Linear oscillatory cellular thermocapillary convection in liquid layers

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/76679/1/AIAA-232-799.pd

Harm–benefit analysis – what is the added value?:A review of alternative strategies for weighing harms and benefits as part of the assessment of animal research

Animal experiments are widely required to comply with the 3Rs, to minimise harm to the animals and to serve certain purposes in order to be ethically acceptable. Recently, however, there has been a drift towards adding a so-called harm-benefit analysis as an additional requirement in assessing experiments. According to this, an experiment should only be allowed if there is a positive balance when the expected harm is weighed against the expected benefits. This paper aims to assess the added value of this requirement. Two models, the discourse model and the metric model, are presented. According to the former, the weighing of harms and benefits must be conducted by a committee in which different stakeholders engage in a dialogue. Research into how this works in practice, however, shows that in the absence of an explicit and clearly defined methodology, there are issues about transparency, consistency and fairness. According to the metric model, on the other hand, several dimensions of harms and benefits are defined beforehand and integrated in an explicit weighing scheme. This model, however, has the problem that it makes no real room for ethical deliberation of the sort committees undertake, and it has therefore been criticised for being too technocratic. Also, it is unclear who is to be held accountable for built-in ethical assumptions. Ultimately, we argue that the two models are not mutually exclusive and may be combined to make the most of their advantages while reducing the disadvantages of how harm-benefit analysis in typically undertaken

Secondary school students’ epistemic insight into the relationships between science and religion – a preliminary enquiry

A number of previous studies have shown that there is a widespread view among young people that science and religion are opposed. In this paper, we suggest that it requires a significant level of what can be termed ‘epistemic insight’ to access the idea that some people see science and religion as compatible while others do not. To explore this further, we draw on previous work to devise a methodology to discover students’ thinking about apparent contradictions between scientific and religious explanations of the origins of the universe. In our discussion of the findings, we highlight that students’ epistemic insight in this context does seem in many cases to be limited and we outline some of the issues emerging from the study that seem to boost or limit students’ progress in this area

Mutations in KEOPS-Complex Genes Cause Nephrotic Syndrome with Primary Microcephaly

Galloway-Mowat syndrome (GAMOS) is an autosomal-recessive disease characterized by the combination of early-onset nephrotic syndrome (SRNS) and microcephaly with brain anomalies. Here we identified recessive mutations in OSGEP, TP53RK, TPRKB, and LAGE3, genes encoding the four subunits of the KEOPS complex, in 37 individuals from 32 families with GAMOS. CRISPR-Cas9 knockout in zebrafish and mice recapitulated the human phenotype of primary microcephaly and resulted in early lethality. Knockdown of OSGEP, TP53RK, or TPRKB inhibited cell proliferation, which human mutations did not rescue. Furthermore, knockdown of these genes impaired protein translation, caused endoplasmic reticulum stress, activated DNA-damage-response signaling, and ultimately induced apoptosis. Knockdown of OSGEP or TP53RK induced defects in the actin cytoskeleton and decreased the migration rate of human podocytes, an established intermediate phenotype of SRNS. We thus identified four new monogenic causes of GAMOS, describe a link between KEOPS function and human disease, and delineate potential pathogenic mechanisms