UNASSIGNED: Preparing for pandemics requires a degree of interdisciplinary work that is challenging under the current paradigm. This review summarizes the challenges faced by the field of pandemic science and proposes how to address them.
UNASSIGNED: The structure of current siloed systems of research organizations hinders effective interdisciplinary pandemic research. Moreover, effective pandemic preparedness requires stakeholders in public policy and health to interact and integrate new findings rapidly, relying on a robust, responsive, and productive research domain. Neither of these requirements are well supported under the current system.
UNASSIGNED: We propose a new paradigm for pandemic preparedness wherein interdisciplinary research and close collaboration with public policy and health practitioners can improve our ability to prevent, detect, and treat pandemics through tighter integration among domains, rapid and accurate integration, and translation of science to public policy, outreach and education, and improved venues and incentives for sustainable and robust interdisciplinary work.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The Great CTSA Team Science Contest (GTSC) was developed to discover how Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs promote and support team science [1]. The purpose of this study was a secondary qualitative analysis of the GTSC submissions to better understand the diversity of team science initiatives across the CTSA consortium.
METHODS: Secondary qualitative analysis of the GTSC data addressed the following research questions, which defined the top-level coding: (1) What CTSA component sponsored it? (2) Who was the team doing the work? (3) Who were the intended beneficiaries? (4) What was the intended outcome? (5) What strategies did they use? (6) What translational science (TS) stage was addressed? (7) How do they align with the NCATS team science strategic goals? (8) How do the CTSA\'s team science efforts align with the National Academies Research Council (NRC) recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of team science?
RESULTS: The GTSC received 170 submissions from 45 unique CTSA hubs. Qualitative analysis revealed a great variety of team science strategies for virtually all team science stakeholders. In addition to strategies to promote team science, results show successful examples that focus on outcomes and illustrate ways of measuring success.
CONCLUSIONS: The GTSC shows that the CTSA consortium is involved in an extremely diverse array of team science activities, which align well with both the NRC recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of team science and the NCATS strategic goals for team science. Future research should evaluate the efficacy of team science strategies.

暂无摘要。

Get on board! The first four years of ChemPlusChem concluded and the initial term for several board members is at an end. Here we introduce new members of the editorial and international advisory boards to our readers.

First hand: In this interview Editor-in-Chief Marisa Spiniello explains the profile and development of ChemPlusChem, looks back at the highlights of 2015, and describes what\'s in store for the journal in 2016.

High five: This special issue marks five years of ChemPlusChem and features reviews and original research articles by friends and supporters of the journal. This editorial takes a look at the journal\'s first steps, its commitment to publishing multidisciplinary science, and its promising future.

Youth culture: We look back at the Early Career Series (ECS) launched a few years ago and announce new developments for the project. Also, we recap the highlights of the past year-milestones, special issues, recognition and prizes for young researchers-and look ahead at the coming year.

The Loco-Motion: There\'s a lot of movement at ChemPlusChem. Read about the special issues of 2018 and those planned for 2019, prizes for young researchers, reviewer rewards, changes to the editorial staff and much more.

In this review, we describe some of the central philosophical issues facing origins-of-life research and provide a targeted history of the developments that have led to the multidisciplinary field of origins-of-life studies. We outline these issues and developments to guide researchers and students from all fields. With respect to philosophy, we provide brief summaries of debates with respect to (1) definitions (or theories) of life, what life is and how research should be conducted in the absence of an accepted theory of life, (2) the distinctions between synthetic, historical, and universal projects in origins-of-life studies, issues with strategies for inferring the origins of life, such as (3) the nature of the first living entities (the \"bottom up\" approach) and (4) how to infer the nature of the last universal common ancestor (the \"top down\" approach), and (5) the status of origins of life as a science. Each of these debates influences the others. Although there are clusters of researchers that agree on some answers to these issues, each of these debates is still open. With respect to history, we outline several independent paths that have led to some of the approaches now prevalent in origins-of-life studies. These include one path from early views of life through the scientific revolutions brought about by Linnaeus (von Linn.), Wöhler, Miller, and others. In this approach, new theories, tools, and evidence guide new thoughts about the nature of life and its origin. We also describe another family of paths motivated by a\" circularity\" approach to life, which is guided by such thinkers as Maturana & Varela, Gánti, Rosen, and others. These views echo ideas developed by Kant and Aristotle, though they do so using modern science in ways that produce exciting avenues of investigation. By exploring the history of these ideas, we can see how many of the issues that currently interest us have been guided by the contexts in which the ideas were developed. The disciplinary backgrounds of each of these scholars has influenced the questions they sought to answer, the experiments they envisioned, and the kinds of data they collected. We conclude by encouraging scientists and scholars in the humanities and social sciences to explore ways in which they can interact to provide a deeper understanding of the conceptual assumptions, structure, and history of origins-of-life research. This may be useful to help frame future research agendas and bring awareness to the multifaceted issues facing this challenging scientific question.