Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science (2015) / Nancy J. Cooke & Margaret L. Hilton
The past half-century has witnessed a dramatic increase in the scale and complexity of scientific research. The growing scale of science has been accompanied by a shift toward collaborative research, referred to as “team science.” Scientific research is increasingly conducted by small teams and larger groups rather than individual investigators, but the challenges of collaboration can slow these teams’ progress in achieving their scientific goals. How does a team-based approach work, and how can universities and research institutions support teams?
Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science synthesizes and integrates the available research to provide guidance on assembling the science team; leadership, education and professional development for science teams and groups. It also examines institutional and organizational structures and policies to support science teams and identifies areas where further research is needed to help science teams and groups achieve their scientific and translational goals. This report offers major public policy recommendations for science research agencies and policymakers, as well as recommendations for individual scientists, disciplinary associations, and research universities. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science will be of interest to university research administrators, team science leaders, science faculty, and graduate and postdoctoral students.
Download a free copy of this publication (select Download as Guest >>)
Science 17 July 2015: Vol. 349 no. 6245 pp. 223-224
On 7 July, an independent six-member panel delivered a scathing review of how the World Health Organization (WHO) has handled the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. It also proposed wide-ranging reforms that would enable the agency to better tackle the next major health crisis—from giving it more money and power to setting up a special, semi-independent emergency center. But whereas many of the suggestions have been praised as sensible, WHO’s complex, politicized governance structure and entrenched bureaucracy make it difficult to change, people who know the $2 billion U.N. agency say. Much will depend on member states’ willingness to give the agency additional funding and powers.
Request a copy of the article (QH Staff only)
Request a copy of the report on the WHO’s management of the Ebola epidemic (QH Staff only)
Work Employment & Society March 6, 2015;
To date, emphasis within the literature on workplace bullying has been on gathering empirical data with a focus on individual acts, actors (targets and perpetrators) and consequences. This analytical focus has resulted in an understanding of workplace bullying as fundamentally an individualized phenomenon. This article begins with a brief discussion of the theorization that currently predominates in the workplace violence and bullying literature and the outcomes of this theorizing. An emerging framework, conceptualizing violence broadly, is then outlined for understanding violence and bullying. Through this framework, it is argued that the discourse and research on workplace violence – in all its forms – must explore explicit connections between these social phenomena and the interrelatedness of all forms of oppression. Workplace violence must be examined within a framework where power cannot be separated from social dimensions within and outside the workplace.
Request a copy of the article (QH Staff only)
GP36-A Planning for Laboratory Operations During a Disaster; Approved Guideline (December 2014)
This document provides guidance for laboratory and health care leadership for development, implementation, and sustainment of effective emergency preparedness plans (all hazards) supporting nonanalytical components of clinical and public health laboratory services that may pertain to various natural and manmade disasters.
Request a copy of this document (FSS & PathQld staff only)
Transfusion Online 18 November 2014; DOI: 10.1111/trf.12913
As Ebola virus has infected thousands of individuals in West Africa, there is growing concern about the appropriate response of hospitals in developed nations caring for patients and handling laboratory specimens for patients suspected of Ebola virus disease (EVD). Guidelines for caring for EVD patients are proliferating rapidly from national and state public health authorities, professional societies, and individual hospitals. It is no surprise that they differ from one another, and some very conservative recommendations call for suspension of routine laboratory testing, including pretransfusion testing. EVD is transmitted by direct contact with blood, secretions, organs, and other body fluids and not by airborne routes. Based on experimental and observational data, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that clinicians follow contact and droplet precautions. Laboratory personnel are required to follow the blood-borne pathogen standard, especially the use of appropriate barriers consisting of gloves, gown, goggles, mask to cover nose and mouth, and plexiglass shield, where splashes of potentially infectious materials may be generated. Their recommendations are permissive of clinically appropriate laboratory testing, including pretransfusion testing, using barrier isolation precautions. Most individuals with suspected EVD will have a fever of another etiology, such as Plasmodium falciparum malaria. We believe that forgoing all routine pretransfusion laboratory testing may result in a greater increase in poor clinical outcomes than any diminution in the risks to laboratory personnel will justify. It is imperative for all laboratory directors, working with institutional infection control and safety personnel, to evaluate their hospital policies for potentially infectious patients and provide a safe environment for their patients and employees.
View the fulltext (QH staff only)