Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 10 de 10
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Trends Biotechnol ; 39(6): 542-545, 2021 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33246659

RESUMO

Circular bioeconomy is gaining prominence in academic, policy, and industry contexts, linking circular economy and bioeconomy agendas in service of sustainability. However, it is at risk of developing in narrow, unsustainable ways. A sustainable path to circular bioeconomies must embrace diverse expert and stakeholder input, multiple solutions, and noneconomic value.


Assuntos
Biotecnologia , Desenvolvimento Sustentável , Biotecnologia/economia , Indústrias/economia , Políticas , Desenvolvimento Sustentável/economia
2.
Gut Microbes ; 11(1): 51-62, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31122134

RESUMO

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is a highly effective therapy for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection. Stool donors are essential, but difficult to recruit and retain. We aimed to identify factors influencing willingness to donate stool. This multi-center study with a 32-item questionnaire targeted young adults and health care workers via social media and university email lists in Edmonton and Kingston, Canada; London and Nottingham, England; and Indianapolis and Boston, USA. Items included baseline demographics and FMT knowledge and perception. Investigated motivators and deterrents included economic compensation, screening process, time commitment, and stool donation logistics. Logistic regression and linear regression models estimated associations of study variables with self-assessed willingness to donate stool. 802 respondents completed our questionnaire: 387 (48.3%) age 21-30 years, 573 (71.4%) female, 323 (40%) health care workers. Country of residence, age and occupation were not associated with willingness to donate stool. Factors increasing willingness to donate were: already a blood donor (OR 1.64), male, altruism, economic benefit, knowledge of how FMT can help patients (OR 1.32), and positive attitudes towards FMT (OR 1.39). Factors decreasing willingness to donate were: stool collection unpleasant (OR 0.92), screening process invasive (OR 0.92), higher stool donation frequency, negative social perception of stool, and logistics of collection/transporting feces. We conclude that 1) blood donors and males are more willing to consider stool donation; 2) altruism, economic compensation, and positive feedback are motivators; and 3) screening process, high donation frequency, logistics of collection/transporting feces, lack of public awareness, and negative social perception are deterrents. Considering these variables could maximize donor recruitment and retention.


Assuntos
Infecções por Clostridium/terapia , Transplante de Microbiota Fecal/estatística & dados numéricos , Doadores de Tecidos/estatística & dados numéricos , Canadá , Fezes/microbiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Inquéritos e Questionários , Adulto Jovem
3.
Sci Technol Human Values ; 43(4): 723-741, 2018 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30008495

RESUMO

The use of animals in experiments and research remains highly contentious. Laboratory animal research governance provides guidance and regulatory frameworks to oversee the use and welfare of laboratory animals and relies heavily on the replacement, reduction, and refinement (3Rs) principles to demonstrate responsibility. However, the application of the 3Rs is criticized for being too narrow in focus and closing down societal concerns and political questions about the purpose of animal laboratory research. These critiques challenge the legitimacy of responsibility in laboratory animal research governance and call for new approaches. With the advent of the "Responsible Research and Innovation" (RRI) agenda, we investigate whether the notion of responsibility in the controversial area of animal research governance could be enhanced by examining the 3Rs through RRI. Our analysis reveals RRI has the potential to helpfully augment the 3Rs in three key ways: recognizing the need to include a broader range of experts and publics in animal research governance; emphasizing the importance for animal research scientists of taking societal, and not just role, responsibilities into account; and acknowledging the political questions animal research raises.

6.
Energy Res Soc Sci ; 30: 35-42, 2017 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28920015

RESUMO

The UK government has made significant investment into so called 'fourth-generation' biofuel technologies. These biofuels are based on engineering the metabolic pathways of bacteria in order to create products compatible with existing infrastructure. Bacteria play an important role in what is promoted as a potentially new biological industrial revolution, which could address some of the negative environmental legacies of the last. This article presents results from ethnographic research with synthetic biologists who are challenged with balancing the curiosity-driven and intrinsically fulfilling scientific task of working with bacteria, alongside the policy-driven task of putting bacteria to work for extrinsic economic gains. In addition, the scientists also have to balance these demands with a new research governance framework, Responsible Research and Innovation, which envisions technoscientific innovation will be responsive to societal concerns and work in collaboration with stakeholders and members of the public. Major themes emerging from the ethnographic research revolve around stewardship, care, responsibility and agency. An overall conflict surfaces between individual agents assuming responsibility for 'stewarding' bacteria, against funding systems and structures imposing responsibility for economic growth. We discuss these findings against the theoretical backdrop of a new concept of 'energopolitics' and an anthropology of ethics and responsibility.

7.
Life Sci Soc Policy ; 13(1): 13, 2017 Aug 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28849542

RESUMO

Metaphors are not just decorative rhetorical devices that make speech pretty. They are fundamental tools for thinking about the world and acting on the world. The language we use to make a better world matters; words matter; metaphors matter. Words have consequences - ethical, social and legal ones, as well as political and economic ones. They need to be used 'responsibly'. They also need to be studied carefully - this is what we want to do through this editorial and the related thematic collection. In the context of synthetic biology, natural and social scientists have become increasingly interested in metaphors, a wave of interest that we want to exploit and amplify. We want to build on emerging articles and books on synthetic biology, metaphors of life and the ethical and moral implications of such metaphors. This editorial provides a brief introduction to synthetic biology and responsible innovation, as well as a comprehensive review of literature on the social, cultural and ethical impacts of metaphor use in genomics and synthetic biology. Our aim is to stimulate an interdisciplinary and international discussion on the impact that metaphors can have on science, policy and publics in the context of synthetic biology.


Assuntos
Idioma , Responsabilidade Social , Biologia Sintética , Pensamento , Biologia , Genômica , Humanos , Metáfora , Biologia Molecular , Comportamento Social , Biologia de Sistemas
8.
PLoS One ; 11(7): e0158791, 2016.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27428071

RESUMO

Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the '3Rs'), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, 'cultures of care', harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.


Assuntos
Bem-Estar do Animal , Ciência dos Animais de Laboratório/métodos , Bem-Estar do Animal/ética , Animais , Comportamento Cooperativo , Ciências Humanas , Humanos , Estudos Interdisciplinares , Ciência dos Animais de Laboratório/ética , Ciências Sociais
10.
Public Underst Sci ; 25(7): 791-806, 2016 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26009149

RESUMO

The use of animals in scientific research represents an interesting case to consider in the context of the contemporary preoccupation with transparency and openness in science and governance. In the United Kingdom, organisations critical of animal research have long called for more openness. More recently, organisations involved in animal research also seem to be embracing transparency discourses. This article provides a detailed analysis of publically available documents from animal protection groups, the animal research community and government/research funders. Our aim is to explore the similarities and differences in the way transparency is constructed and to identify what more openness is expected to achieve. In contrast to the existing literature, we conclude that the slipperiness of transparency discourses may ultimately have transformative implications for the relationship between science and society and that contemporary openness initiatives might be sowing the seeds for change to the status quo.


Assuntos
Acesso à Informação , Experimentação Animal , Revelação , Ciência , Fatores Sociológicos , Reino Unido
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...