Articoli di riviste sul tema "Harvard advocate"

Jane Loring Gray, wife of celebrated and renowned Harvard botanist Asa Gray, helped to build up the work and the posthumous reputation of her husband as a leading scientist, an advocate of Charles Darwin, and a popular proponent of science in the nineteenth-century United States. Jane left Asa the scientist for others and wanted to create a portrait of Asa the person. This article discusses the Grays’ partnership in science, places that relationship in context, and stresses the contribution Jane made to Asa’s legacy, including the way she framed her husband’s work and reputation after his death. The emphasis is on the literary, historical, cultural, biographical, and autobiographical dimensions of the Grays’ work, on the implications that work has for botany and science, and on the challenges that Jane Gray had owing to her gender, to family and social roles, and in the face of delicate health.

One of the first and largest migrations of Latin Americans to the United States occurred from Puerto Rico to New York City in the 1950s. At its height in 1953, the Great Puerto Rican Migration saw some seventy-five thousand Puerto Ricans settled in the great metropolis, and by 1960 there were over half a million New Yorkers of Puerto Rican ancestry in the city. The exodus transformed the capital of the world and taxed its social fabric and institutions. Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, S.J. (1913–95), a Harvard-trained sociologist teaching at Fordham University in the Bronx, played a key role in helping both New York City, its people and social institutions, respond with compassion and creativity to this upheaval. This article chronicles Fitzpatrick’s involvement with the Puerto Ricans for over three decades as priest, public intellectual, and advocate on behalf of the newcomers, and social researcher.

AbstractThis year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the San Antonio v. Rodriguez case, viewed by some as the worst decision in the US Supreme Court’s modern history. As legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky observed, the court essentially declared that “discrimination against the poor does not violate the Constitution and that education is not a fundamental right.”1 Five decades later, how does this case from the past continue to exert its influence on the present? And how might the present have looked different if the court had reached a different conclusion?For this policy dialogue, the HEQ editors asked Bruce Baker and David Hinojosa to discuss the Rodriguez decision and its legacy, focusing particularly on how the case has shaped and constrained equity efforts in K-12 education. Bruce Baker is professor and chair of the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Miami. A leading scholar on the financing of public elementary and secondary education systems, he is the author of Educational Inequality and School Finance (Harvard Education Press, 2018) and School Finance and Education Equity (Harvard Education Press, 2021). David Hinojosa is the director of the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, where he spearheads the organization’s systemic racial justice work in guaranteeing that historically marginalized students of color receive equal and equitable educational opportunities in public schools and institutions of higher education. He is a leading litigator and advocate in civil rights, specializing in educational impact litigation and policy.HEQ policy dialogues are, by design, intended to promote an informal, free exchange of ideas between scholars. At the end of the exchange, we offer a list of references for readers who wish to follow up on sources relevant to the discussion.

Abstract Robert J. White is probably best known as the first neurosurgeon to perform successful “cephalic exchange” on monkeys in 1971. However, he was also a pioneer in the field of neurosurgery and contributed tremendously to the field of neuroanesthesia and bioethics. White received medical training at the University of Minnesota, Harvard University, Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, and Mayo Clinic before becoming the first Chief of Neurosurgery at Metrohealth Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio. He made significant strides in the field of spinal cord cooling and hypothermia. White and his team was also the first to successfully isolate the monkey brain with retention of biological activity. In 2004 and 2006, White and colleagues were nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, with Harvey Cushing and Wilder Penfield being the only other 2 neurosurgeons ever to be nominated for the award. Aside from his career as a neurosurgeon, he was also an advisor to 2 popes and an advocate for animal research. By the end of his career, White performed over 10 000 brain operations and published over 1000 articles, which has pushed the frontiers of neurosurgical research.

On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (1809–1882) was published in 1859 in England and in 1860 in the United States. Its relatively positive initial reception in the United States was facilitated by a number of factors including the prominence of geology among the sciences, the high standing of Darwin with James Dwight Dana (1813–1895), and common knowledge about geology among many non-geologists. As indicated by the example of Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865), knowledge of a long duration for the Earth and of the fact of species extinction was taken for granted. At the level of elite science, knowledge of geological concepts was also widespread, as indicated by the example of Joseph Henry (1797–1878), first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Instructed in geology not only by Amos Eaton (1776–1842) but also by the lectures of Charles Lyell (1797–1875), Henry proved a well-placed advocate for giving Darwin's book a fair hearing. In doing so Henry allied himself with the Harvard botanist Asa Gray (1810–1888). The fact that Darwin's Origin was published at a time of high political tension in the United States added to the drama: the opponent of evolution Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) engaged Gray, the proponent of evolution, on numerous grounds both intellectual and institutional. Further, vocabulary during the period moved back and forth across scientific and political contexts, as suggested by varied applications of the word “extinction.”

AbstractThe collaborative London based non-governmental organization network ELRHA (Enhancing Learning and Research for Humanitarian Assistance) supports partnerships between higher education institutions and humanitarian organizations worldwide with the objective to enhance the professionalization of the humanitarian sector. While coordination and control of the humanitarian sector has plagued the response to every major crisis, concerns highlighted by the 2010 Haitian earthquake response further catalyzed and accelerated the need to ensure competency-based professionalization of the humanitarian health care work force. The Harvard Humanitarian Initiative sponsored an independent survey of established academically affiliated training centers in North America that train humanitarian health care workers to determine their individual training center characteristics and preferences in the potential professionalization process. The survey revealed that a common thread of profession-specific skills and core humanitarian competencies were being offered in both residential and online programs with additional programs offering opportunities for field simulation experiences and more advanced degree programs. This study supports the potential for the development of like-minded academic affiliated and competency-based humanitarian health programs to organize themselves under ELRHA's regional “consultation hubs” worldwide that can assist and advocate for improved education and training opportunities in less served developing countries.Burkle Jr FM, WallsAE, HeckJP, SorensenBS, CranmerHH, JohnsonK, LevineAC, KaydenS, CahillB, VanRooyenMJ. Academic affiliated training centers in humanitarian health, Part 1: program characteristics and professionalization preference of centers in North America. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013:28(2):1-8.

W. V. Quine is widely regarded as one of the most important and influential philosophers of the twentieth century. Quine wrote and lectured on logic, philosophy of language, and epistemology throughout his long career, and was one of the American figures who did most to establish the analytic tradition of philosophy in the United States. Until recently, the historical development of both Quine's philosophy and the analytic tradition of which it is a part remained unexamined by historians and philosophers alike. In the last decade or so, however, analytic philosophers have begun to assess the history of their enterprise, and Quine's place within it. Building on this welcome development with the tools of intellectual history, this essay examines Quine's philosophical apprenticeship in the late 1920s and 1930s.The basic tenets of Quine's mature thought set in early in his studies. Most notably, he displayed in his student writings a commitment to science as the primary theory of the world within which philosophical inquiry should take place. Yet he found the uncertain direction of interwar American philosophy uncongenial to his views. During a year of postdoctoral research in Europe, Quine encountered the work of analytic philosophers and logicians such as Rudolf Carnap and Alfred Tarski. Their scientific program for philosophy captivated Quine, who returned to Harvard a champion of their work. For the rest of the 1930s, Quine was an indefatigable advocate of the analytic tradition; he brought news of European logic and scientific philosophy to American universities. His purpose in doing so was to move American philosophy towards science and away from what he saw as its metaphysical entanglements. The reception and transformation of analytic philosophy in the United States is shown to have involved a complex dynamic between foreign and domestic conceptions of philosophy.

The problem of value priorities in the US universities is actualized in the paper; they traditionally show high ranking positions and make the majority among the best higher education institutions in the international education and research areas. The fundamental institutional values of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, California Institute of Technology, Harvard University and University of Wisconsin-Whitewater are revealed aimed at implementing the best American universities experience for the development of higher education system and its quality in Ukraine. It is proven that American universities function on the basis of their own academic values and have their own culture and philosophy in addition to the established institutional values, such as institutional autonomy, academic freedom and shared governance. Consolidating the mission, vision and priorities of higher education institution development the institutional values reflect the peculiarities of the university’s activities and project the moral ideal of behavior of academic staff, students and graduates, who confirm to stakeholders their competitiveness at the labor market. It is revealed that a key and integral part of professional values in the US universities is academic freedom though which historically and traditionally the defense of democratic values is considered. It is grounded that academic freedom in the American university society is a prerequisite for developing knowledge, conducting research and publishing their results, it also causes the social and institutional responsibility, in particular for compliance with ethical standards of conduct and principles of integrity. It is reveled that the practical realization of the American professor’s right for academic freedom is the right for tenured appointment, which makes it possible to work without the administrative pressure and the risk to be fired because of his unpopular views and statements. It is established that the American Association of University Professors is the founder of the American understanding of academic freedom and the advocate of the universities’ academic staff rights, including their tenure.

Darwin and Design Does Evolution Have a Purpose?. Michael Ruse. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2003. 381 pp. $29.95, £19.95, €29.95. ISBN 0-674-01023-X. Ruse offers a history and discussion of teleological thinking--from the introduction of the argument from design, through Darwin's recognition of natural selection, to current disputes within evolutionary biology and present claims of "intelligent design" advocates.

Background Low women empowerment, is a known contributing factor to unmet needs for contraception by limiting access to health services through negative cultural beliefs and practices. However, little is known about the association between unmet needs and domains of women empowerment in Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries. Hence, this study aimed at assessing the influence of women empowerment domains on the unmet need for contraception in the region using the most recent Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data (2016–2021). Methods The data for the study was derived from the appended women’s (IR) file of eighteen SSA countries. A weighted sample of 128,939 married women was analyzed by STATA version 16. The Harvard Institute’s Gender Roles Framework, which comprised of influencer, resource, and decision-making domains was employed to identify and categorize the covariates across three levels. The effects of each predictor on the unmet need for spacing and limiting were examined using a multivariable multilevel mixed-effect multinomial logistic regression analysis. Adjusted relative risk ratio (aRRR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval was used to declare the statistical significance of the independent variables. Results The pooled prevalence of unmet needs for contraception was 26.36% (95% CI: 24.83–30.40) in the region, with unmet needs for spacing and limiting being 16.74% (95% CI: 16.55, 17.02) and 9.62% (95% CI: 9.45, 12.78), respectively. Among variables in the influencer domain, educational level, family size of more than five, parity, number of children, attitude towards wife beating, and media exposure were substantially linked with an unmet need for spacing and limiting. Being in the poorest wealth quintile and enrollment in health insurance schemes, on the other hand, were the two variables in the resource domain that had a significant influence on unmet needs. The overall decision-making capacity of women was found to be the sole significant predictor of unmet needs among the covariates in the decision-making domain. Conclusion Unmet needs for contraception in SSA countries were found to be high. Reproductive health program planners and contraceptive service providers should place due emphasis on women who lack formal education, are from low-income families, and have large family sizes. Governments should collaborate with insurance providers to increase health insurance coverage alongside incorporating family planning within the service package to minimize out-of-pocket costs. NGOs, government bodies, and program planners should collaborate across sectors to pool resources, advocate for policies, share best practices, and coordinate initiatives to maximize the capacity of women’s decision-making autonomy.

Abstract By modernizing cancer journal roles and editorial policy there may be greater rigor, biological understanding, scientific generalizability, reproducibility, transparency, and inclusion in cancer research. A path to identifying, addressing and correcting of structural inequities in health has been recently established by three major medical journal’s editorial policies to date and continue to be influenced by the reality of several reviews of publications over years and decades of clinical trials in cancer where specifically race and ethnicity demographics of study populations have been under-reported. The NIH has acknowledged the importance of demographic reporting and the FDA has established that data reporting in clinical trials is important. Question: What is needed to transform the ecosystem to ensure standards in promoting diversity, inclusion, and equity in cancer research? There are several considerations for stakeholders in organizations to address the issue of demographic reporting in research which includes both gender and race. There are metrics intrinsic to journal leadership which may include (i) demographics and diversity of leadership and editorial boards (ii) demographics and diversity of research staff. There are author considerations such as (i) diverse representation of authors (ii) Inclusion of a citation diversity statement, with attention to diversity in referenced citations (iii) statement of efforts and policy made to provide for inclusive environment, mentorship, and participation. Specifically, to ensure diversity and inclusion in non-therapeutic and therapeutic research, demographic and non-demographic variables in basic, clinical, and outcomes research should be considered by investigators and statisticians. For example, a statement of US and/or ex-US demographics of the disease, to whom the research question applies, and for whom the intervention is intended, and eligibility requirements that are scientifically justified. ASCO, AACR, MRCT- Harvard recommend action and policies for publicly reporting robust demographic characteristics on the enrolled clinical trial sample as part of the future modernization of journal editorial policy. The issue of demographic collection and reporting in research may be influenced by a variety of factors which include journal requirements, author demographics, investigator gender and race standards, bias, actual under-representation of the study population in the research consistent with the disease under study or rigor in the collection of demographics of the study population. There is a need for greater transparency of researcher, author standards, and journal requirements, leading to transparent research participant demographic reporting consistent with the research question. In all cases, the ability for any researcher, health care advocate or student to fully understanding the next question that needs to be answered and the demographics of study participants for inclusion is not fully optimized. Citation Format: Jeanne M. Regnante, Barbara Bierer, Karen Winkfield. Emerging editorial policies, researcher and author standards in promoting diversity, inclusion, and equity in research: A focus on cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2022 Sep 16-19; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr A024.

Abstract This article examines the first creative writing “workshop,” so called, in order to assess how present-day institutional practices restructure transhistorical questions of labor, education, and aesthetic and economic production. Drawing on extensive archival research, I document the procedures of and theory behind drama professor George Pierce Baker’s “47 Workshop” at Harvard, operative from 1912 to 1924. Baker’s use of the term, I argue, provides rhetorical cover by which to slot arts courses into a Harvard curriculum increasingly geared toward utilitarian education. At the same time, the term signals Baker’s ties to the American Arts and Crafts movement, a cause opposed to industrialization just as Baker opposed the mass fare of Broadway. Reading Baker’s 1930 pageant Control for its advocacy of preindustrial values, the article concludes by contending that this distinct genealogy for creative writing helps us rethink the discipline today. If Baker understood workshop as an alternative, nonrationalized discourse, present-day craft rhetoric consolidates the authority of elite educational institutions.

The major purpose of the Sherman Act was to prevent mergers from forming monopolies. It ensures consumers are protected from price discrimination, and there is free competition. Several economists, classical economists, neoclassical economists, Chicago school and Harvard school, pointed out several antitrust laws. Classical economists led by Smith argued that monopolists set prices at higher prices and raise their charges higher through understocking the markets hence corporations and mergers should be prevented. Neoclassical economists developed a model which assumes that there are no barriers to entry whereby there is free entry to the market. Harvard school also advocated for free competition. Either, the Chicago school was against the idea of free competition and proposed some acts from the antitrust laws to be removed. However, with advancements in technology, the Sherman Act has become outdated and some languages used are held, making it a challenge to interpret in courts. There is a need for the antitrust laws to be reformed to fit the changing technology. Bills should be proposed to make improvements to the acts. For example, Klobuchar Amy, in April 2021, proposed a bill seeking to reform antitrust laws to better perfect competition in the American economy.

Both business executives and management scholars have, in recent years, focused a great deal of attention on the theme of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Calls for business leaders to expend resources on behalf of “social good” tend to downplay, if not ignore, what is fundamentally an ideological question: just what is a “good” society and who defines “goodness”? The ideological underpinnings of social responsibility and its relationship to the “good” society can be explored through an historical perspective. The roots of the CSR movement trace back to the early years of the Cold War. Led by Donald K David, Dean of the Harvard Business School and supported by other academics and executives given voice on the pages of the Harvard Business Review, advocates urged expanded business social responsibility as a means of aligning business interests with the defense of free-market capitalism against what was depicted as the clear-and-present danger of Soviet Communism. Today's enthusiastic calls for business to “do well by doing good” could benefit from a similar critical analysis not just of the goals of CSR but also the ideological assumptions, often unacknowledged, that underlie those goals.

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, the Supreme Court considered voluminous evidence that Harvard discriminated against Asian Americans to keep the racial composition of its student body similar year after year. The Court held that Harvard engaged in unlawful discrimination, providing clarity to an area of the law that was filled with ambiguities and self-contradictions. The Court’s decision made clear that discrimination in favor of some racial groups necessarily inflicts discriminatory, race-based harms on others. This Article explores how Fair Admissions sheds light on the failure of identity politics to create a genuinely inclusive, egalitarian society. Practitioners of identity politics, whom this Article refers to as identitarians, argue that all “people of color” in the United States have a common political interest in uniting against the hegemony of the White majority. In reality, racial minorities experience both positive and negative interactions with members of the White majority and other racial minorities. Fair Admissions revealed how, in some circumstances, members of the White majority may unite with some racial minorities to perpetrate discrimination against other minorities. Identitarianism provides no account of how society should weigh the competing interests of different minorities in a manner that best serves the common good. Nor does it offer a vision for how the White majority and racial minorities can and should strive to live together in harmony and cooperation. This Article argues for an alternative theoretical framework for civil rights advocacy rooted in individual dignity. It argues that society should banish arbitrary racial categories from public life, enforce bans on discrimination against both overt and covert discrimination when justified by the evidence, foster talent-based institutions that are inclusive of all people, and promote honest discourse about race. Only a society that values and respects the dignity of the individual can be genuinely inclusive and egalitarian.

Douglas A. Johnson began his career as a human rights activist while earning his undergraduate degree in philosophy (1975) at Macalester College in the United States. He lived at Gandhi’s ashram in India to study nonviolent organizing (1969 to 1970). He served as the director of the Third World Institute in Minneapolis, MN, USA (1973–1979), which functioned as the international social justice program of the Archdiocese of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Johnson’s work included creating and running a political collective; leading development study tours into villages in Guatemala and Honduras; and investigating how transnational companies (e.g., Nestlé) were penetrating the developing world. He was the co-founder of the Infant Formula Action Coalition (INFACT), elected national chairperson (1977–1985), and appointed as Executive Director (1978–1984). His role included representing INFACT before national and international organizations, the human milk substitute industry, the US Congress and Executive Branch, and the press. He initiated and coordinated the first international grass-roots consumer boycott (against Nestlé) in ten nations. He was also a co-founder of the International Nestlé Boycott Committee and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). He earned a Master’s in Public and Private Management at Yale University (1988). Then he became the first Executive Director of the Center for Victims of Torture, in Minneapolis (1988–2012), the first treatment center for torture victims in the US. Since 2013, he has been teaching human rights theory and practice, and sharing lessons he has learned, as a Lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University (US). (This interview was conducted via Zoom and transcribed verbatim. It has been edited for ease of readability. DJ refers to Doug Johnson and LD refers to Laura Duckett.)

As national healthcare reform continues to place greater emphasis on providing high value care, measures designed to track clinical performance remain relatively overlooked. To that extent, several organizations have attempted to create objective grading systems to evaluate orthopaedic surgeon quality and performance. While attempting to address these issues, ProPublica’s Surgeon Scorecard has provoked national debate among patient advocates and healthcare providers. The methodology behind the Scorecard was developed at the Harvard School of Public Health with an aim to provide a more robust means of comparing surgical performance and outcomes for patients and healthcare organizations. Currently, the Scorecard assesses eight elective surgical procedures, including total knee and hip arthroplasty, through the use of the Medicare Claims Dataset. The impact of the Scorecard on orthopaedic practice has yet to be established. In this discussion, we analyze the Scorecard from the perspective of various stakeholders to identify its benefits and shortcomings, as well as offer direction for further improvement.

Last year in this journal, I offered an explanation for America’s high health care costs rooted in the concept of “supply-side moral hazard,” and advocated for an all-payer system of price regulation as an appropriate policy response. The good news—particularly in the current time of pandemic—is that politicians and health services researchers are beginning to acknowledge the need for some form of price regulation. Legislative proposals thus far have focused narrowly on pharmaceutical prices and “surprise billing” for out-of-network charges. However, a few months ago, in March 2020, three Harvard researchers released a more comprehensive proposal. The bad news is that the proposal would preserve a large role for market forces, which, I argue here, amounts to going into battle against high health care costs with one hand tied behind your back. Furthermore, the reliance on private markets would lock in place the rampant inequality and Byzantine complexity bedeviling American health care.

The Vanderbilt–Northwestern–Texas–Harvard/MIT Engineering Research Center in Bioengineering Educational Technologies is the only such National Science Foundation sponsored Center specifically focused on educational technologies. The Center teams bioengineering, learning science and learning technology specialists in universities and industry to determine what bioengineers should learn, how it should be conveyed, and how learning should be assessed. Potential industrial and practice partners include companies and national laboratories that practise bioengineering, those that provide enabling technologies for construction of learning modules and assembly into courseware, and major publishers and others who will assist in courseware dissemination. Modular design should make Center courseware useful in continuing as well as curricular education. Continuing education marketing strategies include recruiting companies to provide employee, client, customer, and patient groups as test-beds and customers for courseware, and advertising for continuing education through professional societies and advocacy groups.

Abstract This paper is about the pragmatic inferences in play as conversational implicatures (Grice, P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press) occur. First, it constructs the deductivism versus abductivism debate that transpires from the extant literature but is rarely elaborated. Against deductivism, the paper argues that implicating inferences in conversational implicatures can instantiate an abductive logical form, as abductivism suggests. Against abductivism, however, it grants to deductivism that implicating inferences can have a deductive form provided the latter is of a defeasible type. In sum, it thus argues for pluralist defeasibilism. Second, it turns to the issue of the ontological nature of implicating inferences and advocates normative inferentialism, on which these inferences are not primarily real psychological processes but rules of the practice of implicating. While this allows for the possibility of their psychological instantiation, to be sure, the paper also insists that psychological inferring processes in implicatures are neither necessarily isomorphic to the aforementioned rules nor even necessarily occur as an implicature occurs.

Within the precincts of Harvard University, one can still hear an ardent defense of the venerable distinction between “facts” and “values,” or, as sometimes put, between “description” and “evaluation.” Arguments over this distinction go to the heart of the relation of ethics to scholarship, as was vividly illustrated recently by a controversy in this university concerning a doctoral dissertation proposal in “ethnonational studies.” Among other things, the proposal, which envisioned an examination and a critique of ideas of citizenship, as they bear on a contemporary case of ethnonational conflict, was criticized for being more a piece of advocacy, more the subject for an op-ed article, than serious scholarship. The possible consequences were portentous. If the case against the proposal had stood, the candidate would, in effect, have had no right as a scholar to pursue such a line of inquiry in the way proposed.

ArgumentIn the late 1960s, in the midst of campus unrest, a group of young economists calling themselves “radicals” challenged the boundaries of economics. In the radicals' cultural cartography, economic science and politics were represented as overlapping. These claims were scandalous because they were voiced from Harvard University, drawing on its authority. With radicals' claims the subject of increasing media attention, the economics mainstream sought to re-assert the longstanding cultural map of economic science, where objectivity and advocacy were distinguishable. The resolution of the contest of credibility came with a string of cases of dismissals and denial of tenure for radicals. The American Economic Association's investigations of these cases, imposing the conventional cultural map, concluded that personnel decisions had not been politically motivated. Radicals were forced to migrate from the elite institutions from which they had emerged to less prestigious ones. “Place” became a marker of their marginalization within the profession.

This study discusses Merze Tate, a black woman faculty member at Howard University from 1942 to 1977, and her efforts throughout her tenure at the institution to obtain gender equity for women faculty. This study also discusses Tate's decades-long battle with Rayford Logan, chair of the history department of Howard. Both Harvard PhDs, their difficulties reflect both gender differences as well as professional jealously. Tate was the first black woman to earn a degree from Oxford University (International Relations, 1935) and the first black woman to earn a PhD from Harvard in the fields of government and international relations (1941). She joined the faculty at Howard University in 1942, as one of two women ever hired in the history department. She remained on the faculty until her retirement in 1977. Tate is significant not only for her academic accomplishments and her advocacy on behalf of women but also as one of the earliest tenured women faculty members at Howard. In addition, she was a part of a very small group of highly accomplished black women academics who devoted their lives to the education of black youth. In a 1946 study of black doctorate and professional degree holders, Harry Washington Greene noted that of the three hundred eighty-one recipients, only forty-five were women. Black women were overwhelmingly enrolled and graduated from teacher training colleges that were unaccredited and/or did not provide the curriculum to attend graduate school without taking an additional year of undergraduate studies. The time and cost factor were prohibitive and many black women attended summer schools for years to take courses to prepare them for a graduate degree program.

Helen Sword, author of Stylish Academic Writing (2012) and The Writer’s Diet (2016), is a staunch campaigner for shaking the dust off academic writing. She advocates that style, elegance and readability are not incompatible with rigorous research reporting. In her most recent book, Air & Light & Time & Space (2017), Sword turns her attention away from texts and shifts the spotlight onto writers. She collected extensive data to explore the habits and experiences of academic writers – how they write, when, where and how they feel when they write. Drawing on 100 interviews with successful academic writers and 1,223 questionnaires from participants at her writing workshops, Sword showcases academic writing experiences. Through extensive quotations and profiling, she illustrates the mixed, mottled and varied practices that writers engage in.

[The abstract of this article is not available. Here are the first sentence of the interview with Peter Suber. The complete interview is freely available upon registration]Peter Suber (http://bit.ly/suber) is Berkman Fellow at Harvard University, Senior Researcher at SPARC, the Open Access Project Director at Public Knowledge, and Research Professor of Philosophy at Earlham College. He conducts research, writing, consulting, and advocacy on open access and related topics.Q: The aim of open access is to remove access barriers to publication. Don’t you think that fee-based model can be an obstacle for authors in less-developed countries?A: Fee-based OA journals don’t work as well as no-fee OA journals in fields and countries where most research is unfunded. But it’s important to remember that the vast majority of OA journals (70%) charge no publication fees at all. The percentage is even higher for OA journals published in developing countries. For example, nearly all the OA journals published in India are no-fee. It’s equally important to remember that green OA, or OA through repositories, is an inexpensive alternative to gold OA, or OA through journals.

[The abstract of this article is not available. Here are the first sentence of the interview with Peter Suber. The complete interview is freely available upon registration]Peter Suber (http://bit.ly/suber) is Berkman Fellow at Harvard University, Senior Researcher at SPARC, the Open Access Project Director at Public Knowledge, and Research Professor of Philosophy at Earlham College. He conducts research, writing, consulting, and advocacy on open access and related topics.Q: The aim of open access is to remove access barriers to publication. Don’t you think that fee-based model can be an obstacle for authors in less-developed countries?A: Fee-based OA journals don’t work as well as no-fee OA journals in fields and countries where most research is unfunded. But it’s important to remember that the vast majority of OA journals (70%) charge no publication fees at all. The percentage is even higher for OA journals published in developing countries. For example, nearly all the OA journals published in India are no-fee. It’s equally important to remember that green OA, or OA through repositories, is an inexpensive alternative to gold OA, or OA through journals.

In February 2016, the Florida State University (FSU) Faculty Senate passed an institutional Open Access (OA) Policy by unanimous vote,1 following the lead of many public and private universities across the United States. This was the culmination of many years of outreach and advocacy by OA champions at FSU, with a diverse, talented team of faculty and librarians making significant contributions along the way. This was also just one instance of a growing trend across North America and globally, with impressive growth in the number of OA policies and mandates adopted by research organizations and funders over the past decade. The adoption of an OA policy still presents many challenges with respect to policy compliance,2 and there are open questions about the long-term impact of different OA policy requirements and implementation models.3 At the same time, OA policy adoption remains an important goal for many institutions, a symbolic affirmation of faculty support for the principles of OA. An OA policy can help an institution raise the profile of its institutional repository (IR), invigorate outreach efforts and content recruitment, and, in the case of Harvard Model policies, safeguard the author rights of its faculty.4

In this paper, we show that Paul Samuelson (1915–2009), renowned as one of the main advocates of the mathematization of economics, has also contributed to the change of the place of visual representation in the discipline. In his early works (e.g. Foundations of Economic Analysis published in 1947), he rejected diagrammatic analysis as a relevant tool of theorizing but used diagrams extensively, both as a pedagogic tool in his introductory textbook Economics (1948) and as a way of clarifying his theory of public expenditure (1954-5). We show that Samuelson’s reluctance to use diagrams in his early works can be explained by his training at Chicago and Harvard and his rejecting Marshall’s economics, whereas his adoption of visual language in Economics was a product of the peculiar context affecting American mass-education after WWII. A methodological debate which opposed him to Kenneth Boulding in 1948 led him to reconsider the place of visual representation in order to clarify conceptual controversies during subsequent debates on mathematical economics. Therefore, it can be said that the prominent place of visual language in the diffusion of economic ideas was stabilized in the mid-1950s, as mathematical language became the prevailing tool of economic theorizing. From this, we conclude that the idea that algebra simply upstaged geometry in the making of economic analysis must be qualified.

Introduction:Climate change is intricately related to human health and impacts acute and chronic diseases leading to increased demands on the health care system.Aim:The University of Colorado Graduate Medical Education (GME) Fellowship in Climate Change and Health Science Policy (CCHSP) aims to train and equip a new generation of clinicians knowledgeable in climate science, proficient in climate health education, and facile with advocacy skills in order to become leaders in health policy.The CCHSP fellowship is funded by the Living Closer Foundation and hosted through the University of Colorado Department of Emergency Medicine. It is a one to two-year program tailored to the fellow’s specific goals with the opportunity to earn an MPH or MA. Clinical work is supported through the UCHealth network. Site placement occurs at partnering organizations, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and fieldwork throughout the world (via Colorado School of Public Health, Harvard FXB Center for Health and Human Rights).The first fellow was recruited in 2017 and has participated in and completed multiple projects: technical contributor to the US Government’s Fourth National Climate Assessment; advocating for women’s health policy in India; authorship of climate change and health resource documents for the World Bank; climate change leadership within SAEM; advocacy work with local and state governments; multiple research publications.Discussion:As climate change continues to impact human health with widespread consequences, we need effective and articulate leaders to affect policy. Although this Fellowship originated in Emergency Medicine, its competencies and structure are replicable for other clinical specialties. Climate change will be one of the core global health challenges for generations. A strong foundation of clinicians who understand its causes and the strategies for adaptation and mitigations are necessary to optimize health outcomes amidst this growing threat.

In this issue’s Lactation Newsmakers: Documenting our History, we are featuring Elizabeth Hormann, who has been a force in breastfeeding advocacy globally for over a half century of counselling, teaching, and writing to create a better experience for breastfeeding mothers. Elizabeth Hormann was born and raised in the United States. She has a bachelor’s degree from Boston College (1967) and a master’s degree from Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education (1976). In 1972, she started training and lecturing at conferences, while raising her five breastfed children. Just after receiving her IBCLC in 1986, she changed continents moving to live and work in Germany. She was a role model, influencing the development of the IBCLC accreditation in Europe. Elizabeth Hormann was a pioneer in lecturing and sharing expertise during the 1980s, when there was a renewed interest in breastfeeding and a huge demand on breastfeeding education for health professionals. She helped to advance the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) in many countries, as a trainer and as an assessor. Over the years, she shared her expertise about relactation breastfeeding and infant feeding during emergencies. As the author and a translator of a number of breastfeeding books, her influence has been felt across Europe and Africa.

This article is based on a briefing paper commissioned by the Harvard Civil Rights Project for a Roundtable on Emerging Asian American Civil Rights Issues held in Cambridge, Massachusetts in October 2002. I was asked to address whether subgroups within the Asian American population have been adequately served by pan-Asian American agendas, particularly in relation to civil rights advocacy, and to highlight specific instances that show both positive and negative dimensions of those dynamics. In response, I chose to focus on Southeast Asian American (Cambodian, Hmong, Lao, Mien, Vietnamese, etc.) populations who, by measures of socioeconomic status, persistent poverty, and quality of life, are the most poorly resourced ethnic constituencies within Asian America. Through analysis of issues related to educational equity, policy, and development, both nationally and locally in the state of Massachusetts, I describe ways in which Southeast Asian American realities have been neglected or ignored. In light of the ethical and empirical consequences of failing to intervene proactively in this local and national commitments have had sustained impact. Finally, I suggest some ways to account more faithfully for the needs, interests, and visions of Southeast Asian American communities in the development of pan-Asian American civil rights agendas. Underlying my argument are commitments to equity and justice rather than identity and representation per se.

In the spring of 2013, the Harvard Educational Review (HER) published a special issue entitled Expanding Our Vision for the Arts in Education (Vol. 83, No. 1). Following a variety of forward-looking essays and arts learner reflections concerning the potential of the arts in education, the issue concluded with a provocative scholarly article, “Why the Arts Don't Do Anything: Toward a New Vision for Cultural Production in Education,” written by Rubén A. Gaztambide-Fernández, an associate professor in the Department of Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. In this piece, Gaztambide-Fernández makes the case that advocacy for arts education is trapped within a “rhetoric of effects” because the arts, as we conceive of them in educational environments today, rely too heavily on instrumental and intrinsic outcomes while only shallowly embodying a commitment to, or a consideration of, cultural practice. Gaztambide-Fernández further argues that what counts as “the arts” is based on traditional, Eurocentric, hierarchical notions of aesthetic experience. According to him, this discursive positioning of the arts within traditional Eurocentric power structures complicates arts teaching and learning for arts educators, especially those committed to issues of social justice. As an alternative, he suggests discursively repositioning the arts within a “rhetoric of cultural production,” positing that such a discursive shift would reconceptualize arts education as experiences that produce culture.

In this essay, Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández reflects on the comments made in a forum convened to reflect on his article “Why the Arts Don't Do Anything: Toward a New Vision for Cultural Production in Education,” published in the Harvard Educational Review (HER)'s special issue entitled Expanding Our Vision for the Arts in Education (Vol. 83, No. 1). Participants in the forum (published in HER Vol. 83, No.3) were John Abodeely, manager of national partnerships, John F. Kennedy Center for the Arts, Washington, DC; Ken Cole, associate director, National Guild for Community Arts Education, New York City; Janna Graham, project curator of the Serpentine Gallery, Centre for Possible Studies, London; Ayanna N. Hudson, director of arts education, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC; and Carmen Mörsch, head of the Research Institute for Art Education, Zurich University of the Arts. In his original essay, Gaztambide-Fernández makes the case that advocacy for arts education is trapped within a “rhetoric of effects” that relies too heavily on causal arguments for the arts, whether construed as instrumental or intrinsic. Gaztambide- Fernández further argues that what counts as “the arts” is based on traditional, Eurocentric, hierarchical notions of aesthetic experience. As an alternative, he suggests a “rhetoric of cultural production” that would focus on the cultural processes and experiences that ensue in particular contexts shaped by practices of symbolic work and creativity. Here the author engages the forum's discussion in an effort to clarify his argument and move the dialogue forward.

Abstract Problem Climate change is a public health and health equity crisis. Health professionals are well positioned to advance solutions but may lack the training and self-efficacy needed to achieve them. Approach The Center for Health Equity Education and Advocacy at Cambridge Health Alliance, a Harvard Medical School Teaching Hospital, developed a novel, longitudinal fellowship that taught health professionals about health and health equity effects of climate change, as well as community organizing practices that may help them mitigate these effects. The fellowship cohort included 40 fellows organized into 12 teams and was conducted from January to June 2022. Each team developed a project to address climate change and received coaching from an experienced community organizer coach. Effects of the fellowship on participants’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes were evaluated using pre- and postfellowship surveys. Outcomes Surveys were analyzed for 38 of 40 (95%) participants who consented to the evaluation and completed both surveys. Surveys used a 7-point Likert scale for item responses. McNemar’s test for paired data was used to assess changes in the proportion of respondents who agreed (“somewhat agree”/“agree”/“strongly agree”) with statements in pre- vs postfellowship surveys. Statistically significant improvements were found for 11 of the 17 items assessing knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Participants’ views of the fellowship and its effects were assessed through additional items in the postfellowship survey. Most respondents agreed that the fellowship increased their knowledge of the connections between climate change and health equity (32/38, 84.2%) and prepared them to effectively participate in a community organizing campaign (37/38, 94.7%). Each of the 12 groups developed climate health projects by the fellowship’s end. Next Steps This novel fellowship was well received and effective in teaching community organizing to health professionals concerned about climate change. Future studies are needed to assess longer-term effects of the fellowship.

Regardless of the controversy over the impact of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues on the fates or fortunes of business corporations, calls whether from policymakers (I. Mirza, ‘Congress a step closer to making corporate ESG disclosure mandatory’ (2021), JD Supra, 28 June 2021, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/congress-a-step-closer-tomaking- 9721287/ (accessed 8 Aug. 2021), social advocates (J. Jaeger, ‘Activist investor win at ExxonMobil should be wake-up call for companies’ (2021), Compliance Week, 15 June 2021, https://www.complianceweek.com/boards-andshareholders/ activist-investor-win-at-exxonmobil-should-bewake- up-call-for-companies/30475.article (accessed 8 Aug. 2021), and from businesses itself (A. Murray & K. Dunn, ‘CEOs are calling for more regulation-of ESG standards’, Fortune, 12 August 2021, https://fortune. com/2021/08/12/ceos-are-calling-for-more-regulationof-esgstandards/ (accessed 12 Aug. 2021), are increasingly made throughout the course of the present COVID-19 pandemic cycle for regulatory actions (C.A. Adams & S. Abhayawansa, ‘Connecting the COVID-19 pandemic, environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing and calls for “harmonisation” of sustainability reporting’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa. 2021.10230908/08/21 (accessed 9 Aug. 2021). Various facets of the COVID-19 pandemic have been blamed for their impacts on the lives and livelihoods of people across the world (OECD, ‘Coronavirus: The world economy at risk’ (2020), OECD Interim Economic Assessment (2 Mar. 2020), https://www.oecd.org/berlin/publikationen/Interim- Economic-Assessment-2-March-2020.pdf (accessed 8 Aug. 2021), including those in the US and the UK, but equally business corporations (E. Reicin, ‘Businesses should be held accountable for their ESG claims’ (2021), Forbes (23 Mar. 2021), https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesnonprofitcouncil/ 2021/03/23/businesses-should-be-held-accountable-for-theiresg- claims/?sh=67265fd25679 (accessed 8 Aug. 2021) and governments (K.P. Pucker, ‘Overselling sustainability reporting’ (2020), Harvard Business Review, May–June 2020, https://hbr.org/2021/05/overselling-sustainability-reporting (accessed 8 Aug. 2021) have also been blamed for their respective failures to do their parts in addressing ESG challenges that have become more prominent. Trust law, commercial trust, evolution of the role of a trustee, rule of law, whether a commercial trust is in the essence of a trust

The paper analyzes the state of play in the negotiations and the challenges facing meaningful services trade liberalization in the Doha Round. In tracing the treatment of services in the WTO, the reasons are examined for the success of the 1997 financial and telecommunications services negotiations and how those negotiations marked the entry of services companies and associations as advocates for services liberalization in the WTO. High expectations for substantial reductions in barriers to services trade emerged from the 1997 negotiations, but thus far remain unfulfilled. In the Doha Round the quality of offers has been poor and little progress has been made primarily because many WTO Members cannot perceive the economic benefits of trade liberalization. It is argued that this Round’s success is contingent upon the ability of the developed countries to respond to the legitimate concerns of the developing countries. However, too much attention has been given to trying to find a formula for services liberalization and not enough on hard bilateral bargaining. After analyzing various proposals put forth to jumpstart the talks, the paper suggests grouping key WTO Members and identifying “incentives that will motivate those groups.” The countries of greatest interest to the United States can be divided into three groups. Offers in agriculture, temporary entry, and emergency safeguards would appeal to each of these and provide a basis for progress. It is concluded that “a Doha Round that does not contain substantial benefits for services is a Round that will have failed” and will not have industry support if it is to be implemented by the US Congress. J. Robert Vastine is the President of US Coalition of Service Industries (CSI) in Washington, DC. Prior to joining the CSI, he served as President of the Congressional Economic Leadership Institute, a bi-partisan, non-profit foundation that helps educate Congress on issues affecting US economic competitiveness. His extensive Capitol Hill experience includes posts as Staff Director of the Senate Republican Conference, Minority Staff Director of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs; Legislative Director for Senator John H. Chafee of Rhode Island; and Legislative Assistant for Congressman Thomas B. Curtis of Missouri. His Executive Branch experience includes service as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Trade and Raw Materials Policy and Vice President of the Oversight Board of the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was chaired by Secretaries of the Treasury Brady and Bentsen, and he has had extensive private-sector experience. Vastine is Chairman of the official Industry Trade Advisory Committee for International Trade in Services (ITAC 10), which advises the US Trade Representative. He was a fellow of the Institute of Politics of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and has written a number of articles on US trade policy. Vastine is a graduate of Haverford College and the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies.

<div><p><em>The <strong>world</strong> is amidst of an epochal demographic shift that will reshape societies, economies, and markets throughout the next century. The world population, as per United Nations forecasts, will either stabilize/ balance or peak around 2050, after growing for centuries at an ever-accelerating rate. The fundamental reason is the decline occurring in birth rates as nations advance economically. As birth rates drop and better health care services delay life </em><em>traverses ( prolongs life span), the world’s population is aging rapidly. However the demographic dynamics in the developing world including India are radically different. Birth rates are still high, and populations are both growing and getting younger. Throughout the following couple of decades, a considerable lot of these nations including India are prone to experience what David Bloom, chair of the department of global health and population at Harvard's School of Public Health, has called a "demographic profit" a rising Proportion of youngsters entering the workforce, driving efficiency and economic development. But our aging population is anticipated to increase fourfold in next decade and this is a growing concern for India. The share of India’s population ages 60 and older is anticipated to move from 8 percent in 2010 to 19 percent in 2050, as indicated by the United Nations Population Division (UN 2011. By mid-century, India’s 60 and older population is expected to encompass 323 million individuals, a number more noteworthy than the aggregate U.S. populace in 2012. This profound shift in the share of older Indians— occurring with regards to changing family connections and severely limited old-age income support— brings with it an assortment of social, economic, and medicinal services approach challenges. </em></p><p><em>This paper proposes to contemplate the probable impact of the aging population in India, the challenges to be met and the opportunities to be exploited by investigating demographic, social and economic trends and aspects of aging in India, and advocate the necessity of policy initiatives for the care of older persons in India in terms of their wellbeing needs and budgetary security as it would be obligation of the state to provide, address the need of general population in the nation irrespective of age, standing, caste, sexual orientation and so forth.</em></p></div>

Ivan Boserup: The Chaves Drawing, the Galvin Murúa Manuscript, and the Miccinelli Claims Regarding Guaman Poma’s Nueva corónica Among the many extraordinary claims of the Miccinelli manuscripts kept in a private collection in Naples and published in 1989 and later, one of those most urgently in need of being closely investigated has concerned the authorship of one of the treasures of the Royal Library of Denmark: the autograph manuscript of the Nueva corónica (Ms. GKS 2232 4º). Authorship of this manuscript has traditionally been assigned, in accordance with its title page and other evidence, to the Andean Indian Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala (1560?–1616?). Yet, in spite of the flat rejection of the Miccinelli material by the vast majority of leading specialists of the history and literature of early colonial Peru (see Adorno 1998; Zuidema 2001), the Miccinelli claims continue to find adepts at large and sometimes arouse new, fruitless debates. In 2012, however, it was revealed that a drawing included in one of the key manuscripts of the Miccinelli collection, a Contract which states that the mestizo chronicler and Jesuit Father Blas Valera was the real author of the Nueva corónica, is basically a tracing of a drawing of the Nueva corónica as reproduced from a retouched photograph in the facsimile edition of the Nueva corónica that was published in Paris in 1936 (see Boserup and Krabbe Meyer 2012; 2015). Following up on this material proof of the presence of recent forgeries within the Miccinelli collection, the present paper discusses the authenticity of a closely related drawing (the Chaves drawing) discovered c.1998 in the State Archives of Naples. This latter item turns out to be, in all probability, another recent tracing of a drawing of the Nueva corónica, based on the 1936 facsimile edition. The reason for discussing the Chaves drawing so many years later is a suggestion made in 2015 by the art historian Thomas B. F. Cummins (Harvard University). According to Cummins, the Chaves drawing is an authentic creation of Guaman Poma (see Cummins 2015). It is argued, however, that Professor Cummins’s superficial examination of the drawing and his advocacy of its authenticity are closely related to a theory developed by him in 2013 together with the renowned Peruvian anthropologist Juan Ossio (Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima) and supported by Conservator at the Getty Museum Nancy K. Turner (2015). Their view, which is inspired by an outdated suggestion of the historian Manuel Ballesteros (1911–2002), is that the Chaves drawing may originate from the manuscript of the long lost illustrated chronicle (1596) of Martín de Murúa (the Galvin Murúa) supposedly consisting to a large extent of illustrated folios originating from other sources. The evidence of the Galvin Murúa itself does not, however, corroborate this view (see Adorno and Boserup 2005; 2008). Hence, as in the case of the demonstrably fake Contract, it is argued that the Chaves drawing was produced in the late 1990s and “dropped” in the State Archives of Naples so as to be innocently “discovered” by a scholar working there, and later promoted as “external” evidence of the authenticity and historical relia­bility of the two main Miccinelli manuscripts. By stepping right into this trap nearly twenty years after others have been lured into it (Cantù 2001; Laurencich Minelli 2001; 2007), Cummins has taken the risk of being counted among the supporters of the Miccinelli manuscripts and of stirring up once more an international debate on the status of forged or corrupted material, which one can hope, however, will be thwarted at an early stage by the present analysis.

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.確定死亡要分開三個層次：死亡的定義、死亡的判準、死亡的測試；當中既有醫學問題﹒也有哲學問題。“全腦死亡”（簡稱腦死亡）的提出，並非要修改傳統對死亡的定義；全腦死亡只是一個新的死亡判準，在死亡的測試上既可用新的腦功能測試，但也不排斥傳統的心肺功能測試，視情況而定。因此，全腦死亡判準，並沒有提出一個新的死亡觀來取代舊的死亡觀。反對全腦死亡判準的意見走向二個極端。有些人認為全腦死亡只是一個人的死亡的必要但非充分條件，還需心肺死亡配合才構成充分條件。但另一些人則認為，全腦死亡是作為萬物之靈的人之死亡的既非充分也非必要條件；真正的必要（或甚至充分）條件是上腦（大腦）死亡。要徹底處理這些醫學爭論問題，無可避免地我們要問“死亡是甚麼？”“生命是甚麼？”及進一步追問“人是甚麼？”這些哲學問題。This essays begins by noting the brief history of "updating" death since the Harvard Medical School Report in 1968. The deficiencies of this report are noted and the background of the President's Commission's Report on "Defining Death" are briefly explained. The author then discusses and endorses the three-fold distinction in the determination of death as suggested by other scholars, viz., the definition of, the criterion of, and the tests for death. While the test for death is basically a medical issue, and that the definition of death is basically a philosophical issue, the criterion of death is both medical and philosophical.Since the People's Republic of China does not have any brain death legislation, and since some recent Chinese biomedical ethics textbooks have an inaccurate understanding of brain death, the present author summarizes the major theses of "Defining Death" by the President's Commission of 1981. It is pointed out that the idea of "brain death" does not indicate a new definition of death; it only advocates a new criterion of death, and a new way of testing death (neurological) in addition to the conventional way of testing death (cardiac-pulmonary). Hence the precise idea of "brain death" is not as radical as some Chinese interpreters think it to be.This essay also analyzes the criticism of brain death criterion both from the left and from the right. The Jewish position, as articulated by Hans Jonas and others, that brain death is not the sufficient condition of human death is explained. The present author points out that Jonas' idea that the argument for brain death is value-laden is vindicated by many Chinese writings on biomedical ethics. The position in the other extreme, viz., whole brain death is not even a necessary condition of the death of persons, is also explained. The arguments in its favor and against it are both critically analyzed. The serious mistake of many Chinese writings of equating the condition of persistent vegetative state with whole brain death is criticized. The author also notes that according to Buddhist views, pvs patients still possess some degree of consciousness and hence should not be deemed dead.The philosophical issue of "what is death?" necessarily leads to another issue, viz., what is the nature of human life? The ancient Chinese discussions of the nature of the soul (shen) and the body-mind (xing-shen) problem are briefly discussed. The author points out the relevance of these discussions to the contemporary reflection on the nature of human death.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 27 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

e4849150In this work, Elinor Ostrom's ideas on common goods (1990, 1996) are recovered with the aim of analyzing her contributions to the co-production of scientific knowledge. From a descriptive and analytical approach based on two of his research works, his notions of institutional management are analyzed, which allow him to establish a relationship with the themes of science, technology and society when conceptualizing scientific knowledge committed to social well-being; at the same time, it allows us to establish a possible relationship with extra-academic sectors (NAIDORF; VASEN; ALONSO, 2016) that it is intended to highlight. In conclusion, an outline of the co-production process is presented as the crystallization of a model that starts from the notion of collaborative and relational science. Likewise, a change in the conception of scientific knowledge in the region is advocated and a paradigmatic case in Argentina that incorporates the role of the so-called extra-academic actors is exposed: the Scientific and technological development projects.ResumenEn este trabajo se recuperan las ideas de Elinor Ostrom sobre bienes comunes (1990, 1996) con el objetivo de analizar sus aportes a la coproducción del conocimiento científico. Desde un enfoque descriptivo y analítico basado en dos de sus trabajos de investigación, se analizan sus nociones de gestión institucional que permiten entablar una relación con las temáticas de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad a la hora de conceptualizar un conocimiento científico comprometido con el bienestar social; al mismo tiempo, nos permite entablar una posible relación con sectores extraacadémicos (NAIDORF; VASEN; ALONSO, 2016) que se pretende destacar. Como conclusión, se presenta un esbozo del proceso de coproducción como la cristalización de un modelo que parte de la noción de ciencia colaborativa y relacional. Asimismo, se propugna por un cambio en la concepción del conocimiento científico en la región y se expone un caso paradigmático en Argentina que incorpora el rol de los llamados actores extraacadémicos: los Proyectos de desarrollo científico y tecnológicos.ResumoNeste trabalho, as ideias de Elinor Ostrom sobre bens comuns (1990, 1996) são recuperadas com o objetivo de analisar suas contribuições para a coprodução do conhecimento científico. A partir de uma abordagem descritiva e analítica baseada em dois de seus trabalhos de pesquisa, são analisadas suas noções em gestão institucional que lhe permitem estabelecer uma relação com os temas da ciência, tecnologia e sociedade ao conceber o conhecimento científico comprometido com o bem-estar social; ao mesmo tempo, permite estabelecer uma possível relação com setores extra-acadêmicos (NAIDORF; VASEN; ALONSO, 2016) que se pretende destacar. Em conclusão, é apresentado um esboço do processo de coprodução como a cristalização de um modelo que parte da noção de ciência colaborativa e relacional. Da mesma forma, defende-se uma mudança na concepção do conhecimento científico na região e expõe-se um caso paradigmático na Argentina que incorpora o papel dos chamados atores extra-acadêmicos: os Projetos de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico.Palabras claves: Bienes comunes, Coproducción, Conocimiento científico, Proyectos de desarrollo científico y tecnológico (PDTS).Palavras-chave: Bens comuns, Co-produção, Conhecimento científico, Projetos de desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico (PDTS).Keywords: Common goods, Co-production, Scientific knowledge, Scientific and technological development projects (PDTS).ReferencesARZA,V.; FRESSOLI, M. Ciencia abierta en Argentina: experiencias actuales y propuestas para impulsar procesos de apertura. En: CIENCIA ABIERTA PARA LA INNOVACIÓN EN ARGENTINA. Buenos Aires: Centro de Investigaciones para la Transformación (Cenit), 2006. Disponible en: http://www.ciecti.org.ar/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CIECTI-Proyecto-CENIT.pdfMINISTERIO DE CIENCIA Y TECNOLOGÍA. PDTS: Documento II. Buenos Aires, 2013. Disponible en: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ciencia/banco-pdts. Acceso 7 de mayo 2020.BOURDIEU, P. Homo academicus, Siglo XX Editores, 2012.BUSANICHE, B. LAS IDEAS Y LAS COSAS: LA RIQUEZA DE LAS IDEAS Y LOS PELIGROS DE SU MONOPOLIZACIÓN. En: VILLARREAL, J.; HELFRICH, S.; CALVILLO, A. (eds.). ¿Un mundo patentado? La privatización de la vida y del conocimiento. El Salvador: Ediciones Böll. Disponible: https://www.vialibre.org.ar/2005/10/02/un-mundo-patentado/ENCABO, J. V. Ciencia privada, conocimiento público. Algunas determinantes de las controversias políticas en la era de la tecnociencia. Revista Isegoría, N.º 25, p. 247-261, 2001.ESTÉBANEZ, M. E.. Ciencia, tecnología y políticas sociales. Revista Ciencia, docencia y tecnología, N.º 34, p.13- 63, 2007.GONZÁLEZ ALCAIDE G.; GÓMEZ FERRI, J. La colaboración científica: principales líneas de investigación y retos de futuro. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, Vol. º 37, N.º 4, 2014. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2014.4.1186KREIMER, P. La ciencia como objeto de las ciencias sociales en América latina: investigar e intervenir. Cuadernos de pensamiento crítico latinoamericano. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, 2015.HARDIN, G. The Tragedy of the Commons. Revista Science 13. Vol. 162, N°. 3859 pp. 1243-1248, 1968. [en línea]. <http://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full> Acceso: 6 de mayo 2020.HESS, CH.; OSTROM, E. Introduction: An Overview of the Knowledge Commons. En: Understanding Knowledge as a Commons From Theory to Practice, Cambridge MAS: MIT PRESS, p.3-24, 2007.HURTADO D; ZUBELDÍA L. Políticas de ciencia, tecnología y desarrollo, ciclos neoliberales y procesos de des-aprendizaje en América Latina. Ciudad de México UDUAL - Unión de Universidades de América Latina y el Caribe, vol. 5, 2018.LARA RIVERO, A. Introducción. En: Comprender la diversidad institucional. México DF: Fondo de Cultura Económica, p. 9-35, 2014.NAIDORF, J. La privatización del conocimiento público en universidades públicas. En: Espacio público y privatización del conocimiento. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, p. 101-162, 2005.NAIDORF, J. Los cambios en la cultura académica de la universidad pública. Buenos Aires: Eudeba, 2015.NAIDORF, J., & PERROTTA, D. La privatización del acceso abierto. Nuevas formas de colonización académica en América Latina y su impacto en la evaluación de la investigación. Revista Universidades, N.º 73, p. 41-50, 2017.NAIDORF, J.; VASEN,F.; ALONSO, M. Evaluación académica y relevancia productiva. Los Proyectos de Desarrollo Tecnológico y Social como política científica, Brazilian Journal of Latin American Studies (PROLAM/USP), N.º 27, p. 2015.OLMOS-PEÑUELA, J.; CASTRO-MARTÍNEZ, E. y D’ESTE P. Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents, Research Policy, N.º 43. 696-706, 2014.OLSON, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965.OSTROM, E. “Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development”, Revista World Development, N.º 24, págs. 1073-1087, 1996.OSTROM, E. “A Behavioral Approach to Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action”, American Political Science Review, N.º 92, págs. 1-2, 1998.OSTROM, E. El gobierno de los bienes comunes: la evolución de instituciones de acción colectiva. México DF: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2000.OSTROM, E. A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 92, No. 1, pp. 1-22, 1998.RAMIS OLIVO, A. El concepto de bienes comunes en la obra de Elinor Ostrom, Página Ecología Política, 2013. Extraído de:https://www.ecologiapolitica.info/?p=957 (en línea). Acceso: 6 de mayo 2020.RINESI, E. La universidad como derecho de los ciudadanos y del pueblo. En: Universidad pública y desarrollo: innovación, inclusión y democratización del conocimiento. Buenos Aires: IEC-CONADU, 2015.RIN/NESTA. 'Open to All? Case studies of openness in research', Página oficial de Research Information Network (RIN) and National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA), London, 2010. Disponible en: http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/NESTA-RIN_Open_Science_V01_0.pdfSENEJKO, P.; VERSINO, M. “La producción de conocimientos y la resolución de problemas sociales: Análisis de las convocatorias a proyectos de investigación orientados en la UBA (2003-2015)” Revista Horizontes Sociológicos, Asociación Argentina de Sociología, 2018.SIRVENT, M.T; LLOSA. S. Jóvenes y adultos en situación de riesgo educativo: análisis de la demanda potencial y efectiva. Revista del Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Educación, N.º 12, 12-27, 1998.VACCAREZZA, L. El campo CTS en América Latina y el uso social de su producción. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad- CTS, vol. 1, núm. 2. Centro de Estudios, 2004.VACCAREZZA, L. Las relaciones de utilidad en la investigación social, Revista Mexicana de Sociología, N.º 71, p. 133-166, 2009.

The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has precipitated an enormous collaborative global effort within the scientific and medical community in search of therapeutic and preventative solutions. The aim of this review is to collate the key developments regarding pharmacological treatments tested and vaccine candidates that have been approved to treat and arrest the spread of COVID-19. Introduction COVID-19 Transmission The COVID-19 outbreak has caused one of the most widespread and significant public health crises in decades. It has become one of the leading causes of death internationally. The primary route of transmission from person-to-person is from airborne aerosol spread through close physical contact, particularly in enclosed, poorly ventilated areas.(1) Transmission through contaminated objects was originally considered a major transmission contributor; however, it is no longer considered a significant driver of the spread. Wearing masks has shown to be effective at preventing or curtailing viral transmission, especially when combined with other measures like social distancing and depopulation of indoor communal spaces.(2) Mechanism of action: The mechanism of action and entry into human physiology at a cellular level has been described previously.(3) Briefly, the virus binds and enters the host cell through a spike protein expressed on its surface. The infection begins when the long protruding spike proteins that latches on to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2), a receptor involved in regulating blood pressure ACE-2 protein. From this point, the spike transforms, unfolding and refolding itself, using coiled spring-like parts that start out buried at the core of the spike. The reconfigured spike hooks and docks the virus particle to the host cell. This forms a channel allowing the viral genetic material into the unsuspecting cell, in the case of COVID-19, type II lung cells. From this point onwards, most of the damage caused by COVID-19 results from the immune system going into overdrive to stop the virus from spreading.(4) The influx of immune cells to the infected tissue causes severe damage in the process of cleaning out the virus, infected cells, and bacterial infections with potentially lethal consequences. Treatments Medical therapies to treat COVI-19 evolved rapidly. Treatments include drugs that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and drugs made available under FDA emergency use authorizations (EUA). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has strongly encouraged clinicians, patients, and their advocates to consult the treatment guidelines published by the National Institute of Health (NIH). These guidelines are based on scientific evidence and expert opinion.(5) Several therapeutic modalities have been tested and deployed to treat the disease, some of which are summarized here. Anti-virals: Antivirals are drugs that arrest the replication of the virus. They are generally considered most effective when administered in the early phase of infection. Remdesivir: To date, remdesivir is currently the only antiviral approved under EUA by the FDA to treat COVID-19. The approval was based on findings that hospitalized patients who receivedremdesivir recovered faster.(6)Remdesivir can be administered either alone or in combination with other medications. Molnupiravir: An antiviral drug, previously known as EIDD-2801, appears safe and effective. Viral levels reduce to undetectable levels in COVID-19 patients after five days of administration, according to data from a US-based Phase II clinical trial. While molnupiravir is proven to inhibit coronavirus replication in infected patients, more data is required to determine whether it can prevent severe illness.(7) Lopinavir/ritonavir: Lopinavir/ritonavir are anti-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) drugs. Both have been investigated and neither drug showed any efficacy in large randomized controlled trials in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.(8) Anti-inflammatories: One reason for mortality in COVID-19 infected patients is an overactive response by the patient’s immune system. This response leads to several inflammatory disorders, not least of which is the much publicized “cytokine storm”. The following outlines agents have been tested to dampen the inflammatory response to COVID-19. Dexamethasone: Dexamethasone is an anti-inflammatory corticosteroid used for many years to treat autoimmune conditions and allergic reactions. It is cheap and widely available and has been shown to reduce mortality in the sickest hospitalized patients by dampening the immune response.(9) A meta-analysis study evaluating the results of seven trials shows the death rates were lower in hospitalized patients who took one of three different corticosteroids — dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone.(6) Baricitinib: Baricitinib is an anti-inflammatory drug used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. In November 2020, the FDA issued an EUA to use baricitinib in combination with remdesivir in hospitalized adults and children two years and older requiring respiratory support. However, there is not enough evidence to support the use of this therapy with or without remdesivir.(10) Antibody Based Treatments: Antibodies are proteins generated by the immune system to help fight infections, such as viruses, by binding to and destroying them. Antibody-based treatments are likely most helpful soon after infection, rather than after the disease has progressed. Monoclonal antibodies: Monoclonal antibodies are synthesized in the laboratory. The FDA has approved two monoclonal antibody treatments, one single antibody from Eli Lilly, and a combination of two antibodies from Regeneron. The Eli Lilly antibody, Bamlanivimab (LY-CoV555), works by blocking COVID-19 from entering and infecting human cells. Preliminary results indicated that patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who received bamlanivimab were less likely to be hospitalized. Studies are still underway, both as a monotherapy and combination therapy. Regeneron’s treatment utilizes a combination of two monoclonal antibodies, casirivimab and imdevimab (REGN-COV2), referred to as an antibody cocktail. Preliminary trial data reported that REGN-COV2 reduced viral load and relieved symptoms sooner in non-hospitalized patients. These treatments are available for patients under EUAs, but more data is required before becoming part of routine care.(6) Convalescent plasma: One of the first groups of antibody-based treatments used convalescent plasma (plasma from recovered COVID-19 patients). This treatment involves administering plasma from a recovered individual into someone infected with the virus. Theoretically, the antibodies fromthe recovered individual neutralize the virus in the infected individual. Although the FDA issued an EUA for convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the data to date has been conflicting and inconclusive.(6) Anti-coagulants: Because of the systemic nature of COVID-19 where the circulatory system supplies all parts of the body, some COVID-19 deaths are believed to be caused by blood clots forming in major arteries and veins. A recent study has reported that full-dose blood thinners decreased the need for life support and improved outcome in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. (11) This worldwide large clinical trial, where full dose treatments were administered to moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, reduced the requirement of vital organ support—such as the need for ventilators. In addition to some of the FDA approved drugs cited in the previous section, multiple treatments were investigated during the early phase of the COVID crisis, with varying results.(12) In contrast to the overall trials for COVID-19 treatments, the programs initiated for vaccine development have been incredibly successful, surpassing all expectations. Vaccines From the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines ultimately offer the most appealing and robust therapeutic modality as they prevent the disease from taking hold. This has led to a global vaccine R&D effort that is unprecedented in terms of scale and delivery. The urgency to create a vaccine for COVID‑19 led to expedited schedules that compressed the standard vaccine development timeline from years to months. At the time of writing, three vaccines have been authorized for emergency use by the FDA in the US, with more likely to come onstream as they progress through the development pipeline. A fourth vaccine, from Oxford-AstraZeneca, has also been approved for distribution within the European Union (EU). The three vaccines approved in the US are highly effective at preventing hospitalization, death, and severe disease. Vaccines work by triggering an immune response that generate highly specific antibodies against an antigen, in the case of COVID-19, the virus spike protein expressed on the surface of the virus. Moreover, the immune system is taught to recognize the spike protein specific to the virus. If this spike protein is encountered in the future, an immune response is swiftly mounted, thus preventing escalation of the virus. Two of the authorized vaccines, developed by both Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, have revolutionized a technology referred to as messenger RNA (mRNA) technology. This technology acts as a delivery system to cells within our bodies with specific instructions to carry out a specific task.(13) Of importance: mRNA vaccines do not use live virus, but rather a portion of the message encoding for the spike protein. mRNA is produced by DNA, but does not enter the nucleus of the cell containing the DNA. Once the mRNA vaccine finishes producing the protein that is expressed on the cell surface, it is broken down and removed by normal cellular processes. The Johnson and Johnson (J&J) and Oxford-Astra Zeneca vaccines utilize a more conventional approach, referred to as a viral vector. This vaccine utilizes a harmless modified version of a common cold virus to deliver the gene encoding for the spike protein into the cell.(13) Vaccine comparison: Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have been reported to confer over 94% protection rates against symptomatic COVID-19 infection.(14,15) The single shot J&J vaccine has shown to be 85% effective at protecting against severe disease, 66% against preventing moderate to severe disease, and also appears to be effective against the South African variant of the virus (B.1.351).(16) Although superficially the single shot J&J appears less effective, it is difficult to compare all three vaccines directly because of differences in trial design and outcomes. From a logistical point of view, the J&J vaccine is advantageous as it is a single-dose regimen that can be stored for up to three months in a refrigerator. The most recent data from the AstraZeneca phase three trial reports that the vaccine is 76% effective against symptomatic cases of the virus.(17) Several other trials are ongoing Several other trials are ongoing. The most important point from the information collected from 7 large efficacy trials is that all vaccines confer 100% protection against severe disease, hospitalizations, and death. Moreover, it is not just the vaccinated individual who benefits from vaccination. Most vaccines also reduce transmission of infection among people, and in so doing, help protect those who fail to mount an effective immune response to vaccines or who cannot receive the vaccinate because of their age or compromised immune system.(18) Vaccines and viral variants: Several variants of the virus have been reported, with the two properties causing the most concern being enhanced contagion and immune response evasion. The current vaccines were developed based on the spike protein before it contained the mutations identified in the variants. A recently published study investigated the effectiveness of the FDA approved Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine against the newly-emerged variants from the United Kingdom (UK) and South Africa (SA).(19) While both variants are deemed more transmissible, the levels of antibody generated in response to the vaccine are so high that it seems unlikely that it will impact the overall efficacy of the vaccine for these strains. This preliminary study also highlights the ongoing evolution of COVID-19, necessitating continuous monitoring of the significances of viral mutations for vaccine efficacy. While research suggests that COVID-19 vaccines have lower efficacy against the variants, and further research is needed, the vaccines appear to provide protection against severe COVID-19.(20) Vaccine manufacturing and distribution: The development of the vaccines, from basic R&D through human clinical trials, has been carried out within a very rapid time frame. Ramping up production, however, has been slow and cumbersome. After a slow start, Pfizer/BioNTech andModerna have raised output by gaining experience, scaling up production lines, and taking other steps like making certain raw materials on their own.(21) Of the three candidates, AstraZeneca has already struck a deal with COVAX, the global initiative to distribute COVID-19 vaccines equitably. Moderna has partnered with Lonza and Catalent Inc. to manufacture and distribute millions of doses.(22) Moreover, a recent agreement between J&J and Catalent has secured a US FDA emergency clearance that allows Catalent’s facility to manufacture and distribute, thus aiding the vaccination supply. Vaccination and reinfection: The first large scale study investigating whether reinfection can occur recently reported that the vast majority of people who had COVID-19 are protected from catching it again, for at least six months.(23) This Danish study found that protection against repeat COVID-19 infection is both robust and detectable in the majority of individuals, 80% or more of the naturally infected population younger than 65 years. However, individuals aged 65 years and older had less than 50% protection against repeat infection, since the older age group is more susceptible serious illness. Their finding highlights the need for continued vigilance to keep themselves and others safe. This also indicates that vaccination of previously infected individuals should be done because natural protection cannot be relied upon, consistent with the general consensus that vaccines confer a level of immune response that is higher than previous COVID-19 infection. Follow-up studies will give a better idea of the duration of vaccine protection. Conclusion As the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated, it is extremely difficult to eliminate a virus from the human population once it has entered. The pandemic spread has been compounded because the virus spreads asymptomatically. That said, the virus is manageable, similar to the manner in which vaccines have worked against other preventable communicable diseases. Monitoring the protective effects of the different vaccines will likely last for several years. For now, the outlook is positive as global cases decline, the vaccines roll out, and the momentum to investigate and repurpose drugs continues. Acknowledgments The author is grateful to Tara Finn for the careful reading of this manuscript. Conflict of interest There is no conflict of interest. References Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): How is it transmitted? Bai, N. Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks PreventCoronavirus. Murphy, J.F. COVID-19: An Immunological Perspective. MOJ Immunol. 2020, 7(1), 10. Kupferschmidt K, Cohen J. Science. Race to find COVID-19 treatments accelerates. 2020. Information for Clinicians on Investigational Therapeutics for Patients with COVID-19Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tran, J. The Latest Research on COVID-19 Treatments and Medications in the Pipeline. Drug launched at Emory reduces virus that causes COVID-19 to undetectable levels. Group RC. Lopinavir-ritonavir in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19(RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial. Lancet. Baragona, S. Treating COVID-19 One Year In: Better, but No Breakthrough. Harvard Health Publishing. Treatments for COVID-19. NIH: National Institutes of Health. Full-dose blood thinners decreased need for life support and improved outcome in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Lehrer, S., Rheinstein, P.H. Ivermectin Docks to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Receptor-binding Domain Attached to ACE2. 2020. Murphy JF. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Baden, L.R. et al Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. 2021 Information about the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. 2021 Ledford, H. J&J’s single-dose COVID vaccine raises hopes for faster rollout. 2021 Cohen, J. AstraZeneca lowers efficacy claim for COVID-19 vaccine, a bit, after board's rebuke. 2021 Emanuel, E. Take whatever COVID vaccine you can get. All of them stop death and hospitalization. 2021 Xuping, X et al. Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 spike 69/70 deletion, E484K and N501Y variants by BNT162b2 vaccine-elicited sera. 2021 COVID-19 vaccines: Get the facts 2021. Loftus P. Covid-19 Vaccine Manufacturing in U.S. Races Ahead. 2021. COVAX Announces additional deals to access promising COVID-19 vaccine candidates; plans global rollout starting Q1 2021. Hansen HH et al Assessment of protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 among 4 million PCR-tested individuals in Denmark in 2020: a population-level observational study.2021.

Editors from the Harvard Educational Review interviewed Geeta Rao Gupta,president of the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW), in 2006. ICRW's mission is to empower women, advance gender equality, and fight poverty in the developing world. To accomplish this, ICRW works with partners to conduct empirical research, build capacity, and advocate for evidence-based, practical ways to change policies and programs. As part of the United Nations Millennium Project, Rao Gupta cochaired the Task Force on Education and Gender Equality, which authored a volume entitled, Taking Action: Achieving Gender Equality and Empowering Women (2005). A world-renowned expert on women and HIV/AIDS, Rao Gupta has been recognized for her ongoing commitment to educating policymakers on gender equality issues in health care, education, and human rights and for her outstanding research, advocacy, and activism on behalf of women and girls worldwide. The term "developing country" conjures disparate images and definitions. Since your work is with developing countries, could you please frame this term for our audience?What makes developing countries distinctively different from a "developed country"?

The field of global surgery has gained attention since the publication of the Lancet Commission landmark report in 2015. The authors estimated that 5 billion people worldwide do not have access to safe, affordable surgical and anesthesia services. The paper “Global Neurosurgery: The Unmet Need,” published in 2016, launched the modern global neurosurgery era by advocating for the system-level thinking and programs required to address limited neurosurgical care in low-resource settings. At present, many individuals, academic institutions, governmental agencies, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are involved in the global neurosurgery movement. These include the Program in Global Surgery and Social Change at Harvard Medical School, Duke Global Neurology and Neurosurgery, Weill Cornell Tanzania Neurosurgery Project, CURE Children’s Hospital of Uganda, and the Virtue Foundation in Mongolia. Nonetheless, as global neurosurgery efforts continue to expand, it is essential to align global neurosurgery activity in order to prevent duplication of effort. In 2019, the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS) established the Global Neurosurgery Committee (GNC) to promote access to safe, affordable, and timely neurosurgical care worldwide. The GNC initially included five primary objectives – Amplify, Align, Advance, Assimilate, and Advocate – with the sixth objective, Communication, added in 2021. In this manuscript, we provide an update on the Align objective team.

Didier Stainier is Director of the Department of Developmental Genetics at the Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research in Bad Nauheim, Germany. He became acquainted with the zebrafish model as a PhD student in Walter Gilbert's lab at Harvard, which motivated him to champion the use of this powerful model organism to study heart development as a postdoctoral fellow with Mark Fishman at Massachusetts General Hospital. Although his scientific focus has expanded significantly since then, zebrafish modelling and heart development and regeneration remain key topics in his research. The developmental biology and zebrafish modelling communities have embraced him as an inspiring mentor and advocate for basic research. Jeroen Bakkers is a group leader at the Hubrecht Institute for Developmental Biology and Stem Cell Research and Professor of Molecular Cardiogenetics at the University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands. Jeroen did hid PhD with Herman Spaink at Leiden University, The Netherlands. A short visit to Massachusetts Institute of Technology during his doctoral training introduced him to the zebrafish model, which he applied to his PhD project. Zebrafish development remained the focus of his career, including during his postdoctoral training in the lab of Matthias Hammerschmidt at the Max Planck Institute of Immunology and Epigenetics in Freiburg and in his own lab at the Hubrecht Institute, where his group uses this powerful model organism to investigate cardiac development, disease and regeneration. Jeroen and Didier met up at a recent conference to talk about their shared interest in cardiac regeneration, a zebrafish mutant with a curious name and Didier's commitment to mentorship.

Abstract Background Naloxone is an effective and safe opioid reversal medication now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use with or without a prescription. Despite this, naloxone dissemination lags at a time when U.S. opioid-related mortality expands. The authors proposed distributing naloxone to all U.S. medical students using established statewide standing prescription orders for naloxone, eliminating the financial burden of over-the-counter costs on students and streamlining workflow for the pharmacy. By focusing naloxone distribution on medical students, we are able to capitalize on a group that is already primed on healthcare intervention, while also working to combat stigma in the emerging physician workforce. Methods Beginning August 2022, the authors established a partnership between Harvard Medical School (HMS) and the outpatient pharmacy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) to facilitate access to naloxone for HMS medical students. BWH developed a HIPAA-secure electronic form to collect individual prescription information. BWH pharmacists processed submissions daily, integrating the naloxone prescription requests into their workflow for in-person pick-up or mail-order delivery. The electronic form was disseminated to medical students through a required longitudinal addiction medicine curriculum, listserv messaging, and an extracurricular harm reduction workshop. Results Over the 2022–2023 academic year, 63 medical students obtained naloxone kits (two doses per kit) through this collaboration. Conclusions We propose that medical schools advocate for a hospital pharmacy-initiated workflow focused on convenience and accessibility to expand naloxone access to medical students as a strategy to strengthen the U.S. emergency response and prevention efforts aimed at reducing opioid-related morbidity and mortality. Expansion of our program to BWH internal medicine residents increased our distribution to over 110 healthcare workers, and efforts to expand the program to other BWH training programs and clinical sites such as the emergency department and outpatient infectious disease clinics are underway. With more than 90,000 medical students in the U.S., we believe that widespread implementation of targeted naloxone training and distribution to this population is an accessible approach to combating the public health crisis of opioid-related overdoses.

AbstractBy automatically learning the priors embedded in images with powerful modelling capabilities, deep learning‐based algorithms have recently made considerable progress in reconstructing the high‐resolution hyperspectral (HR‐HS) image. With previously collected large‐amount of external data, these methods are intuitively realised under the full supervision of the ground‐truth data. Thus, the database construction in merging the low‐resolution (LR) HS (LR‐HS) and HR multispectral (MS) or RGB image research paradigm, commonly named as HSI SR, requires collecting corresponding training triplets: HR‐MS (RGB), LR‐HS and HR‐HS image simultaneously, and often faces difficulties in reality. The learned models with the training datasets collected simultaneously under controlled conditions may significantly degrade the HSI super‐resolved performance to the real images captured under diverse environments. To handle the above‐mentioned limitations, the authors propose to leverage the deep internal and self‐supervised learning to solve the HSI SR problem. The authors advocate that it is possible to train a specific CNN model at test time, called as deep internal learning (DIL), by on‐line preparing the training triplet samples from the observed LR‐HS/HR‐MS (or RGB) images and the down‐sampled LR‐HS version. However, the number of the training triplets extracted solely from the transformed data of the observation itself is extremely few particularly for the HSI SR tasks with large spatial upscale factors, which would result in limited reconstruction performance. To solve this problem, the authors further exploit deep self‐supervised learning (DSL) by considering the observations as the unlabelled training samples. Specifically, the degradation modules inside the network were elaborated to realise the spatial and spectral down‐sampling procedures for transforming the generated HR‐HS estimation to the high‐resolution RGB/LR‐HS approximation, and then the reconstruction errors of the observations were formulated for measuring the network modelling performance. By consolidating the DIL and DSL into a unified deep framework, the authors construct a more robust HSI SR method without any prior training and have great potential of flexible adaptation to different settings per observation. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed approach, extensive experiments have been conducted on two benchmark HS datasets, including the CAVE and Harvard datasets, and demonstrate the great performance gain of the proposed method over the state‐of‐the‐art methods.

A flood of emails from various list serves filled our in-boxes with the shocking news: One of the world’smost prominent African American scholars, Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. of Harvard University, had beenaccused of breaking into his own home. After America’s psychological honeymoon prompted byelection of the first President of African descent, some were forced to grapple with questions ofwhether racism still exists. The aforementioned incident answers these inquiries with a resounding,"Yes." Examples of accounts of continued racial prejudice and discrimination suggest the need forsupport systems and advocacy groups such as minority academic and professional organizations tolevel the social playing field.

Abstract Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a highly heterogeneous disease. It presents in a variety of ways and may or may not progress to invasive cancer, which poses challenges for both diagnosis and treatment. On May 15, 2017, the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center hosted a retreat for over 80 breast specialists including medical oncologists, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, physician assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners, researchers, and patient advocates to discuss the state of the science, treatment challenges, and key questions relating to DCIS. Speakers and attendees were encouraged to explore opportunities for future collaboration and research to improve our understanding and clinical management of this disease. Participants were from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Duke University Medical Center, and MD Anderson Cancer Center. The discussion focused on three main themes: epidemiology, detection, and pathology; state of the science including the biology of DCIS and potential novel treatment approaches; and risk perceptions, communication, and decision-making. Here we summarize the proceedings from this event.