Careers in psychiatry: options for the future.

J. Talbott,R. Granet

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-440X(84)90057-9

IF: 7.211

1984-05-01

Comprehensive Psychiatry

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

[Chronic total coronary occlusion dis-obstruction by balloon angioplasty].

J. Melchior,B. Meier,L. Finci,G. Steffenino,J. Noble,W. Rutishauser

Abstract:Ninety-three consecutive patients with chronic total coronary occlusion underwent an attempted mechanical des-obliteration by percutaneous coronary angioplasty with a balloon catheter. The global results were 55 p. 100 initial successes (residual stenosis less than 50 p. 100). The good prognostic factors were: 1) left coronary artery, especially left circumflex artery occlusion p less than 0.50, and 2) the proximity to the date of occlusion as assessed from the clinical history or by the occurrence of occlusion between the time of diagnostic coronary angiography and angioplasty. In cases of recent occlusion dating less than one month, the success rate was high: 69 p. 100. On the other hand, there were no successes in occlusions of over 6 months standing. The presence of myocardial infarction did not influence the results. There were few complications (7 p. 100) and these did not include any deaths or cases requiring emergency surgery. Exercise stress tests were carried out after the procedure and were negative in 28 out of 32 patients (88 p. 100). Forty-three patients successfully revascularised were followed up for 1 to 48 months (average 9 months) after angioplasty. Thirty-one patients were asymptomatic. Of the 12 symptomatic patients, 7 underwent exercise stress tests (6 positive) and all had control angiography which showed restenosis in 10 cases with 5 occlusions. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty of recent total coronary occlusions gives good initial results without major complications, and the medium term clinical results are satisfactory.
Enhancing global health communication during a crisis: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

L. Rauh,S. Ratzan,S. Sommariva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp3022010

2020-06-30

Public Health Research & Practice

Abstract:BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE The understanding and practice of public health crisis communication are improved through the study of responses to past crises, but require retooling for present challenges. The 'Addressing Ebola and other outbreaks' checklist contains guiding principles built upon maxims developed from a World Health Organization consultation in response to the mad cow (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) crisis that were later adopted for Ebola. The purpose of this article is to adapt the checklist for the health communication challenges and public health practices that have emerged during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The communication challenges of promoting vaccine acceptance are used to illustrate a key area that requires strengthened communication. Type of program or service: Effective communication principles for application during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced unique challenges for public health practitioners and health communicators that warrant an expansion of existing health communication principles to take into consideration: the new infodemic (or mis/disinfodemic) challenge - particularly as treatments and vaccines are being developed; communication of risk and uncertainty; health-information behaviours and the instantaneous nature of social media, and the relationship between media literacy and health literacy; the effects of the pandemic on other health issues; and the need for a flexible communication strategy that adapts to the different stages of the pandemic. LESSONS LEARNT Principles discussed in this article will help build preparedness capacity and offer communication strategies for moving from the acute phase to the 'next normal' with likely prevention (e.g. herd immunity achieved through vaccination) and societal COVID-19 resilience.

Medicine,Political Science
Research ethics review during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international study

Fabio Salamanca-Buentello,Rachel Katz,Diego S. Silva,Ross E. G. Upshur,Maxwell J. Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292512

IF: 3.7

2024-04-16

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Research ethics review committees (ERCs) worldwide faced daunting challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a need to balance rapid turnaround with rigorous evaluation of high-risk research protocols in the context of considerable uncertainty. This study explored the experiences and performance of ERCs during the pandemic. We conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional, global online survey of chairs (or their delegates) of ERCs who were involved in the review of COVID-19-related research protocols after March 2020. The survey ran from October 2022 to February 2023 and consisted of 50 items, with opportunities for descriptive responses to open-ended questions. Two hundred and three participants [130 from high-income countries (HICs) and 73 from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)] completed our survey. Respondents came from diverse entities and organizations from 48 countries (19 HICs and 29 LMICs) in all World Health Organization regions. Responses show little of the increased global funding for COVID-19 research was allotted to the operation of ERCs. Few ERCs had pre-existing internal policies to address operation during public health emergencies, but almost half used existing guidelines. Most ERCs modified existing procedures or designed and implemented new ones but had not evaluated the success of these changes. Participants overwhelmingly endorsed permanently implementing several of them. Few ERCs added new members but non-member experts were consulted; quorum was generally achieved. Collaboration among ERCs was infrequent, but reviews conducted by external ERCs were recognized and validated. Review volume increased during the pandemic, with COVID-19-related studies being prioritized. Most protocol reviews were reported as taking less than three weeks. One-third of respondents reported external pressure on their ERCs from different stakeholders to approve or reject specific COVID-19-related protocols. ERC members faced significant challenges to keep their committees functioning during the pandemic. Our findings can inform ERC approaches towards future public health emergencies. To our knowledge, this is the first international, COVID-19-related study of its kind.

multidisciplinary sciences
Ethical Challenges in Clinical Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic

B.E. Bierer,S.A. White,J.M. Barnes,L. Gelinas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-020-10045-4

2020-11-09

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

Abstract:The sudden emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic brought global disruption to every aspect of society including healthcare, supply chain, the economy, and social interaction. Among the many emergent considerations were the safety and public health of the public, patients, essential workers, and healthcare professionals. In certain locations, clinical research was halted—or terminated—in deference to the immediate needs of patient care, and clinical trials focusing on the treatment and prevention of coronavirus infection were prioritized over studies focusing on other diseases. Difficult decisions were made rapidly; flexibility and reconsideration were necessary not only because the intensity and severity of infection varied over time and by locale but also because knowledge of the disease and understanding of its treatment (and prevention) grew. Here we discuss the ethical challenges in decision-making and competing ethical tensions during the pandemic in an effort to advance future preparedness.

ethics,medical ethics,social issues,social sciences, biomedical
Global matters of epidemiology and the ethical challenges of addressing the health of populations

Jennifer Salerno,Douglas L Weed,Chandra M Pandey,Victoria Crabb,Edward S Peters,WayWay M Hlaing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2024.01.003

Abstract:Purpose: The American College of Epidemiology (ACE) held its 2022 Annual Meeting, September 8-11, with a conference theme of 'Pandemic of Misinformation: Building Trust in Epidemiology'. The ACE Ethics Committee hosted a symposium session in recognition of the global spotlight placed on epidemiology and public health due to the COVID-19 crisis. The ACE Ethics Committee invited previous Chairs of the Ethics Committee and current President of the International Epidemiological Association to present at the symposium session. This paper aims to highlight the ethical challenges presented during the symposium session. Methods: Three speakers with diverse backgrounds representing expertize from the fields of ethics, epidemiology, public health, clinical trials, pharmacoepidemiology, statistics, law, and public policy, covering perspectives from the U.S., Europe, and Southeast Asia were selected to present on the ethical challenges in epidemiology and public health applying a global theme. Dr. D. Weed presented on 'Causation, Epidemiology and Ethics'; Dr. C.M. Pandey presented on the 'Ethical Challenges in the Practice of Digital Epidemiology'; and Dr. J. Acquavella presented on 'Departures from Scientific Objectivity: A Cause of Eroding Trust in Epidemiology.' Results: The collective goal to improve the public's health was a mutually shared theme across the three distinct areas. We highlight the common ethical guidance and principle-based approaches that have served epidemiology and public health in framing and critical analysis of novel challenges, including autonomy, beneficence, justice, scientific integrity, duties to the profession and community, and developing and maintaining public trust; however, gaps remain in how best to address health inequalities and the novel emergence and pervasiveness of misinformation and disinformation that have impacted the health of the global community. We introduce an ethical framework of translational bioethics that places considerations of the social determinants of health at the forefront. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic required an expedited public health response and, at the same time, placed the profession of epidemiology and public health, its system, and structures, under the microscope like never before. This article illustrates that revisiting our foundations in research and practice and orienting contemporary challenges using an ethical lens can assist in identifying and furthering the health of populations globally.
Ethics and Responsibility of Scientific Researchers in a Pandemic Era

Kyung-Hee Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12717/DR.2021.25.4.321

Abstract:The purpose of this paper is to critique the links between science and scientific researchers, politics and capital surrounding vaccines and vaccination in a pandemic era. It also introduces standards for adapting ethical guidelines for research under public health emergencies to specific circumstances and contexts. It also introduces ethical standards to be applied to scientific research. that is, scientific relevance, social value, cooperative partnerships, reasonable risk-benefit costs, fair and voluntary participation, independent review, and equal moral respect for participants and affected communities. It also outlines the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic-consent and other research procedure modifications proposed by Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU). We are on the lookout for powerful capital and hegemonic groups inseparable from politics and important decision makers in the pandemic era - that is, scientists, supporters, and scientific civic groups. It underscores the need for an independent and formal scientific advisory body with the right balance between science and politics.
Ethical rationale for better coordination of clinical research on COVID-19

Francois Bompart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120931998

2020-05-28

Research Ethics

Abstract:Hundreds of clinical trials of potential treatments and vaccines for the “coronavirus 19 disease” (COVID-19) have been set up in record time. This is a remarkable reaction to the global pandemic, but the absence of a global coordination of clinical research efforts raises serious ethical concerns. Some COVID-19 patients might carry the burden of clinical trial involvement even though their trial cannot be completed as researchers are competing for patients. A shortage of medicines can occur when existing drugs are diverted for clinical trials. Research ethics committees are overburdened with multiple applications. A multitude of trials can also overstretch medical staff and risk neglecting non-COVID-19 patients. And finally, conflicting conclusions from a multitude of heterogeneous trials might lead to delays in public health decisions about life-saving issues. These challenges are made worse by the unpredictable evolution of epidemics, the active involvement of political decision-makers in scientific issues and the pressure of social media globally. While freedom to conduct research must be safeguarded, global health emergency situations would greatly benefit from effective international coordination mechanisms for clinical research.
The ethics of clinical research in the era of COVID-19

Juliana N. Vitti,Robert Vitti,Karen Chu,Scott Mellis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1359654

IF: 5.2

2024-03-07

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:There is an urgent need for increased understanding of COVID-19 and strategies for its prevention, treatment, and mitigation. All participants in the research enterprise, including institutional review boards, have an ethical duty to protect participants and ensure that the benefits gained from such research do not conflict with the core principles that guided researchers prior to the pandemic. In this review, we discuss the ethical issues surrounding initiation and conduct of clinical trials, focusing on novel COVID-19 therapeutic, vaccine, or biospecimen research, using the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice. We discuss strategies to manage the practical challenges associated with the conduct of clinical trials, with an emphasis on maintaining the rights and welfare of research participants.

public, environmental & occupational health
COVID-19 related interdisciplinary methods: Preventing errors and detecting research opportunities

Ariel L Rivas,Marc H V van Regenmortel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2021.05.014

IF: 4.647

Methods

Abstract:More than 130,000 peer-reviewed studies have been published within one year after COVID-19 emerged in many countries. This large and rapidly growing field may overwhelm the synthesizing abilities of both researchers and policy-makers. To provide a sinopsis, prevent errors, and detect cognitive gaps that may require interdisciplinary research methods, the literature on COVID-19 is summarized, twice. The overall purpose of this study is to generate a dialogue meant to explain the genesis of and/or find remedies for omissions and contradictions. The first review starts in Biology and ends in Policy. Policy is chosen as a destination because it is the setting where cognitive integration must occur. The second review follows the opposite path: it begins with stated policies on COVID-19 and then their assumptions and disciplinary relationships are identified. The purpose of this interdisciplinary method on methods is to yield a relational and explanatory view of the field -one strategy likely to be incomplete but usable when large bodies of literature need to be rapidly summarized. These reviews identify nine inter-related problems, research needs, or omissions, namely: (1) nation-wide, geo-referenced, epidemiological data collection systems (open to and monitored by the public); (2) metrics meant to detect non-symptomatic cases -e.g., test positivity-; (3) cost-benefit oriented methods, which should demonstrate they detect silent viral spreaders even with limited testing; (4) new personalized tests that inform on biological functions and disease correlates, such as cell-mediated immunity, co-morbidities, and immuno-suppression; (5) factors that influence vaccine effectiveness; (6) economic predictions that consider the long-term consequences likely to follow epidemics that growth exponentially; (7) the errors induced by self-limiting and/or implausible paradigms, such as binary and reductionist approaches; (8) new governance models that emphasize problem-solving skills, social participation, and the use of scientific knowledge; and (9) new educational programs that utilize visual aids and audience-specific communication strategies. The analysis indicates that, to optimally address these problems, disciplinary and social integration is needed. By asking what is/are the potential cause(s) and consequence(s) of each issue, this methodology generates visualizations that reveal possible relationships as well as omissions and contradictions. While inherently limited in scope and likely to become obsolete, these shortcomings are avoided when this 'method on methods' is frequently practiced. Open-ended, inter-/trans-disciplinary perspectives and broad social participation may help researchers and citizens to construct, de-construct, and re-construct COVID-19 related research.
Size-selective separation of micro beads by utilizing secondary flow in a curved rectangular microchannel.

D. Yoon,Jin Bong Ha,Y. K. Bahk,T. Arakawa,S. Shoji,J. Go

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/b809123d

IF: 7.517

2009-01-07

Lab on a Chip

Abstract:This paper presents a microscale benefit of a secondary flow obtained in a curved rectangular microchannel, which is generally unfavorable and negligible in conventional fluid flow. We have demonstrated the separation and sorting of micro beads by their size using secondary flow. The physical mechanism occurring in the size-selective separation was explained based on the numerical analysis of the characteristic velocity distribution on the cross-sectional plane normal to the main flow stream. The dynamic trajectories of micro beads of different sizes and materials are visualized and compared for the experimental demonstration. We also discuss the effects of both the shape uniformity of the micro beads and the inlet condition on the size-selective separation.
Researching COVID-19: A research agenda for public policy and administration scholars

Claire A Dunlop,Edoardo Ongaro,Keith Baker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076720939631

IF: 2.909

2020-08-01

Public Policy and Administration

Abstract:Coronavirus (COVID-19) is one of the defining policy challenges of an era. In this article, we sketch some possible ways in which the public policy and administration community can make an enduring contribution about how to cope with this terrible crisis. We do so by offering some elements that delineate a tentative research agenda for public policy and administration scholars, to be pursued with epistemic humility. We outline the contours of seven analytical themes that are central to the challenges presented by COVID-19: policy design and instruments, policy learning, public service and its publics, organisational capacity, public governance, administrative traditions and public sector reforms in multi-level governance (MLG). The list is neither exhaustive nor exclusive to COVID-19. The knowledge we can generate must speak not only to the daunting challenge of COVID-19 itself but also to policymakers, and indeed humankind, trying to cope with future unexpected but high impact threats, by leveraging better public policies and building administrative capacities to enable more resilient, equitable and effective public services.

public administration
Ethical Frameworks in Clinical Research Processes During COVID-19: a Scoping Review

Lawrence Kasherman,Ainhoa Madariaga,Qin Liu,Luisa Bonilla,Michelle McMullen,Shiru (Lucy) Liu,Lisa Wang,Rouhi Fazelzad,Katherine Karakasis,Ann M Heesters,Amit M Oza

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047076

IF: 3.006

2021-01-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives In response to the COVID-19 pandemic there have been significant developments in research, its conduct and the supporting ethical framework. While many protocols have been delayed, halted or modified, other research efforts have been accelerated, generating controversy. The goal of this paper is to determine the rates of references surrounding the ethical oversight of research as reported in current COVID-19-related research publications. Design Scoping review. Setting Population-based observational or interventional studies from December 2019 to May 2020 with sample size of two or more. Studies were searched through electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials. Participants Eligibility criteria included participants within published studies who tested positive for COVID-19. Main outcomes and measures Data were extracted and charting methods included taking note of references to ethical frameworks, institutional review board (IRB), ethics committee (EC) or research ethics board (REB) involvement, consent processes, and other variables. Results 11 556 articles were screened, with 656 included in the final analysis. References to ethics were present in 530 (80.8%) studies, with 491 (74.8%) involving IRB/ECs/REBs and 126 (19.2%) not referencing ethics. Consent processes were outlined in 201 (30.6%) studies, with 198 (30.2%) reporting that they obtained consent waivers, however, 257 (39.2%) did not mention consent at all. Differences (p<0.001) in ethics-related references were apparent when analysed by continent, publication type, sample size and IF. Conclusions The majority of published articles pertaining to COVID-19 research made mention of ethical considerations, however, national and regional variations in research ethics review requirements introduce heterogeneity between studies and raise important questions about the conduct of scientific research during global public emergencies. Trial registration number Open Science Framework: https://osfio/z67wb .
The readiness of the Asian research ethics committees in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-country survey

Juntra Karbwang,Cristina E Torres,Arthur M Navarro,Phanthipha Wongwai,Edlyn B Jimenez,Yashashri Shetty,Sudha Ramalingam,Paresh Koli,Lisa Amir,Septi Dewi Rachmawati,Monalisa Waworundeng,Harnawan Rizki,Asyraf Syahmi Mohd Noor,Prakash Ghimire,Pradip Gyanwali,Subhanshi Sharma,Namita Ghimire,Chandanie Wanigatunge,Kwanchanok Yimtae

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143138.1

2024-01-08

Abstract:Background: COVID-19 is a highly challenging infectious disease. Research ethics committees (RECs) have challenges reviewing research on this new pandemic disease under a tight timeline and public pressure. This study aimed to assess RECs' responses and review during the outbreak in seven Asian countries where the Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER) networks are active. Methods: The online survey was conducted in seven Asian countries from April to August 2021. Two sets of online questionnaires were developed, one set for the chairs/secretaries and another set for the REC members.The REC profiles obtained from the REC members are descriptive in nature. Data from the chairs/secretaries were compared between the RECs with external quality assessment (SIDCER-Recognized RECs, SR-RECs) and non-external quality assessment (Non-SIDCER-Recognized RECs, NSR-RECs) and analyzed using a Chi-squared test. Results: A total of 688 REC members and 197 REC chairs/secretaries participated in the survey. Most RECs have standard operating procedures (SOPs), and have experience in reviewing all types of protocols, but 18.1% had no experience reviewing COVID-19 protocols. Most REC members need specific training on reviewing COVID-19 protocols (93%). In response to the outbreak, RECs used online reviews, increased meeting frequency and single/central REC. All SR-RECs had a member composition as required by the World Health Organisation ethics guidelines, while some NSR-RECs lacked non-affiliated and/or layperson members. SR-RECs reviewed more COVID-related product development protocols and indicated challenges in reviewing risk/benefit and vulnerability (0.010), informed consent form (0.002), and privacy and confidentiality (P = 0.020) than NSR-RECs. Conclusions: Surveyed RECs had a general knowledge of REC operation and played a significant role in reviewing COVID-19-related product development protocols. Having active networks of RECs across regions to share updated information and resources could be one of the strategies to promote readiness for future public health emergencies.
Public understanding of science: Communicating in the midst of a pandemic

Salim S. Abdool Karim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221089391

2022-05-02

Public Understanding of Science

Abstract:Public Understanding of Science, Volume 31, Issue 3, Page 282-287, April 2022. While Covid-19 created unprecedented transparency with real-time reporting across the globe, the pandemic's politically charged environment made public communication of scientific information particularly challenging. Scientists, as authoritative voices, were thrust into the public eye to explain the evidence amid uncertainty, a changing virus, distrust in government and concerns about their self-interest and hidden agendas. Honest communication that provides the public with enough easy-to-understand information to make up their own minds is essential during the pandemic; the public deserves nothing less.

communication,history & philosophy of science
[Operative risk in intrathoracic operations in the elderly].

M. Rossetti

1969-04-01

Abstract:
A community science approach to public health and public trust in science

Christine Marizzi,Paul Kehinde Ajayi,Rita McMahon,Philip S. Meade

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.00825-24

IF: 6.549

2024-05-30

Journal of Virology

Abstract:ABSTRACT The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the importance of health literacy and trust in pandemic management. Collaborating with the community to prepare for pandemics is incredibly effective in fostering understanding and building trust in public health and scientific research.

virology
COVID-19 research: pandemic versus "paperdemic", integrity, values and risks of the "speed science"

Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2020.1767754

2020-06-10

Abstract:Scientific integrity is a learned skill. When researchers and students learn integrity in laboratories or in the classroom, they are empowered to use similar principles in other aspects of their lives. This commentary reviews the concepts related to scientific integrity at a time when science faces important challenges related to the increase number of articles produced regarding research on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has ignited another parallel viral pandemic, with science ranging from robust studies to dishonest studies being conducted, posted, and shared at an unprecedented rate. A balance is needed between the benefits of the rapid access to new scientific data and the threat of causing panic or erroneous clinical decisions based on mistakes or misconduct. The truth is that the "scientific research has changed the world" but now, and more than ever, "it needs to change itself". A pandemic with a "paperdemic" will be even more complicated to manage if it progresses in an uncontrolled manner and is not properly scrutinized.
Knowledge Brokers in Crisis: Public Communication of Science During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Carlo Martini,Davide Battisti,Federico Bina,Monica Consolandi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2022.2116961

IF: 1.625

2022-09-22

Social Epistemology

Abstract:Knowledge brokers are among the main channels of communication between scientists and the public and a key element to establishing a relation of trust between the two. But translating knowledge from the scientific community to a wider audience presents several difficulties, which can be accentuated in times of crisis. In this paper we study some of the problems that knowledge brokers face when communicating in times of crisis. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we collected interviews with Italian experts that played a major role as knowledge brokers in the local media. We asked them questions about five main topics: the features and role of science communicators; the use of language in communicating science; the importance of the relation of trust with the public; the peculiarity of communicating in a context of emergency; the problem of disagreement among experts, and its public perception and communication. The goal of this paper is to understand, through the words of knowledge brokers themselves, what they consider as best practices (and obstacles) to create trust between scientists and the public. Our empirical work can inform normative accounts of what knowledge brokering should be about.

history & philosophy of science,social sciences, interdisciplinary
Crisis management, surveillance, and digital ethics in the COVID‐19 era

Kees Boersma,Monika Büscher,Chiara Fonio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12398

2022-02-07

Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management

Abstract:Abstract In this special issue, we reflect on the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) crisis and the containment measures put in place by formal authorities, combining both theoretically and empirically three different fields of study: crisis management, surveillance studies, and digital ethics. The special issue shows how the intersection of these fields provides a great opportunity to better understand challenges that are of critical importance to today's societies, as well as opening up new avenues for innovation. The focus of this special issue is to unpack and understand the debate on crisis management measures, surveillance, and ethical consequences during the ongoing, enduring COVID‐19 crisis. Building on crisis management literature, surveillance studies, and digital ethics research the articles included in this special issue reflect on issues of governance, space, as well as moral and ethical considerations, which were often overlooked in the public discourse in relation to the COVID‐19 pandemic. The special issue provides a deeper and clearer understanding of intended and unintended ethical and political consequences of crisis management practices, such as a politics of visibility that makes the operation of power invisible and fails to combat inequality, whilst ignoring the potential positive power of digital data and surveillance for empowerment and resilience

management
Mitigating losses: how scientific organisations can help address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on early-career researchers

Sandra López-Vergès,Bernardo Urbani,David Fernández Rivas,Sandeep Kaur-Ghumaan,Anna K. Coussens,Felix Moronta-Barrios,Suraj Bhattarai,Leila Niamir,Velia Siciliano,Andreea Molnar,Amanda Weltman,Meghnath Dhimal,Shalini S. Arya,Karen J. Cloete,Almas Taj Awan,Stefan Kohler,Chandra Shekhar Sharma,Clarissa Rios Rojas,Yoko Shimpuku,John Ganle,Maryam M. Matin,Justine G. Nzweundji,Abdeslam Badre,Paulina Carmona-Mora

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00944-1

2021-11-19

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Abstract:Scientific collaborations among nations to address common problems and to build international partnerships as part of science diplomacy is a well-established notion. The international flow of people and ideas has played an important role in the advancement of the ‘Sciences’ and the current pandemic scenario has drawn attention towards the genuine need for a stronger role of science diplomacy, science advice and science communication. In dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, visible interactions across science, policy, science communication to the public and diplomacy worldwide have promptly emerged. These interactions have benefited primarily the disciplines of knowledge that are directly informing the pandemic response, while other scientific fields have been relegated. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientists of all disciplines and from all world regions are discussed here, with a focus on early-career researchers (ECRs), as a vulnerable population in the research system. Young academies and ECR-driven organisations could suggest ECR-powered solutions and actions that could have the potential to mitigate these effects on ECRs working on disciplines not related to the pandemic response. In relation with governments and other scientific organisations, they can have an impact on strengthening and creating fairer scientific systems for ECRs at the national, regional, and global level.

Careers in psychiatry: options for the future.

[Chronic total coronary occlusion dis-obstruction by balloon angioplasty].

Enhancing global health communication during a crisis: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Research ethics review during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international study

Ethical Challenges in Clinical Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Global matters of epidemiology and the ethical challenges of addressing the health of populations

Ethics and Responsibility of Scientific Researchers in a Pandemic Era

Ethical rationale for better coordination of clinical research on COVID-19

The ethics of clinical research in the era of COVID-19

COVID-19 related interdisciplinary methods: Preventing errors and detecting research opportunities

Size-selective separation of micro beads by utilizing secondary flow in a curved rectangular microchannel.

Researching COVID-19: A research agenda for public policy and administration scholars

Ethical Frameworks in Clinical Research Processes During COVID-19: a Scoping Review

The readiness of the Asian research ethics committees in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-country survey

Public understanding of science: Communicating in the midst of a pandemic

[Operative risk in intrathoracic operations in the elderly].

A community science approach to public health and public trust in science

COVID-19 research: pandemic versus "paperdemic", integrity, values and risks of the "speed science"

Knowledge Brokers in Crisis: Public Communication of Science During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Crisis management, surveillance, and digital ethics in the COVID‐19 era

Mitigating losses: how scientific organisations can help address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on early-career researchers