Suchergebnisse

Background: On 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom (UK) formally left the European Union (EU). Only a short transition period, until 31 December 2020, is available to negotiate collaborations for research in biomedical sciences and health care. Within the European scientific community, two opinions are common: 1) Brexit is an opportunity to obtain more funding at the expense of the departing British; and 2) UK colleagues should continue to collaborate in EU scientific efforts, including Horizon Europe and Erasmus+. To provide evidence for more informed negotiations, we sought to determine the contribution of the UK to EU's research in biomedical sciences.Methods: We performed a macro level scientometric analysis to estimate the contribution of the UK and EU member states, including those associated with EU-funding (EU+) namely Albania, Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Faroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, and Ukraine, to preclinical, clinical and health sciences. We searched the Web of Science database to count the total number of scientific publications and the top 1% most cited publications in the world between 2008 and 2017, calculated the performance efficiency by dividing the top 1% by the total number, and calculated the odds ratios to create a ranking of performance efficiency. We then compared the contribution of the UK to all the EU+ -based publications and the top 1% to the contributions of the ten EU member states with the largest biomedical research output and also compared the respective contributions to EU+ publications that resulted from collaborations with other regions in the world.Results: We found 2,991,016 biomedical publications from EU+ during 2008–2017, of which 19,019 (0.64%) were in the world's top 1% of the most cited publications. The UK produced 665,467 (22.3%) of these publications and had over two and a half times more top 1% most cited publications than the EU+ (odds ratio 2.79, 95% CI 2.71–2.88, p< 0.001). The UK's share in the EU+ co-publications with regions outside Europe ranged between 23.0% for the Arab League and 50.6% for Australia and New Zealand and its share of the top 1% ranged between 48.6% for the USA and Canada and 70.7% for the African Union.Conclusions: The UK contributed far more highly cited publications than the rest of the EU+ states and strongly contributed to European collaborations with the rest of the world during 2008–2017. This suggests that if the UK ceases to participate in EU scientific collaborations as a result of Brexit, the quantity and quality of EU's research in biomedical sciences will be adversely affected.

"Although ecosystems, humans, and fire have coexisted for millennia, changes in geology, ecology, hydrology, and climate as well as sociocultural, regulatory, and economic factors have converged to make wildland fire management exceptionally challenging for U.S. federal, state, and local authorities. Given the mounting, unsustainable costs and difficulty translating existing wildland fire science into policy, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine organized a 1-day workshop to focus on how a century of wildland fire research can contribute to improving wildland fire management. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop"--Publisher's description

The U.S. Geological Survey—National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) provides diagnostic services, technical assistance, applied research, and training to federal, state, territorial, and local government agencies and Native American tribes on wildlife diseases and wildlife health issues throughout the United States and its territories, commonwealth, and freely associated states. Since 1975, >16,000 carcasses and specimens from vertebrate species listed under the Endangered Species Act have been submitted to NWHC for determination of causes of morbidity or mortality or assessment of health/disease status. Results from diagnostic investigations, analyses of the diagnostic database, technical assistance and consultation, field investigation of epizootics, and wildlife disease research by NWHC wildlife disease specialists have contributed importantly to the management and recovery of listed species.

This paper discusses the proposed changes and legislation regarding the regulation of cemeteries as well as the establishment of a Cemetery Board.

This study reports the results of what may best be described as a preliminary review and characterization of potential cultural resources on a 900 acre tract situated in southeastern Berkeley County, between Moncks Corner to the north and Goose Creek to the south, and just east of U.S. 52. This current study has not included any field investigations and is not intended to meet or satisfy cultural resources management goals of either federal or state legislation or regulations.

The use of qualitative methods can make a substantial contribution to our understanding of the construct of resilience. In particular, qualitative research addresses two specific shortcomings noted by resilience researchers: arbitrariness in the selection of outcome variables, and the challenge accounting for the sociocultural context in which resilience occurs. Qualitative research can help to resolve these dilemmas in five ways. Qualitative methods: are well suited to the discovery of the unnamed protective processes relevant to the lived experience of research participants; provide thick description of phenomenon in very specific contexts; elicit and add power to minority 'voices' which account for unique localized definitions of positive outcomes; promote tolerance for these localized constructions by avoiding generalization but facilitating transferability of results; and, require researchers to account for their biased standpoints. Reference to exemplars of resilience research will be used to make an argument for the complementarity of research paradigms.

Comparative politics has traditionally not been one of the dominant sub‐fields of political science in the Nordic countries. Although early pioneering efforts were made by Herbert Tingsten and later by Stein Rokkan, this field of research led an obscure life in these countries until the late 1980s/early 1990s. This article gives a short overview of the development and present state of comparative research in the Nordic countries. It also gives a brief account of the comparative research profiles at the political science departments in Nordic universities. In order to give an empirical assessment of the status of comparative politics among Nordic political scientists, the article follows up an earlier study on publication patterns in five Nordic political science journals. In addition, a bibliographical analysis of Nordic contributions in international journals with a focus on comparative politics is undertaken. The results show, among other things, that there has been a marked increase in the share and number of comparative articles published by Danish, Swedish and Norwegian scholars. In Finland (and Iceland), however, no similar trend can be discerned. The conclusion is that the internationalization of political science is likely to stimulate cross‐country research and accordingly comparative politics is likely to consolidate its position as a major political science discipline in Scandinavia.