognized experts in the development and use of cell-based therapies. The Task Force was charged with defining the state-of-the art in cell-based therapies and identifying the gaps in knowledge and methodologies that should guide the research agenda. The efforts of this Task Force are designed to provide researchers and clinicians with a better understanding of the current state of the science and research needed to advance the study and use of cell-based therapies for skeletal tissues. The design and implementation of rigorous, thorough protocols will be critical to leveraging these innovative treatments and optimizing clinical and functional patient outcomes. In addition to providing specific recommendations and ethical considerations for preclinical and clinical investigations, this report concludes with an outline to address knowledge gaps in how to determine the cell autonomous and nonautonomous effects of a donor population used for bone regeneration. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research

Do entrepreneurs always benefit from business failure experience?

Business failure and its effect on entrepreneurial engagement has attracted substantial scholarly attention in entrepreneurship research. We contend that knowledge is lacking on the entrepreneurial learning mechanism and entrepreneurial alertness condition under which business failure experience influences new venture performance. In an empirical examination of 240 entrepreneurs operating in multiple industries in a sub-Saharan African country, we use a longitudinal data set to show that business failure experience does not always influence new venture performance. Rather, business failure experience influences new venture performance when it is channelled through entrepreneurial learning under conditions of increasing levels of entrepreneurial learning and a greater degree of alertness to new business opportunities. We discuss these findings and provide avenues for extending this emerging area of scholarly research

23. Archeology and Civic Engagement

In the United States and elsewhere, efforts to strengthen communities and democratic processes, as well as promote public dialogue, rely upon active citizen engagement in community and civic life through the creation of social capital. Archeology can play a role in these efforts, particularly as archeological projects increasingly involve the communities in which they occur and as archeologists recognize their ethical responsibilities to involve multiple stakeholders. This technical brief provides explanations of civic engagement and social capital as well as case studies and suggestions for ways that archeologists can participate and contribute to the creation of social capital. What is Civic Engagement? Definitions of civic engagement vary somewhat, but they have in common the elements of involvement and participation in public life. According to Thomas Ehrlich in Civic Responsibility and Higher Education (2000:vi), “Civic engagement means working to make a difference in the civic life of our communities and developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values and motivation to make that difference. It means promoting the quality of life in a community, through both political and non-political processes.” Civic engagement means building communities by creating or reinforcing relationships between people and promoting a healthy dialogue about, and active participation in, civic life. Many kinds of institutions have become involved in civic engagement. Institutions of higher education often use service learning initiatives in order to satisfy civic engagement responsibilities. In land managing agencies such as the National Park Service (NPS), civic engagement refers to a long-term effort to build and sustain meaningful communication and partnerships with local communities, park visitors, and a diverse array of stakeholders. These community groups and individuals may play meaningful roles in guiding interpretive and educational programming as well as the planning process. Civic engagement differs from public involvement in both concept and implementation. Public involvement, sometimes referred to as “consultation,” is a legal requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) planning processes and typically ends when the planning process is complete. Civic engagement, on the other hand, is a sustained effort and activity. It moves beyond the short-term legal requirements of public planning to build and strengthen relationships between people in their communities over an extended time period. An example of public involvement is a community meeting to get input before starting a project. Civic engagement, on the other hand, might incorporate the public meeting, but also include community members before, during and after the project, such as on the planning committee and in partnerships with local organizations to leverage funds, to determine the scope of a project, find volunteers, gather and disseminate information, and build interest in heritage or history opportunities beyond the “usual suspects.” Civic engagement can thus strengthen public understanding of the full meaning and contemporary relevance of both cultural and natural resources

Correlation and interpretation of paleosols and loess across European Russia and Asia over the last interglacial-glacial cycle

Loess-paleosol sequences of the last interglacial-glacial cycle are correlated from European Russia to central Siberia and the Chinese Loess Plateau. During cold periods represented by marine oxygen isotope stages (OIS) 2 and 4, loess deposition dominated in the Russian Plain and the Loess Plateau. In central Siberia, loess deposition took place also, but five to seven thin, weakly developed paleosols are identified in both stages. OIS 3, in the Chinese Loess Plateau near Yangchang, consists of a loess bed that is flanked by two weakly developed paleosols. At Kurtak, Siberia, OIS 3 is represented by two distinct, stacked paleosols with no loess bed separating the paleosols. In the Russian Plain, OIS 3 consists of a single, possibly welded paleosol, representing upper and lower stage-3 climates. Brunisols and Chernozems dominate the profiles in China and Siberia, whereas Regosols, Luvisols, and Chernozems are evident in the northern and southern Russian Plain, respectively. OIS 5 is represented in China and the Russian Plain by pedo complexes in a series of welded soils, whereas in contrast, the Kurtak site consists of six paleosols with interbedded loess. The paleosols consist largely of Brunisols and Chernozems. Although the three areas examined have different climates, geographical settings, and loess source areas, they all had similar climate changes during the last interglacial-glacial cycle. (C) 2003 University of Washington. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved