Suchergebnisse

Firearm trafficking as defined in the UN Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition, refers to the unauthorized "…import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement or transfer of firearms, their parts and components and ammunition…" across internal or state borders (UNGA 2001: 4). The term trafficking is also used to designate the intentional diversion of firearms from legal to illegal commerce, without involving the movement of items across physical borders. Illicit manufacture is closely tied to the act of firearm trafficking and it incorporates the "manufacture or assembly of firearms, firearm parts and components or ammunition" from illicitly produced parts (UNGA 2001: 3).

There are at least 875 million combined civilian, law enforcement and military firearms in the world (Small Arms Survey 2012). The value of the documented global authorized trade in firearms has been estimated at approximately US$1.58 billion in 2006, with unrecorded but licit transactions making up another US$100 million. The most commonly cited estimate for the size of the illicit market is 10–20 percent of the licit market, which would be about US$170 million to US$320 million per annum (Small Arms Survey 2012). While there are various types of arms that are trafficked, small arms and light weapons (SALW)1 trafficking has been instrumental in many of the world's conflicts since 1990, with 90 percent of all war casualties since World War II being attributed to small arms weaponry (Bassiouni 2010; Stohl 1999; Shah 2006).

The majority of SALW producers are located in the West. According to the Small Arms Survey, in 2010, the top exporters of SALW (those with annual exports of at least USD 100 million), according to available customs data, were (in descending order) the United States, Germany, Italy, Brazil, Switzerland, Israel, Austria, the Russian Federation, South Korea, and Sweden. In 2010 the top importers of SALW (those with annual imports of at least USD 100 million), according to available customs data, were (in descending order) the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Australia, South Korea, France, and Thailand (Small Arms Survey 2013).2 When it comes to international trafficking of major weapons, the flow of arms to Africa, the Americas, and Asia and Oceania increased significantly between 2004–2013. European imports however decreased by 25 per cent between 2004–2013. The UK was the largest importer of major weapons in Europe, followed by Azerbaijan and Greece. Many European states are choosing second-hand weapons as cheaper alternatives. The level of arms transfers to the Middle East remained more or less unchanged (Wezemen & Wezemen 2014).3

SALW trafficking involves a host of actors ranging from the individual rogue seller and buyer to intermediaries, transnational networks, transport companies, states, and corporate organizations (Rothe and Collins 2011). Some trafficking operations appear to be more sophisticated and to involve organized crime groups, licensed dealers, and/or corrupt state officials, while others are a result of theft, for example. In the literature (see, Rothe and Collins 2011; Cragin and Hoffman 2003), four types of markets for small arms sales are mentioned; white, black, gray, and covert military transactions. The white market refers to the legal sale of weapons by governments or private manufacturers to other countries or governments. While the white market is considered a legal market, a large proportion of trafficked arms are said to originate from government weapons surplus that make their way into the illicit market (Greene 2000).

Black market deals are illegal by the covert nature of the transaction as well as through the illegal status of the buyer, seller, or transaction. Transactions can be hidden through the concealment of the weapons through mislabeling, forging of documents, and the laundering of the criminal proceeds. This also includes covert government (military) transfers of arms to another country, specifically to insurgent forces due to their lack of transparency (Mouzos 2002; Rothe and Collins 2011).

The gray market makes reference to those transactions that are not considered illegal, but do not fall within the category of white market dealings. For example, while there are direct violations of arms embargoes (black market deals), there are also sales of arms to a non-embargo country (B) with the knowledge that such arms will then be sold to the intended state (A) to bypass the embargo, through the use of proxy individual brokers or insurgency groups (see, Rothe and Collins 2011).

In the US most firearms appear to be trafficked via a corrupt licensed dealer (see Fig. 1). A similar situation is reported in Australia (Bricknell 2012). Licensed firearm dealers are well placed to divert firearms—they have access to large firearm collections, and their familiarity with legislation and processes around the importation, sale and distribution of firearms will have revealed where vulnerabilities exist and can be best exploited. Theft is also cited as an important source of illegal firearms in countries such as the US (Kleck and Wang 2009; Wright and Rossi 1994) and inferred in other jurisdictions such as England and Wales (Hales et al. 2006) and within the European Union (Spapens 2007).
Open image in new window

Fig. 1
Source of weapons and type of trafficking Source: UNODC Transnational Organized Crime Threat Assessment (2012) (Based on US Bureau of Justice Statistics 2002 & ATF 2000)



The trafficking of firearms is unlike many of the other forms of trafficking. Unlike drugs, cigarettes, or counterfeit pharmaceuticals, AK-47 will last indefinitely. As a result, a logical argument follows: arms trafficking is episodic, often from an established stockpile to a region descending into crisis (UNODC 2010). However, the "rationality" of the illicit firearms market is one of the topics further discussed in this special issue, since this market deals with a product that is significantly different from other illicit products or services offered by criminal networks. For example, it is essential to understand that the inherent nature of firearms and other weapons is their ability to take and/or protect human life. Their ability is to intimidate, threaten or defend the survival of "imagined communities" including, groups, gangs, and nation states. Arms do not only help rebel groups and governments to maintain control over territories, but they are also a very "useful tool" for expanding the influence of organized crime groups and for projecting "masculinity" (Davis et al. 2001; Arsovska and Kostakos 2008).

Welcome to the last issue of the IJEI for 2013. It has been an exciting year with numerous conferences and research on academic integrity around the world. Auckland University of Technology kicked off the year with the Fraud, Fakery and Fabrication: Academic and research integrity conference, the International Center for Academic Integrity held their annual conference in San Antonio on 28 February, the National Roundtable and Australian National Speaking Tour for the Exemplary Academic Integrity Project was also held in late February and early March, the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity was held in Montreal in May, the Plagiarism across Europe and Beyond Conference shared the results of the 'Impact of policies for plagiarism in higher education across Europe' project in Brno, Czech Republic in June, and the 6th Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity showcased the work of Australian Office for Learning and Teaching commissioned projects on academic integrity in Sydney in October. With so much interest and research on this topic across a range of countries and contexts, it is perhaps not surprising that the current issue is an eclectic mix of reflective, conceptual, empirical and case study work from researchers spanning six countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Norway, Australia, Sweden, Indonesia and the UK. The issue covers diverse topics extending from the development of academic skills, to motivations and predictors of student plagiarism, systems to reduce plagiarism and the responsibility of universities to provide marketing information based on ethical principles of honesty and trustworthiness. Student groups represented include secondary school, undergraduate and postgraduate. Radhika Iyer-O'Sullivan, formerly of the British University in Dubai, analyses faculty feedback, samples of student writing and Turnitin Similarity Reports to determine if teaching critical reading as a threshold concept results in critical thinking and subsequently improved critical writing skills. While the sample was small and the results inconclusive, Iyer-O'Sullivan makes the case that teaching critical reading assists students to understand the importance of using supporting evidence to develop a convincing academic argument. Håvard Skaar and Hugo Hammer from Oslo and Akershus University College, Norway use a mixed-methods approach to explore secondary school students' plagiarism of internet sources in essay writing. The survey of 67 students indicated that 75% of students reported plagiarising from online sources and that plagiarism accounted for 25% of the total amount of text. Students with a higher grade in written Norwegian plagiarised less than those with a lower grade, and students more conversant with appropriate citation practices plagiarised less than those students less familiar with referencing conventions. Qualitative feedback from interviews with 29 students indicated that the students wanted to spend as little time and effort as possible on the assessment task and that plagiarism was chosen as a writing strategy, with little reflection on the moral aspects on this decision. In contrast, Rebecca Awdry, from the University of Canberra, and Rick Sarre, from the University of South Australia, found that the university students in their study expressed strong ethical positions in relation to plagiarism, arguing that it was cheating and dishonest. Awdry and Sarre explored students' motivations to plagiarise using a mixed methods approach, and analysed the data through the prism of criminological theory. The authors conclude that while rational choice theory provides some insight into student breaches of academic integrity, there is an apparent disconnect between the way that academics view students' behaviour and how students themselves express their motivations. In agreement with key writers in the field (Bertram Gallant, McCabe, Bretag et al.), Awdry and Sarre conclude that higher education providers should focus less on detection and punishment and more on developing a values-based culture of integrity. Based on a sample of 362 undergraduate psychology students, and in the context of the Indonesian government's position that any form of plagiarism "is a serious offense that may even be classified as an illegal action", Ide Bagus Siaputra, from Universitas Surabaya, explores the proposition that "regardless of the presence or absence of opportunities and the severity of the potential sanctions, some individuals seem to be prone to plagiarism". Siaputra builds on the work of Williams, Nathanson and Paulhus (2010), to propose five variables as predictors of plagiarism, including procrastination, performance, personality, perfectionism, and achievement motivation, and names the model 'the 4PA of plagiarism'. Findings from the author's study indicate that procrastination was the key predictor of plagiarism, followed by achievement motivation. Looking to provide a multi-pronged response to student plagiarism, Ken Larsson and Henrik Hansson from Stockholm University, Sweden share the results of an innovation at their university. The digital system called SciPro was developed to support independent student thesis work, decrease the burden on supervisors for feedback on basic skills, and reduce plagiarism. The system includes a number of modules which facilitate management, communication and learning. According to the authors, SciPro works to prevents plagiarism by providing: 1) clear instructions about rules and regulations for students and supervisors; 2) an online peer-review system; 3) transparent online communication and file storage of accumulated manuscripts; and 4) a final seminar module enabling automatic generation of originality reports from Turnitin when students upload their final thesis manuscripts. Larsson and Hansson report that the implementation of SciPro has resulted in substantial improvements in policy development, successful integration of anti-plagiarism software, and an increased awareness of plagiarism issues. The final paper in the issue reminds us that academic integrity is an issue which underpins every aspect of the educational enterprise and goes well beyond plagiarism in student assessment. Educational psychologist, John Bradley, from the UK, offers a typology of nine misleading data-based marketing claims based on his examination of UK university prospectuses. Bradley's analysis leads him to assert that marketing of higher education should aspire to higher ethical standards than marketing in general because of the high stakes involved for a potentially vulnerable group, and because the reputation of the university is founded on having high standards of scholarship. Rather than rely on external regulators to ensure the authenticity of marketing claims, the author advocates a system of voluntary peer review of university marketing prospectuses based on the principles of research and publication ethics. I trust you will enjoy this varied issue which will interest teachers, researchers, policymakers, administrators and marketers of education, in both secondary and tertiary contexts. Volume 10(1) of the IJEI, to be published in June 2014, will include the best reviewed papers from the Plagiarism Across Europe and Beyond Conference, Czech Republic 2013, along with appropriate papers submitted via the IJEI platform. Tracey Bretag, IJEI Editor Email: tracey.bretag@unisa.edu.au

I am pleased to introduce the next issue of the International Journal for Educational Integrity. This issue includes revised papers from two key conferences in 2009: the 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity (4APCEI, Wollongong University, Australia), and the Center for Academic Integrity Annual International Conference (Washington University, US), as well as two original papers. The issue is truly international, with authors representing the United States, the Ukraine and Australia. Daniel Wueste, Director of the Rutland Institute for Ethics, and Teddi Fishman, Director of the recently renamed International Center for Academic Integrity, provide a framing piece for the issue, with their paper from 4APCEI which explores the limitations of customer service approaches in higher education. Wueste and Fishman, while acknowledging the seductive appeal of likening students to "customers", particularly as part of the "total quality movement", provide a rigorous critique of this potentially dangerous discourse. The authors demonstrate how education differs quite significantly from commerce and argue that "looking to professional practice for help in understanding the educational enterprise holds considerably more promise than looking to business practiceâ€. Wueste and Fishman are forthright in their assertion that education is based on a reciprocal relationship between teacher and learner (rather than a transaction between vendor and vendee), and that intrinsic to this relationship is a shared commitment to integrity. Following on from Wueste's and Fishman's call for a re-articulation of values in higher education, are two papers from the CAI conference. Joanna Gilmore, Denise Strickland, Briana Timmerman, Michelle Maher (all from the University of South Carolina) and David Feldon (University of Virginia), investigate plagiarism by graduate students. Working with a sample of 113 masters and doctoral students from three university sites, representing technology, engineering, mathematics, or mathematics or science education, the researchers examined students' research proposals and conducted semi-structured interviews. Their key finding was that while plagiarism was a prevalent issue (almost 40% of the proposals contained notable plagiarism), this appeared to be largely unintentional due to a lack of disciplinary enculturation. Notably, this lack of disciplinary enculturation was further compounded for English as a Second Language (ESL) students at the pre-proposal stage, who also had to grapple with cultural differences, English language issues and a variety of other factors. William Hanson from Anderson University in California uses grounded theory and graph theory based analysis to create a "faculty ethics logic model" based on his research at a small, religiously affiliated university. Hanson sought to operationalise participant realities of the primary forces that drive teaching or resolving ethics issues and discovered that informal elements, rather than formal institutional influence, played a major role in response strategies. In particular, faculty members used existing knowledge, resources/artefacts, goals and beliefs and their actions were shaped by work group influence and collective norms within a Christian framework. Hanson concluded that ethics policy "cannot be wholly forced upon its members… informal institutional principles originate from faculty†and that teachers "must be considered as primary change agents in ethics reform." This research has important implications in the context of academic integrity, pointing as it does to the central, although often informal role of teachers in nurturing and promoting academic integrity on campus. Jason Stephens (University of Connecticut), Volodymyr Romakin (Petro Mohyla State University, Ukraine) and Mariya Yukhymenko (University of Connecticut) extend previous studies which have compared cheating behaviours of US undergraduate students with students from other cultures, by investigating academic motivation and misconduct by Ukrainian students. Based on a self-report survey with a sample of 189 students from each country, their study investigated the differences between US and Ukrainian students' task value, goal orientations, moral beliefs and cheating behaviours. Significant differences between the two groups were found, most notably that Ukrainian students reported lower judgements about the wrongfulness of cheating behaviours, and correspondingly higher levels of engagement in cheating behaviour. In particular, academic task value was a significant predictor of cheating beliefs and behaviours for the Ukrainian students: the more useful and interesting the course was perceived to be, the less likely the Ukrainian students were to cheat - a finding which has clear implications for all educators, but particularly those working with Ukrainian students. The final paper by Australian authors, Robert Kennelly, Anna Maldoni and Doug Davis (University of Canberra) provides appropriate closure to this issue. While Wueste and Fishman opened the issue by exhorting us to re-examine the value and purpose of higher education, Kennelly et al. do just that by reminding readers that educational integrity requires more than a pledge from students not to cheat. All stakeholders, from those at the highest administrative level, to those instructors teaching occasional tutorials, need to be deeply committed to the learning needs of the diverse classroom. International EAL (English as an Additional Language) students in Australian universities have long carried the burden associated with the customer service model of higher education critiqued by Wueste and Fishman. International EAL students pay high tuition fees, have additional expenses and responsibilities to fulfil English language requirements (in most Australian universities, a minimum International English Language Test Score (IELTS) of 6.00 for undergraduate entry), and in many instances, find at arrival that this IELTS score is inadequate for the level of oral and written communication required. Furthermore, with decreasing government funding and the demise of student unions, the level of on-campus services has gradually declined, so that students not only struggle with their academic load, they are often lonely and isolated. The discipline-based approach to academic and language development trialled, evaluated and recommended by Kennelly et al. goes some way to addressing the academic needs of this group of students. Using data from six consecutive semesters, the authors provide compelling evidence that team-taught, disciplined-based support programs have the potential to improve international EAL students' competence in academic and critical literacy skills, while simultaneously building English language proficiency. I trust you will enjoy this issue of the International Journal for Educational Integrity, and invite you to submit manuscripts for review for Volume 7(1), to be published in mid-2011. Volume 6(2) is being guest edited by Chris Moore and Ruth Walker, on the topic of 'digital technologies and educational integrity' and is due to be published in December this year. Tracey Bretag, IJEI Editor tracey.bretag@unisa.edu.au

Publisher's version (útgefin grein) ; Breast cancer is a common disease partially caused by genetic risk factors. Germline pathogenic variants in DNA repair genes BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, and CHEK2 are associated with breast cancer risk. FANCM, which encodes for a DNA translocase, has been proposed as a breast cancer predisposition gene, with greater effects for the ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes. We tested the three recurrent protein-truncating variants FANCM:p.Arg658*, p.Gln1701*, and p.Arg1931* for association with breast cancer risk in 67,112 cases, 53,766 controls, and 26,662 carriers of pathogenic variants of BRCA1 or BRCA2. These three variants were also studied functionally by measuring survival and chromosome fragility in FANCM−/− patient-derived immortalized fibroblasts treated with diepoxybutane or olaparib. We observed that FANCM:p.Arg658* was associated with increased risk of ER-negative disease and TNBC (OR = 2.44, P = 0.034 and OR = 3.79; P = 0.009, respectively). In a country-restricted analysis, we confirmed the associations detected for FANCM:p.Arg658* and found that also FANCM:p.Arg1931* was associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk (OR = 1.96; P = 0.006). The functional results indicated that all three variants were deleterious affecting cell survival and chromosome stability with FANCM:p.Arg658* causing more severe phenotypes. In conclusion, we confirmed that the two rare FANCM deleterious variants p.Arg658* and p.Arg1931* are risk factors for ER-negative and TNBC subtypes. Overall our data suggest that the effect of truncating variants on breast cancer risk may depend on their position in the gene. Cell sensitivity to olaparib exposure, identifies a possible therapeutic option to treat FANCM-associated tumors. ; Peterlongo laboratory is supported by Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2015 no.16732) to P. Peterlongo and by a fellowship from Fondazione Umberto Veronesi to G. Figlioli. Surrallés laboratory is supported by the ICREA-Academia program, the Spanish Ministry of Health (projects FANCOSTEM and FANCOLEN), the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competiveness (projects CB06/07/0023 and RTI2018-098419-B-I00), the European Commission (EUROFANCOLEN project HEALTH-F5-2012-305421 and P-SPHERE COFUND project), the Fanconi Anemia Research Fund Inc, and the "Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional, una manera de hacer Europa" (FEDER). CIBERER is an initiative of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain. BCAC: we thank all the individuals who took part in these studies and all the researchers, clinicians, technicians and administrative staff who have enabled this work to be carried out. ABCFS thank Maggie Angelakos, Judi Maskiell, Tu Nguyen-Dumont is a National Breast Cancer Foundation (Australia) Career Development Fellow. ABCS thanks the Blood bank Sanquin, The Netherlands. Samples are made available to researchers on a non-exclusive basis. BCEES thanks Allyson Thomson, Christobel Saunders, Terry Slevin, BreastScreen Western Australia, Elizabeth Wylie, Rachel Lloyd. The BCINIS study would not have been possible without the contributions of Dr. Hedy Rennert, Dr. K. Landsman, Dr. N. Gronich, Dr. A. Flugelman, Dr. W. Saliba, Dr. E. Liani, Dr. I. Cohen, Dr. S. Kalet, Dr. V. Friedman, Dr. O. Barnet of the NICCC in Haifa, and all the contributing family medicine, surgery, pathology and oncology teams in all medical institutes in Northern Israel. The BREOGAN study would not have been possible without the contributions of the following: Manuela Gago-Dominguez, Jose Esteban Castelao, Angel Carracedo, Victor Muñoz Garzón, Alejandro Novo Domínguez, Maria Elena Martinez, Sara Miranda Ponte, Carmen Redondo Marey, Maite Peña Fernández, Manuel Enguix Castelo, Maria Torres, Manuel Calaza (BREOGAN), José Antúnez, Máximo Fraga and the staff of the Department of Pathology and Biobank of the University Hospital Complex of Santiago-CHUS, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago, IDIS, Xerencia de Xestion Integrada de Santiago-SERGAS; Joaquín González-Carreró and the staff of the Department of Pathology and Biobank of University Hospital Complex of Vigo, Instituto de Investigacion Biomedica Galicia Sur, SERGAS, Vigo, Spain. BSUCH thanks Peter Bugert, Medical Faculty Mannheim. CBCS thanks study participants, co-investigators, collaborators and staff of the Canadian Breast Cancer Study, and project coordinators Agnes Lai and Celine Morissette. CCGP thanks Styliani Apostolaki, Anna Margiolaki, Georgios Nintos, Maria Perraki, Georgia Saloustrou, Georgia Sevastaki, Konstantinos Pompodakis. CGPS thanks staff and participants of the Copenhagen General Population Study. For the excellent technical assistance: Dorthe Uldall Andersen, Maria Birna Arnadottir, Anne Bank, Dorthe Kjeldgård Hansen. The Danish Cancer Biobank is acknowledged for providing infrastructure for the collection of blood samples for the cases. Investigators from the CPS-II cohort thank the participants and Study Management Group for their invaluable contributions to this research. They also acknowledge the contribution to this study from central cancer registries supported through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Program of Cancer Registries, as well as cancer registries supported by the National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results program. The CTS Steering Committee includes Leslie Bernstein, Susan Neuhausen, James Lacey, Sophia Wang, Huiyan Ma, and Jessica Clague DeHart at the Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, Dennis Deapen, Rich Pinder, and Eunjung Lee at the University of Southern California, Pam Horn-Ross, Peggy Reynolds, Christina Clarke Dur and David Nelson at the Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Hoda Anton-Culver, Argyrios Ziogas, and Hannah Park at the University of California Irvine, and Fred Schumacher at Case Western University. DIETCOMPLYF thanks the patients, nurses and clinical staff involved in the study. The DietCompLyf study was funded by the charity Against Breast Cancer (Registered Charity Number 1121258) and the NCRN. We thank the participants and the investigators of EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition). ESTHER thanks Hartwig Ziegler, Sonja Wolf, Volker Hermann, Christa Stegmaier, Katja Butterbach. FHRISK thanks NIHR for funding. GC-HBOC thanks Stefanie Engert, Heide Hellebrand, Sandra Kröber and LIFE - Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases (Markus Loeffler, Joachim Thiery, Matthias Nüchter, Ronny Baber). The GENICA Network: Dr. Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart, and University of Tübingen, Germany [HB, Wing-Yee Lo], German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) [HB], Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy - EXC 2180 - 390900677 [HB], Department of Internal Medicine, Evangelische Kliniken Bonn gGmbH, Johanniter Krankenhaus, Bonn, Germany [Yon-Dschun Ko, Christian Baisch], Institute of Pathology, University of Bonn, Germany [Hans-Peter Fischer], Molecular Genetics of Breast Cancer, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany [Ute Hamann], Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), Bochum, Germany [TB, Beate Pesch, Sylvia Rabstein, Anne Lotz]; and Institute of Occupational Medicine and Maritime Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany [Volker Harth]. HABCS thanks Michael Bremer. HEBCS thanks Heidi Toiminen, Kristiina Aittomäki, Irja Erkkilä and Outi Malkavaara. HMBCS thanks Peter Hillemanns, Hans Christiansen and Johann H. Karstens. HUBCS thanks Shamil Gantsev. KARMA thanks the Swedish Medical Research Counsel. KBCP thanks Eija Myöhänen, Helena Kemiläinen. LMBC thanks Gilian Peuteman, Thomas Van Brussel, EvyVanderheyden and Kathleen Corthouts. MABCS thanks Milena Jakimovska (RCGEB "Georgi D. Efremov), Katerina Kubelka, Mitko Karadjozov (Adzibadem-Sistina" Hospital), Andrej Arsovski and Liljana Stojanovska (Re-Medika" Hospital) for their contributions and commitment to this study. MARIE thanks Petra Seibold, Dieter Flesch-Janys, Judith Heinz, Nadia Obi, Alina Vrieling, Sabine Behrens, Ursula Eilber, Muhabbet Celik, Til Olchers and Stefan Nickels. MBCSG (Milan Breast Cancer Study Group) thanks Daniela Zaffaroni, Irene Feroce, and the personnel of the Cogentech Cancer Genetic Test Laboratory. We thank the coordinators, the research staff and especially the MMHS participants for their continued collaboration on research studies in breast cancer. MSKCC thanks Marina Corines and Lauren Jacobs. MTLGEBCS would like to thank Martine Tranchant (CHU de Québec Research Center), Marie-France Valois, Annie Turgeon and Lea Heguy (McGill University Health Center, Royal Victoria Hospital; McGill University) for DNA extraction, sample management and skillful technical assistance. J.S. is Chairholder of the Canada Research Chair in Oncogenetics. NBHS thanks study participants and research staff for their contributions and commitment to the studies. We would like to thank the participants and staff of the Nurses' Health Study and Nurses' Health Study II for their valuable contributions as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review boards of the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and those of participating registries as required. The authors assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data. OFBCR thanks Teresa Selander and Nayana Weerasooriya. ORIGO thanks E. Krol-Warmerdam, and J. Blom for patient accrual, administering questionnaires, and managing clinical information. PBCS thanks Louise Brinton, Mark Sherman, Neonila Szeszenia-Dabrowska, Beata Peplonska, Witold Zatonski, Pei Chao and Michael Stagner. The ethical approval for the POSH study is MREC /00/6/69, UKCRN ID: 1137. We thank staff in the Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC) supported Faculty of Medicine Tissue Bank and the Faculty of Medicine DNA Banking resource. PREFACE thanks Sonja Oeser and Silke Landrith. PROCAS thanks NIHR for funding. RBCS thanks Petra Bos, Jannet Blom, Ellen Crepin, Elisabeth Huijskens, Anja Kromwijk-Nieuwlaat, Annette Heemskerk, the Erasmus MC Family Cancer Clinic. We thank the SEARCH and EPIC teams. SKKDKFZS thanks all study participants, clinicians, family doctors, researchers and technicians for their contributions and commitment to this study. We thank the SUCCESS Study teams in Munich, Duessldorf, Erlangen and Ulm. SZBCS thanks Ewa Putresza. UCIBCS thanks Irene Masunaka. UKBGS thanks Breast Cancer Now and the Institute of Cancer Research for support and funding of the Breakthrough Generations Study, and the study participants, study staff, and the doctors, nurses and other health care providers and health information sources who have contributed to the study. We acknowledge NHS funding to the Royal Marsden/ICR NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. CIMBA: we are grateful to all the families and clinicians who contribute to the studies; Sue Healey, in particular taking on the task of mutation classification with the late Olga Sinilnikova; Maggie Angelakos, Judi Maskiell, Helen Tsimiklis; members and participants in the New York site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry; members and participants in the Ontario Familial Breast Cancer Registry; Vilius Rudaitis and Laimonas Griškevičius; Yuan Chun Ding and Linda Steele for their work in participant enrollment and biospecimen and data management; Bent Ejlertsen and Anne-Marie Gerdes for the recruitment and genetic counseling of participants; Alicia Barroso, Rosario Alonso and Guillermo Pita; all the individuals and the researchers who took part in CONSIT TEAM (Consorzio Italiano Tumori Ereditari Alla Mammella), thanks in particular: Giulia Cagnoli, Roberta Villa, Irene Feroce, Mariarosaria Calvello, Riccardo Dolcetti, Giuseppe Giannini, Laura Papi, Gabriele Lorenzo Capone, Liliana Varesco, Viviana Gismondi, Maria Grazia Tibiletti, Daniela Furlan, Antonella Savarese, Aline Martayan, Stefania Tommasi, Brunella Pilato, Isabella Marchi, Elena Bandieri, Antonio Russo, Daniele Calistri and the personnel of the Cogentech Cancer Genetic Test Laboratory, Milan, Italy. FPGMX: members of the Cancer Genetics group (IDIS): Ana Blanco, Miguel Aguado, Uxía Esperón and Belinda Rodríguez. We thank all participants, clinicians, family doctors, researchers, and technicians for their contributions and commitment to the DKFZ study and the collaborating groups in Lahore, Pakistan (Noor Muhammad, Sidra Gull, Seerat Bajwa, Faiz Ali Khan, Humaira Naeemi, Saima Faisal, Asif Loya, Mohammed Aasim Yusuf) and Bogota, Colombia (Diana Torres, Ignacio Briceno, Fabian Gil). Genetic Modifiers of Cancer Risk in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers (GEMO) study is a study from the National Cancer Genetics Network UNICANCER Genetic Group, France. We wish to pay a tribute to Olga M. Sinilnikova, who with Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet initiated and coordinated GEMO until she sadly passed away on the 30th June 2014. The team in Lyon (Olga Sinilnikova, Mélanie Léoné, Laure Barjhoux, Carole Verny-Pierre, Sylvie Mazoyer, Francesca Damiola, Valérie Sornin) managed the GEMO samples until the biological resource centre was transferred to Paris in December 2015 (Noura Mebirouk, Fabienne Lesueur, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet). We want to thank all the GEMO collaborating groups for their contribution to this study. Drs.Sofia Khan, Irja Erkkilä and Virpi Palola; The Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Research Group Netherlands (HEBON) consists of the following Collaborating Centers: Netherlands Cancer Institute (coordinating center), Amsterdam, NL: M.A. Rookus, F.B.L. Hogervorst, F.E. van Leeuwen, M.A. Adank, M.K. Schmidt, N.S. Russell, D.J. Jenner; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, NL: J.M. Collée, A.M.W. van den Ouweland, M.J. Hooning, C.M. Seynaeve, C.H.M. van Deurzen, I.M. Obdeijn; Leiden University Medical Center, NL: C.J. van Asperen, P. Devilee, T.C.T.E.F. van Cronenburg; Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, NL: C.M. Kets, A.R. Mensenkamp; University Medical Center Utrecht, NL: M.G.E.M. Ausems, M.J. Koudijs; Amsterdam Medical Center, NL: C.M. Aalfs, H.E.J. Meijers-Heijboer; VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, NL: K. van Engelen, J.J.P. Gille; Maastricht University Medical Center, NL: E.B. Gómez-Garcia, M.J. Blok; University of Groningen, NL: J.C. Oosterwijk, A.H. van der Hout, M.J. Mourits, G.H. de Bock; The Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL): S. Siesling, J.Verloop; The nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in The Netherlands (PALGA): A.W. van den Belt-Dusebout. HEBON thanks the study participants and the registration teams of IKNL and PALGA for part of the data collection. Overbeek; the Hungarian Breast and Ovarian Cancer Study Group members (Janos Papp, Aniko Bozsik, Zoltan Matrai, Miklos Kasler, Judit Franko, Maria Balogh, Gabriella Domokos, Judit Ferenczi, Department of Molecular Genetics, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary) and the clinicians and patients for their contributions to this study; HVH (University Hospital Vall d'Hebron) the authors acknowledge the Oncogenetics Group (VHIO) and the High Risk and Cancer Prevention Unit of the University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Miguel Servet Progam (CP10/00617), and the Cellex Foundation for providing research facilities and equipment; the ICO Hereditary Cancer Program team led by Dr. Gabriel Capella; the ICO Hereditary Cancer Program team led by Dr. Gabriel Capella; Dr Martine Dumont for sample management and skillful assistance; Catarina Santos and Pedro Pinto; members of the Center of Molecular Diagnosis, Oncogenetics Department and Molecular Oncology Research Center of Barretos Cancer Hospital; Heather Thorne, Eveline Niedermayr, all the kConFab investigators, research nurses and staff, the heads and staff of the Family Cancer Clinics, and the Clinical Follow Up Study (which has received funding from the NHMRC, the National Breast Cancer Foundation, Cancer Australia, and the National Institute of Health (USA)) for their contributions to this resource, and the many families who contribute to kConFab; the investigators of the Australia New Zealand NRG Oncology group; members and participants in the Ontario Cancer Genetics Network; Kevin Sweet, Caroline Craven, Julia Cooper, Amber Aielts, and Michelle O'Conor; Christina Selkirk; Helena Jernström, Karin Henriksson, Katja Harbst, Maria Soller, Ulf Kristoffersson; from Gothenburg Sahlgrenska University Hospital: Anna Öfverholm, Margareta Nordling, Per Karlsson, Zakaria Einbeigi; from Stockholm and Karolinska University Hospital: Anna von Wachenfeldt, Annelie Liljegren, Annika Lindblom, Brita Arver, Gisela Barbany Bustinza; from Umeå University Hospital: Beatrice Melin, Christina Edwinsdotter Ardnor, Monica Emanuelsson; from Uppsala University: Hans Ehrencrona, Maritta Hellström Pigg, Richard Rosenquist; from Linköping University Hospital: Marie Stenmark-Askmalm, Sigrun Liedgren; Cecilia Zvocec, Qun Niu; Joyce Seldon and Lorna Kwan; Dr. Robert Nussbaum, Beth Crawford, Kate Loranger, Julie Mak, Nicola Stewart, Robin Lee, Amie Blanco and Peggy Conrad and Salina Chan; Carole Pye, Patricia Harrington and Eva Wozniak. OSUCCG thanks Kevin Sweet, Caroline Craven, Julia Cooper, Michelle O'Conor and Amber Aeilts. BCAC is funded by Cancer Research UK [C1287/A16563, C1287/A10118], the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant numbers 634935 and 633784 for BRIDGES and B-CAST respectively), and by the European Community´s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement number 223175 (grant number HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS). The EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme funding source had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report. Genotyping of the OncoArray was funded by the NIH Grant U19 CA148065, and Cancer UK Grant C1287/A16563 and the PERSPECTIVE project supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant GPH-129344) and, the Ministère de l'Économie, Science et Innovation du Québec through Genome Québec and the PSRSIIRI-701 grant, and the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation. The Australian Breast Cancer Family Study (ABCFS) was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (USA). The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. The ABCFS was also supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the New South Wales Cancer Council, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (Australia) and the Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium. J.L.H. is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Principal Research Fellow. M.C.S. is a NHMRC Senior Research Fellow. The ABCS study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society [grants NKI 2007-3839; 2009 4363]. The Australian Breast Cancer Tissue Bank (ABCTB) was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, The Cancer Institute NSW and the National Breast Cancer Foundation. The AHS study is supported by the intramural research program of the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute (grant number Z01-CP010119), and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (grant number Z01-ES049030). The work of the BBCC was partly funded by ELAN-Fond of the University Hospital of Erlangen. The BBCS is funded by Cancer Research UK and Breast Cancer Now and acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN). The BCEES was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia and the Cancer Council Western Australia. For the BCFR-NY, BCFR-PA, BCFR-UT this work was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government or the BCFR. BCINIS study was funded by the BCRF (The Breast Cancer Research Foundation, USA). The BREast Oncology GAlician Network (BREOGAN) is funded by Acción Estratégica de Salud del Instituto de Salud Carlos III FIS PI12/02125/Cofinanciado FEDER; Acción Estratégica de Salud del Instituto de Salud Carlos III FIS Intrasalud (PI13/01136); Programa Grupos Emergentes, Cancer Genetics Unit, Instituto de Investigacion Biomedica Galicia Sur. Xerencia de Xestion Integrada de Vigo-SERGAS, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain; Grant 10CSA012E, Consellería de Industria Programa Sectorial de Investigación Aplicada, PEME I + D e I + D Suma del Plan Gallego de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica de la Consellería de Industria de la Xunta de Galicia, Spain; Grant EC11-192. Fomento de la Investigación Clínica Independiente, Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad, Spain; and Grant FEDER-Innterconecta. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Xunta de Galicia, Spain. The BSUCH study was supported by the Dietmar-Hopp Foundation, the Helmholtz Society and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). Sample collection and processing was funded in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute (NCI R01CA120120 and K24CA169004). CBCS is funded by the Canadian Cancer Society (grant # 313404) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CCGP is supported by funding from the University of Crete. The CECILE study was supported by Fondation de France, Institut National du Cancer (INCa), Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer, Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire, de l'Alimentation, de l'Environnement et du Travail (ANSES), Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR). The CGPS was supported by the Chief Physician Johan Boserup and Lise Boserup Fund, the Danish Medical Research Council, and Herlev and Gentofte Hospital. The American Cancer Society funds the creation, maintenance, and updating of the CPS-II cohort. The CTS was initially supported by the California Breast Cancer Act of 1993 and the California Breast Cancer Research Fund (contract 97-10500) and is currently funded through the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA77398, K05 CA136967, UM1 CA164917, and U01 CA199277). Collection of cancer incidence data was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885. The University of Westminster curates the DietCompLyf database funded by Against Breast Cancer Registered Charity No. 1121258 and the NCRN. The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by: Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) (France); German Cancer Aid, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (Greece); Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy and National Research Council (Italy); Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Health Research Fund (FIS), PI13/00061 to Granada, PI13/01162 to EPIC-Murcia, Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020) (Spain); Cancer Research UK (14136 to EPIC-Norfolk; C570/A16491 and C8221/A19170 to EPIC-Oxford), Medical Research Council (1000143 to EPIC-Norfolk, MR/M012190/1 to EPIC-Oxford) (United Kingdom). The ESTHER study was supported by a grant from the Baden Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts. Additional cases were recruited in the context of the VERDI study, which was supported by a grant from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe). FHRISK is funded from NIHR grant PGfAR 0707-10031. The GC-HBOC (German Consortium of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer) is supported by the German Cancer Aid (grant no 110837, coordinator: Rita K. Schmutzler, Cologne). This work was also funded by the European Regional Development Fund and Free State of Saxony, Germany (LIFE - Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, project numbers 713-241202, 713-241202, 14505/2470, 14575/2470). The GENICA was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany grants 01KW9975/5, 01KW9976/8, 01KW9977/0 and 01KW0114, the Robert Bosch Foundation, Stuttgart, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, the Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), Bochum, as well as the Department of Internal Medicine, Evangelische Kliniken Bonn gGmbH, Johanniter Krankenhaus, Bonn, Germany. The GEPARSIXTO study was conducted by the German Breast Group GmbH. The GESBC was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e. V. [70492] and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). The HABCS study was supported by the Claudia von Schilling Foundation for Breast Cancer Research, by the Lower Saxonian Cancer Society, and by the Rudolf Bartling Foundation. The HEBCS was financially supported by the Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (266528), the Finnish Cancer Society, and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. The HMBCS was supported by a grant from the German Research Foundation (Do 761/10-1). The HUBCS was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education (RUS08/017), and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations for support the Bioresource collections and RFBR grants 14-04-97088, 17-29-06014 and 17-44-020498. E.K was supported by the program for support the bioresource collections №007-030164/2 and study was performed as part of the assignment of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Russian Federation (№АААА-А16-116020350032-1). Financial support for KARBAC was provided through the regional agreement on medical training and clinical research (ALF) between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet, the Swedish Cancer Society, The Gustav V Jubilee foundation and Bert von Kantzows foundation. The KARMA study was supported by Märit and Hans Rausings Initiative Against Breast Cancer. The KBCP was financially supported by the special Government Funding (EVO) of Kuopio University Hospital grants, Cancer Fund of North Savo, the Finnish Cancer Organizations, and by the strategic funding of the University of Eastern Finland. LMBC is supported by the 'Stichting tegen Kanker'. DL is supported by the FWO. The MABCS study is funded by the Research Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology "Georgi D. Efremov" and supported by the German Academic Exchange Program, DAAD. The MARIE study was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V. [70-2892-BR I, 106332, 108253, 108419, 110826, 110828], the Hamburg Cancer Society, the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany [01KH0402]. MBCSG is supported by grants from the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC) and by funds from the Italian citizens who allocated the 5/1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects "5 × 1000"). The MCBCS was supported by the NIH grants CA192393, CA116167, CA176785 an NIH Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer [CA116201], and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation. MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 209057 and 396414, and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. Cases and their vital status were ascertained through the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR) and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database. The MEC was support by NIH grants CA63464, CA54281, CA098758, CA132839 and CA164973. The MISS study is supported by funding from ERC-2011-294576 Advanced grant, Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council, Local hospital funds, Berta Kamprad Foundation, Gunnar Nilsson. The MMHS study was supported by NIH grants CA97396, CA128931, CA116201, CA140286 and CA177150. MSKCC is supported by grants from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative. The work of MTLGEBCS was supported by the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the "CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer" program – grant # CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade – grant # PSR-SIIRI-701. The NBHS was supported by NIH grant R01CA100374. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The Northern California Breast Cancer Family Registry (NC-BCFR) and Ontario Familial Breast Cancer Registry (OFBCR) were supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (USA). The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. The Carolina Breast Cancer Study was funded by Komen Foundation, the National Cancer Institute (P50 CA058223, U54 CA156733, U01 CA179715), and the North Carolina University Cancer Research Fund. The NHS was supported by NIH grants P01 CA87969, UM1 CA186107, and U19 CA148065. The NHS2 was supported by NIH grants UM1 CA176726 and U19 CA148065. The ORIGO study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society (RUL 1997-1505) and the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI-NL CP16). The PBCS was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. Genotyping for PLCO was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, NCI, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics. The PLCO is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and supported by contracts from the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. The POSH study is funded by Cancer Research UK (grants C1275/A11699, C1275/C22524, C1275/A19187, C1275/A15956 and Breast Cancer Campaign 2010PR62, 2013PR044. PROCAS is funded from NIHR grant PGfAR 0707-10031. The RBCS was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society (DDHK 2004-3124, DDHK 2009-4318). SEARCH is funded by Cancer Research UK [C490/A10124, C490/A16561] and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for PDPP from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve. The Sister Study (SISTER) is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01-ES044005 and Z01-ES049033). The Two Sister Study (2SISTER) was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01-ES044005 and Z01-ES102245), and, also by a grant from Susan G. Komen for the Cure, grant FAS0703856. SKKDKFZS is supported by the DKFZ. The SMC is funded by the Swedish Cancer Foundation and the Swedish Research Council [grant 2017-00644 for the Swedish Infrastructure for Medical Population-based Life-course Environmental Research (SIMPLER)]. The SZBCS is financially supported under the program of Minister of Science and Higher Education "Regional Initiative of Excellence" in years 2019-2022, Grant No 002/RID/2018/19. The TNBCC was supported by: a Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation. The UCIBCS component of this research was supported by the NIH [CA58860, CA92044] and the Lon V Smith Foundation [LVS39420]. The UKBGS is funded by Breast Cancer Now and the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), London. ICR acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. The UKOPS study was funded by The Eve Appeal (The Oak Foundation) and supported by the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. The USRT Study was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. CIMBA CIMBA: The CIMBA data management and data analysis were supported by Cancer Research – UK grants C12292/A20861, C12292/A11174. ACA is a Cancer Research -UK Senior Cancer Research Fellow. GCT and ABS are NHMRC Research Fellows. The PERSPECTIVE project was supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministry of Economy, Science and Innovation through Genome Québec, and The Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation. BCFR: UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government or the BCFR. BFBOCC: Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT): Research Council of Lithuania grant SEN-18/2015 and Nr. P-MIP-19-164. BIDMC: Breast Cancer Research Foundation. BMBSA: Cancer Association of South Africa (PI Elizabeth J. van Rensburg). CNIO: Spanish Ministry of Health PI16/00440 supported by FEDER funds, the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) SAF2014-57680-R and the Spanish Research Network on Rare diseases (CIBERER). COH-CCGCRN: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under grant number R25CA112486, and RC4CA153828 (PI: J. Weitzel) from the National Cancer Institute and the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. CONSIT TEAM: Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2014 no.15547) to P. Radice. Funds from Italian citizens who allocated the 5 × 1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects '5 × 1000') to S. Manoukian. UNIROMA1: Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC; grant no. 21389) to L. Ottini. DFKZ: German Cancer Research Center. EMBRACE: Cancer Research UK Grants C1287/A10118 and C1287/A11990. D. Gareth Evans and Fiona Lalloo are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester (IS-BRC-1215-20007). The Investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Ros Eeles and Elizabeth Bancroft are supported by Cancer Research UK Grant C5047/A8385. Ros Eeles is also supported by NIHR support to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. FCCC: NIH/NCI grant P30-CA006927. The University of Kansas Cancer Center (P30 CA168524) and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. A.K.G. was funded by R0 1CA140323, R01 CA214545, and by the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences Professorship. Ana Vega is supported by the Spanish Health Research Foundation, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), partially supported by FEDER funds through Research Activity Intensification Program (contract grant numbers: INT15/00070, INT16/00154, INT17/00133), and through Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enferemdades Raras CIBERER (ACCI 2016: ER17P1AC7112/2018); Autonomous Government of Galicia (Consolidation and structuring program: IN607B), and by the Fundación Mutua Madrileña (call 2018). GC-HBOC: German Cancer Aid (grant no 110837, Rita K. Schmutzler) and the European Regional Development Fund and Free State of Saxony, Germany (LIFE - Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, project numbers 713-241202, 713-241202, 14505/2470, 14575/2470). GEMO: Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer; the Association "Le cancer du sein, parlons-en!" Award, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the "CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer" program, the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa) (grants AOR 01 082, 2013-1-BCB-01-ICH-1 and SHS-E-SP 18-015) and the Fondation ARC pour la recherche sur le cancer (grant PJA 20151203365). GEORGETOWN: the Survey, Recruitment and Biospecimen Shared Resource at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI grant P30-CA051008) and the Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research. HCSC: Spanish Ministry of Health PI15/00059, PI16/01292, and CB-161200301 CIBERONC from ISCIII (Spain), partially supported by European Regional Development FEDER funds. HEBCS: Helsinki University Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (266528), the Finnish Cancer Society and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. HEBON: the Dutch Cancer Society grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756, the Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research grant NWO 91109024, the Pink Ribbon grants 110005 and 2014-187.WO76, the BBMRI grant NWO 184.021.007/CP46 and the Transcan grant JTC 2012 Cancer 12-054. HUNBOCS: Hungarian Research Grants KTIA-OTKA CK-80745 and NKFI_OTKA K-112228. HVH (University Hospital Vall d'Hebron) This work was supported by Spanish Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) funding, an initiative of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Innovation partially supported by European Regional Development FEDER Funds: FIS PI12/02585 and PI15/00355. ICO: The authors would like to particularly acknowledge the support of the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (organismo adscrito al Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad) and "Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), una manera de hacer Europa" (PI10/01422, PI13/00285, PIE13/00022, PI15/00854, PI16/00563, P18/01029, and CIBERONC) and the Institut Català de la Salut and Autonomous Government of Catalonia (2009SGR290, 2014SGR338, 2017SGR449, and PERIS Project MedPerCan), and CERCA program. IHCC: PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. ILUH: Icelandic Association "Walking for Breast Cancer Research" and by the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. INHERIT: Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the "CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer" program – grant # CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade – grant # PSR-SIIRI-701. IOVHBOCS: Ministero della Salute and "5 × 1000" Istituto Oncologico Veneto grant. IPOBCS: Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. kConFab: The National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. MAYO: NIH grants CA116167, CA192393 and CA176785, an NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), and a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. MCGILL: Jewish General Hospital Weekend to End Breast Cancer, Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade. Marc Tischkowitz is supported by the funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program (2007Y2013)/European Research Council (Grant No. 310018). MSKCC: the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative, the Andrew Sabin Research Fund and a Cancer Center Support Grant/Core Grant (P30 CA008748). NCI: the Intramural Research Program of the US National Cancer Institute, NIH, and by support services contracts NO2-CP-11019-50, N02-CP-21013-63 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Inc, Rockville, MD. NNPIO: the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 17-54-12007, 17-00-00171 and 18-515-45012). NRG Oncology: U10 CA180868, NRG SDMC grant U10 CA180822, NRG Administrative Office and the NRG Tissue Bank (CA 27469), the NRG Statistical and Data Center (CA 37517) and the Intramural Research Program, NCI. OSUCCG: was funded by the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. PBCS: Italian Association of Cancer Research (AIRC) [IG 2013 N.14477] and Tuscany Institute for Tumors (ITT) grant 2014-2015-2016. SMC: the Israeli Cancer Association. SWE-BRCA: the Swedish Cancer Society. UCHICAGO: NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA125183), R01 CA142996, 1U01CA161032 and by the Ralph and Marion Falk Medical Research Trust, the Entertainment Industry Fund National Women's Cancer Research Alliance and the Breast Cancer research Foundation. UCSF: UCSF Cancer Risk Program and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. UKFOCR: Cancer Researc h UK. UPENN: National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01-CA102776 and R01-CA083855; Breast Cancer Research Foundation; Susan G. Komen Foundation for the cure, Basser Research Center for BRCA. UPITT/MWH: Hackers for Hope Pittsburgh. VFCTG: Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation. WCP: Dr Karlan is funded by the American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124. ; Peer Reviewed

Cultural conceptualization of keqi in intercultural communication: A case study of self and addressee references in Mandarin Chinese -- Visual Metaphors in News Cartoons on Targeted Poverty Alleviation -- Language, environment, and cultural conceptualization: serial verbs and plausible events in Tariana from north-west Amazonia -- Pirahã and the language faculty: cultural conceptualizations in the discourses of linguistics -- Narrative Knowledging through 'Words' of Aboriginal Languages: a Cultural Linguistics Approach -- A Cultural Linguistic analysis of eulogistic idioms for soldiers and scholars in Taiwan -- Grief and sadness in Polish and English – cultural cognitive linguistic profiles -- Falling into Sevdah - Cultural Conceptualizations in Bosnian Folk Songs -- Land as kin: Yanyuwa conceptualizations of country -- Maintenance of Identity in an Adopted Language: Development and Use of Aboriginal English -- Cultural Conceptualizations of Power in Serbian and English -- To shave or not to shave? Cultural conceptualizations of hair in Hungarian language and culture. Natural Semantic Metalanguage versus Polish Ethnolinguistics School. A comparative approach to Anna Wierzbicka's and Jerzy Bartmiński's view on linguistic meaning -- Decoding cultural conceptualizations of 'han/hèn' and 'jeong/qíng' in Korean and Chinese -- Swahili pragmatic schemas as reflection of cultural conceptualizations and social values. The Cultural Linguistics perspective on the conceptualization of clothes in English and Italian. Verbal irony: Cultural conceptualizations and their figurative expression -- Japanese English Wordplay Neologisms for Fans' Economic and Emotional Offerings in Live Streamed Broadcasting.Identity Construction in American Presidential Speeches -- CulturalConceptualizationsofAnimalsinAncientPersianLiteratureandMyths -- Learnability of Formulaic Expressions: A Developmental Pragmatic Perspective -- Cultural Conceptualizations of PRIDE in Persian -- Urban Hijazi Kafhala: Saudi Cultural Pragmatic Schema -- ) The conceptualization and Use of Oath in Persian Films and TV Dramas: A Cultural Linguistic Perspective -- Online Input-Providing and Output-Pushing Feedback: Impact on EFL Learners' Acquisition of Politeness Markers -- Metapragmatics of maze (taste) in Persian -- Cultural conceptualizations of filiality in Singapore, Malaysian and Hong Kong Englishes -- Effat and Qeyrat: the study of two emotion schemas from the perspective of Cultural Linguistics -- Investigating Shape-based Categorization and Metaphorical Extensions of Chinese Classifier—A Cultural Linguistic Perspective -- Emotions in crime news -- Preservation of heritage cultures and languages of immigrant communities in Australia -- False Friends-words in Persian & Māzandarāni -- Pain expression: A comparative study of English and Persian -- Time in Persian: Worldview metaphors -- Dissecting the stomach of a crocodile in public: Discourses and counter discourses of contemporary Ghanaian ethos on female sexual behavior -- Language and Thinking -- On the need for an applied science of cognitive linguistics -- SHARMANDEGI - or when Natural Semantic Metalanguage and Cultural Linguistics DO come together -- Cultural Linguistics Online: Exploring the Cultural Categories of a Notorious Online Community -- Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural misunderstandings around the concept of 'hell -- Pragmatics of Cultural Linguistics: Some notes.The scope of a metaphor in historical perspective -- Cultural Linguistics: Some disciplinary and terminological considerations -- Sociocultural Norms and Learners' Cognition: Corrective Feedback on Pronunciation Errors -- Cultural Linguistics in dialogue -- Coding and Culture: Addressing Transcultural Academic Writing -- People as 'open' and 'closed' containers: breaking down cultural conceptualizations in embodied interaction -- Cultural metaphor and inter-cultural identities -- Cultural schemas and the socio-moral order -- Characteristic Cultural Linguistics In Digital Communication -- Metaphor and Culture in Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory -- Linguistic Form and Text Type -- Communicating through similes in a medical pain culture.

1. Introduction to Part I – Anita Lavorgna and Thomas J. Holt -- 2. Epistemologies of cyberspace: notes for interdisciplinary research, Anita Lavorgna -- 3. The how and why of cybercrime: the EU as a case study of the role of ideas, interests and institutions as drivers of a security-governance approach, Benjamin Farrand and Helena Carrapico -- 4. Programming the criminologist: developing cyber skills to investigate cybercrime, Ruth McAlister and Fabian Campbell-West -- 5. Profiling and predictions. Challenges in cybercrime research datafication, Bart Custers -- 6. Data-driven technologies in Justice Systems: Intersections of power, data configurations, and knowledge production, Pamela Ugwudike -- 7. Introduction to Part II, Anita Lavorgna and Thomas J. Holt -- 8. The challenges of empirically comparing cybercriminals and traditional offenders, Marleen Weulen Kranenbarg -- 9. Breaking the walls of silence: analyzing criminal investigations to improve our understanding of cybercrime – E. Rutger Leukfeldt and Edward R. Kleemans -- 10. Using digital open source and crowdsourced data in studies of deviance and crime, Rajeev V. Gundur, Mark Berry and Dean Taodang -- 11. Developing open-source databases from online sources to study online and offline phenomena, Emily Ann Greene-Colozzi, Joshua D. Freilich and Steven M. Chermak -- 12. Too much data? Opportunities and challenges of large datasets and cybercrime, Jack Hughes, Yi Ting Chua and Alice Hutchings -- 13. Use of Artificial Intelligence to support cybercrime research, Stuart E. Middleton -- 14. Honeypots for cybercrime research, Robert C. Perkins and C. Jordan Howell -- 15. Social and semantic online networks, Elena Pavan -- 16. Digital ethnography in cybercrime research: some notes from the virtual field, Nicholas Gibbs and Alexandra Hall -- 17. The meme is the method: examining the power of the image within extremist propaganda, Ashton Kingdon -- 18. Introduction to Part III, Anita Lavorgna and Thomas J. Holt -- 19. Researching cybercrime in the European Union: asking the right ethics questions, Francisco J. Castro-Toledo and Fernando Miró-Llinares -- 20. Ethical approaches to studying cybercrime: considerations, practice and experience in the United Kingdom, Brian Pickering, Silke Roth and Craig Webber -- 21. Conducting ethical research with online populations in the United States, Kacy Amory and George Burruss -- 22. Investigating the ethical boundaries for online research in Brazil, Felipe Cardoso Moreira de Oliveira -- 23. Ethics and internet-based cybercrime research in Australia, James Martin -- 24. Researching crime and deviance in Southeast Asia: challenges and ethics when using online data, Lennon Yao-Chung Chang and Souvik Mukherjee -- 25. The ethics of web crawling and web scraping in cybercrime research: navigating issues of consent, privacy and other potential harms associated with automated data collection, Russell Brewer, Bryce Westlake, Tahlia Hart and Omar Arauza -- 26. Does the institution have a plan for that? Researcher safety and the ethics of institutional responsibility, Ashley A. Mattheis and Ashton Kingdon -- 27 Engaging with incels: reflexivity, identity and the female cybercrime ethnographic researcher, Lisa Sugiura -- 28. Personal reflections on researching fraud: challenges surrounding the ethics of "doing", Cassandra Cross -- 29. At the intersection of digital research and sexual violence: insights on gaining informed consent from vulnerable participants, Tully O'Neil -- 30. Concluding thoughts, Anita Lavorgna and Thomas J. Holt.

Local governments : a global presence / Richard Kerley, Joyce Liddle, Pam Dunning -- Local electoral systems / Michael Cole -- Local political leadership : the voters or councillors : who chooses who governs? / Colin Copus -- Traditional leaders and local government in Pacific Island countries / Graham Hassall and Paul Mae -- The role of the councillor / Neil McGarvey and Fraser Stewart -- The relationship between politics and administration : from dichotomy to local governance arenas / Alessandro Sancino, Marco Meneguzzo, Alessandro Braga and Paolo Esposito -- Institutionalized differences in economic development perspectives : a comparison of city managers, mayors and council members in Texas / James Vanderleeuw and Melanie Smith -- The political salience of local government in a small state / Ann Marie Bissessar -- Local government in the Pacific Islands / Graham Hassall, Matthew Kensen, Sarah Mecartney, Rikiaua Takeke, Karibaiti Taoba and Feue Tipu -- Local government in Latin America : the struggle to overcome social exclusion / Andrew Nickson -- A turbulent past, a turbulent future? : reform and disruption in the local government of New Zealand / Michael Reid and Michael Macaulay -- Constitutional and legislative changes in Caribbean local government / Eris Schoburgh -- Local government service roles in the U.S.A : consistency and change / J. Edwin Benton -- Public entrepreneurship : is local government necessary to deliver economic development? / Lorraine Johnston and John Fenwick -- The wide range of local government public services / Elisabetta Mafrolla -- Public service delivery in today's Georgia / Giorgi Vashakidze -- The provision of public and personal social services in European countries : between marketization and the return of the public/municipal and third sector / Hellmut Wollmann -- Practices and challenges of citizen participation in local government : case studies of midsized cities in Russia and the United States / Sofia Prysmakova-Rivera, Elena Gladun, Thomas Bryer, Andrey Larionov, Dmitry Teplyakov, Olga Teplyakova and Natalia Nosova -- The urban governance of austerity in Europe / Adrian Bua, Jonathan Davies, Ismael Blanco, Ioannis Chorianopoulos, Mercè Cortina-Oriol, Andrés Feandeiro, Niamh Gaynor, Steven Griggs, S. David Howarth and Yuni Salazar -- Redressing the trust deficit : local governments and citizen engagement / Jonathan Carr West -- Does mode of public outreach matter? / Sheldon Gen and Erika Luger -- Improving social development in Brazil through an open budget perspective : does collaborative stakeholder engagement matter? / Ricardo Gomes and Welles Abreu -- Civic engagement in local politics in Central Europe / Oto Potluka, Judit Kalman, Ida Musialkowska and Piotr Idczak -- Australia : challenging institutional constraints / Chris Aulich -- Local government outside local boundaries : rescaling municipalities, redesigning provinces and local-level Europeanization / Koenradd De Ceuninck, Tony Valcke and Tom Verhelst -- Local government in the European Union's multilevel polity / Marius Guderjan -- Second thoughts on second-order? : towards a second-tier model of local government elections and voting / Ulrik Kjær and Kristof Steyvers -- The architecture of the local political community : France; Italy; Portugal and Spain / Jaume Magre and Esther Pano -- Local government anti-corruption initiatives in post-Soviet Georgia and Ukraine : another tale of two cities / Terry Anderson -- Enhancing VFM audit in local government : the best value initiative / Michela Arnaboldi and Irvine Lapsley -- Financing and taxing for local government / Kenneth Gibb and Linda Christie -- Adapting to the fiscal environment : local governments, revenue and taxation powers / Mark Sandford -- Financing local government in the twenty-first century : local government revenues in European member states, 2000-2014 / Gerard Turley and Stephen McNena

The impact of ownership on the cost-efficiency of U.S. hospitals / Ryan L. Mutter, Michael D. Rosko -- Measuring and decomposing productivity change : the basics / Bert M. Balk -- Competition and market concentration / Nazmi Sari -- Efficiency and productivity changes in large urban hospitals 1994-2002 : ownership, markets, and the uninsured / Gary D. Ferrier, Vivian G. Valdmanis -- Benchmarking Finnish hospitals / Miika Linna, Unto H(c)·akkinen -- Efficiency in government-funded health care services : the use of non-health sector mechanisms to encourage efficiency / Abby L. Bloom -- Evaluating health care efficiency / Rolf F(c)·are, Shawna Grosskopf, Mats Lundstr(c)·om, Pontus Roos -- Efficiency in hospital industry : summary and conclusions / Jos L.T. Blank, Vivian G. Valdmanis -- Productivity in hospital industry / Jos L.T. Blank, Vivian G. Valdmanis -- Measuring hospital services / James F. Burgess, Jr. -- Hospital consolidation and integration activity in the United States / Gloria J. Bazzoli -- Organizational structure and productive efficiency of non-profit hospitals / Ila Semenick Alam, Gerald Granderson -- Innovations and productivity : an empirical investigation in Dutch hospital industry / Jos L.T. Blank -- Preface / Jos L.T. Blank, Vivian G. Valdmanis. - Hospitals worldwide command the majority of any countries health care budget. Reasons for these higher costs include the aging of the population requiring more intensive health care treatments provided in hospitals, the relatively high costs of labor in this labor intensive industry and payment systems that may encourage inefficient behavior on the part of hospital managers and physicians. Governments are seeking to instruments to mitigate this cost rise. Liberalizing hospital markets, deregulation, changing budget systems and changing ownership are only a few examples of attempts to make hospitals more efficient. Hospital industry responds in various ways to changing market conditions and legislation. In most western hospital markets we observe hospital consolidation, acquisitions, mergers and the founding of several types of network and hospital associations. The question is whether this trend also contributes to more efficiency.In this volume a number of outstanding internationally known scholars in the field of productivity measurement and health economics provide the reader with an excellent insight in the complexity of the issue. They explain that there is no straightforward panacea or recipe for the issues addressed. It is shown that the composition of the demand for care, the economic context, environmental and geographical conditions affect the outcomes. Policymakers should therefore take these nuances into account. A policy of increasing productivity starts with knowledge and insights in the complexity of the issue. The book therefore advocates the development of a strategy of collecting relevant data and conducting academic research that meet the standard of the state of the art.The book provides two illustrative examples of such a strategy in Finland and Australia. The authors have avoided as much as possible the technical jargon and complex mathematics and statistics involved in this research area. Therefore the book is par excellence suitable for policymakers and hospital managers, as well as for graduate students of health economics and health administration. It avoids, as much as possible, technical jargon and complex mathematics and statistics. It has international in scope

At the beginning of the research, we proposed the goal of studying the modern trends in physical education at the Mongolian University of Science and Technology through analysis and comparative assessments. As a result of the study, it was observed that comprehensive education in England, sports education using technical and technological advances in Australia, sports teaching for happiness in Japan and China and skills education and physical education in Mongolia are the dominant teaching approaches. In the course of the analysis, it has been found out that there is a lack of attitude towards physical education in Mongolia, and we have determined the extent to which it has been effective through a test study.
One of the main goals of our work is to study the issue of physical development of the Mongolian youth in years past.
The article presents the results of the unprecedented physical development test of the first-year students enrolled in the Mongolian University of Science and Technology from 2008 to 2018. We used the "Test to Determine the Level of Physical Development and Fitness of the Population". Actually, this test named after the President of Mongolia Mr. Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj has been implemented at the national level.
During the test, height, weight, speed, strength, flexibility and endurance of students were studied by the movement test method. The test was evaluated according to the approved methodologyю. And as a result, we used quantitative and statistical research methods, performed reliability and statistical tests for each questionnaire and data obtained and analyzed the correlation of factors. If we look at physical development levels of all students, there were 14 percent with poor results and 44 percent with insufficient ones. The physical development of the majority of participants (58 percent) was rated below the sufficient level (17 points) that a person of that age should have. In terms of gender, 53 percent of male students and 65 percent of female students had insufficient physical development.
According to the data of a sociological questionnaire survey of students participating in the test, 58.1 percent did not exercise or play sports. It was an interesting observation that coincided with the result that 58.0 percent of the test participants had insufficient physical development. According to our research, the majority of Mongolian students and young people had a low level of physical fitness, and one of every six students had weight problems. This may indicate that the approach to teaching skills development and physical education is somewhat ineffective.
The theoretical and practical significance of the research is that the current situation regarding physical development of students and youth can be determined and the results can serve as a basis for making detailed policies and decisions for the development of physical activity and sports among young people.
Today, students and youth are the most important segment of the population that drives the economy and human development of Mongolia, so it is important to cultivate a healthy and physically fit nation relying on the fact that physical activity and sports should be available for all people.

Gabriella Beaumont-Smith


On July 4th, many Americans will take to the outdoors to celebrate the Declaration of Independence from my home nation, Great Britain. These days, most people know to lather on sunscreen when spending time outside in the summer (though dermatologists insist sun protection is necessary year‐​round). However, sun protection is not only about safety and avoiding painful sunburn but an anti‐​aging procedure. Now that you can safely tan from a bottle, SPF is ubiquitous—in skincare products, lip balms, and makeup. You can even protect yourself from harmful UV rays with special clothing and umbrellas.
While the sun care aisles in stores make it look like the variety in sunscreen and sun protection‐​related products is diverse, the truth is that the actual UV blockers in products available in the U.S. have barely evolved in the last 40 years. The reason is that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved a new active ingredient for sun care products in decades.
The FDA regulates sunscreen as an over‐​the‐​counter drug, and the agency must evaluate and approve the ingredients before the product can be marketed. To reduce the level that UVA and UVB rays can penetrate skin, active ingredients called "filters" are used. In the U.S., only some physical and chemical filters are permitted, but they tend to either leave that chalky residue or make your skin feel greasy. Many consumers have reported that sunscreens available in other countries, primarily the European Union (EU), Australia, and Japan, are much better. The EU allows 27 different active ingredients to block sunburn and skin damage, whereas the FDA has only approved 17. The number of approved ingredients matters because not all filters can seamlessly be formulated into sunscreens or other suitable products for skin application. Moreover, some of the ingredients approved in the EU and Japan but not the US are more effective and long‐​lasting. As a result, the products do not need to be applied as often, giving consumers more bang for their buck.
But, without FDA approval for new and improved active ingredients, foreign companies selling better sun protection products cannot gain access to the U.S. market, and therefore impede consumers from buying superior sun protection. These types of regulations are known as "non‐​tariff barriers (NTBs)," and are an unfortunate response to the considerable trade liberalization that has occurred in the last 75 years. It is estimated that over 75 percent of U.S. industrial imports (essentially everything but agricultural products) are affected by some type of NTB, compared to 50 percent of U.S. industrial imports that are subject to tariffs. Put differently, one‐​quarter of U.S. industrial imports are free from NTBs and one‐​half are free from tariffs. Thus, the coverage of barriers to U.S. imports remains high, costing consumers.
So, as you celebrate America's Independence Day, remember the importance of liberty because it affects everything, even the quality of your sunscreen.

None of the world's biodiversity goals from the last decade were fully met, as biodiversity losses are occurring at an unprecedented rate. Policies are not always effective; their use may have adverse effects on people and nature. Biodiversity offsets are an example of a policy that can be used to protect and restore biodiversity loss from economic development. Yet, offsets have been criticized for poor ecological outcomes, commodifying nature, and creating social inequality. To address this challenge, we need to learn from the shortcomings of biodiversity policies and governance as new goals are being drafted under the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. This thesis examines how biodiversity policies can be designed and implemented for effective and equitable outcomes for people and biodiversity. I focus on the design (Paper I) and implementation (Paper II) by examining economic instruments in conservation. I then broaden to the governance landscape by analysing the implementation of policies in national (Paper III) and international regulatory contexts (Paper IV). The 4 papers cover a diversity of cases across the globe at different governance levels. Paper I conducted a policy analysis of offsets from six countries (Australia, England, Germany, Madagascar, South Africa, and the US), through an economic framing of biodiversity trading and institutional arrangements. Paper II reviewed market instruments for conservation, ecotourism and sport hunting in eastern and southern Africa, to analyse whether these instruments can be compatible with new ideas for conservation such as conviviality. Paper III investigated the politics around Mekong hydropower development, through multi-stakeholder interviews and a discourse analysis of the social and environmental impacts of a dam in Laos. Paper IV examined the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and how review mechanisms of human rights law can improve compliance. This thesis highlights that a human rights-based approach provides important conceptual and political support for biodiversity governance. It contributes to the science-policy interface with these insights. First, the institutional design and implementation are as important for the outcomes as the type of policy. In economic policies such as offsets, a high involvement of the market does not influence the level of commensurability, but increases the degree of commodification. Second, the contextual factors (politics and power relations) of policies should be acknowledged to address inequality. An institutional design and implementation that ensures meaningful participation and a balance of power is crucial for effective and equitable outcomes. Review mechanisms used in human rights help to navigate power inequities, by ensuring that all rights-holders have a substantial voice. Third, offsets can be designed with different institutional arrangements (state, market, voluntary). If a market approach is chosen with biodiversity trading, effective monitoring and regulation is needed to safeguard biodiversity. Lastly, to foster compliance with policies, management and enforcement approaches can be used in a complementary manner through positive incentives, sunshine methods, and negative incentives. Overall, this thesis provides insights of how to meet our global goals for protecting and restoring biodiversity, while safeguarding people and nature.

Purpose
The purpose of this study is to emphasize on women empowerment that leads to a new paradigm shift of Saudi woman into labor force. This study also outlines how Saudi Government has formulated several policies and reforms to empower women in the workplace, especially gender equality. Also, this study will discourse a clear idea on numerous measures initiated by Saudi Government on how to empower Saudi women in the labor force and what would be the impact of women empowerment and gender equality on Saudi economy.


Design/methodology/approach
The research methodology has undertaken the Saudi feminization approach that emphasizes solely on uplifting women empowerment within the context of social changes that are arising in Saudi Arabia. The data analyzed comes from the primary data statistics report that depicts 10 years of data from general authority for statistics (GaStat) for the period ranging from 2010–2016 (Q2) and 2016 –2020 along with global gender gap index (GGGI) for the period of 2006, 2017 and 2020. Additionally, data was considered from the latest articles, Saudi news, statistics revealed by "Pew Research Center," international labor organization (ILO, 2020), which depicts the involvement of Saudi women at international level.


Findings
The data were analyzed from GaStat for the period ranging from 2010–2016 (Q2) and 2016–2020 along with GGGI for the period of 2006, 2017 and 2020 that has shown drastic changes in inspiring Saudi women empowerment pertaining to the labor market, the educational field, economic participation and gender equality. The most interesting point was that the total Saudi employed persons, especially males are double of females' ratio. It depicts that until Q3 and Q4, 2018 females were still facing unemployment phase and their economic participation was less in comparison with male Saudis. However, there found to have a new paradigm shift; rising of Saudi women in various sectors in the year 2019 where unemployment decreased to 5.7%, labor force participation at 58.8%.


Social implications
Saudi Arabia is stringing very hard to develop its economy over the next decade and beyond and have strong-minded to strengthen the contribution of women to development of society and economy. Currently, Saudi women have found ample job opportunities welcoming them in various sectors. Furthermore, they can work in numerous professions and fields that were formerly limited to men. According to Leyal Khalife (2019, July 1) and the statistics released by "Pew Research Center," Saudi Arabia has experienced the highest growth rate – among G20 countries –of women joining the workforce in the past 20 years. The data revealed that women accounted for 23% of Saudi's workforce in 2018 – a rise of 7% increase since 2018. Finally, today Saudi Arabia has shown the highest growth rate among G20 states, including Australia, Germany, Brazil and others.


Originality/value
The latest reforms emphasizes on minimizing the gender gap and inspire young girls to build a career path. This procedure specifies that Saudi female should formulate their tactics and approaches to encounter gender disparity and attain social fairness and equality not specific to education only but consider all the matters of life pertaining to context of male-dominating societies.

The State of Timor Leste is an independent and sovereign country in the 21st (twenty-first) century with its official name Democratica de Timor-Leste (RTL). Timor-Leste went through a long history to be able to stand alone as an independent country. Prior to the independence of Timor-Leste, it was called East Timor, which was a former colony of the Portuguese which later merged into the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia. It is recorded in history that integration was formalized on July 17, 1976. Then East Timor officially became the 27th province of the Republic of Indonesia and became the youngest province at that time. In history, Timor-Leste was colonized by the Portuguese for 450 years, the Dutch for 3 years, and Indonesia for 24 years. Under the leadership of the United Nations through the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor.The establishment of Timor-Leste became a necessary new state on the border, especially with Indonesia. The issue of maritime boundaries between Indonesia and Timor-Leste has not yet been agreed. The method used is normative. Based on UNCLOS 1982, if maritime boundaries are included in the territory of state ownership, the principle used is the principle of equidistance. Second, there is no clear authority within the borders of Indonesia so that the current condition of Indonesia's borders, especially in terms of security, is not conducive. Third, based on Article 3 of UNCLOS, both countries have the right to the width of their territorial sea up to a limit of 12 miles from the baseline, if their territorial seas do not overlap. Negara Timor Leste merupakan negara yang merdeka dan berdaulat pada abad ke-21 (dua puluh satu) dengan nama resminya Democratica de Timor-Leste (RTL) merupakan suatu negara yang tidak terlalu besar yang terletak di Benua Australia dan timur Negara Indonesia. Timor-Leste melewati sejarah yang panjang hingga dapat berdiri sendiri sebagai suatu negara yang merdeka. Sebelum merdekanya Timor-Leste dahulunya disebut Timor-Timur yang merupakan wilayah bekas jajahan Bangsa Portugis yang kemudian bergabung dalam kesatuan Negara Republik Indonesia. Dalam sejarah tercatat bahwa integrasi telah diresmikan pada 17 Juli 1976. Selanjutnya, Timor-Timur resmi menjadi provinsi ke-27 Negara Republik Indonesia dan menjadi provinsi paling muda di saat itu. Dalam sejarah Timor-Leste d jajah oleh Bangsa Portugis selama 450 tahun, Belanda 3 tahun, dan Indonesia selama 24 tahun. Dibawah pimpinan PBB melalui lembaga.United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor.Berdirinya Timor-Leste menjadi negara baru diperlukan batas wilayah khususnya dengan Indonesia. Pemasalahan batas maritim antara Indonesia dan Timor-Leste sampai saat ini belum ada kesepakatan. Adapun metode yang digunakan adalah normatif. Berdasarkan UNCLOS 1982 apabila batas maritim masuk ke dalam wilayah kedaulatan negara, maka prinsip yang dipergunakan adalah prinsip sama jarak (equidistance). Kedua, tidak adanya wewenang yang jelas dalam pengelolaan perbatasan Indonesia sehingga kondisi perbatasan Indonesia saat ini terutama dari sisi stabilitas keamanan belum kondusif. Ketiga, berdasarkan Pasal 3 UNCLOS kedua negara mempunyai hak atas lebar laut teritorialnya sampai batas 12 mil diukur dari garis pangkal, apabila tidak saling tumpang tindih wilayah laut teritorialnya.

The COVID-19-crisis has exposed the shortcomings of formal requirements for legal acts which involve the physical presence of others. This is in particular true with regard to last wills which require the physical presence of a notary and/or witnesses, who have to authenticate and/or attest to the last will of the testator. In such cases, the physical presence requirement imposes an outright obstruction to passing a last will in times of COVID-19. Western countries have responded differently to COVID-19. In the civil-law jurisdictions where only notarial wills are offered, such as the Netherlands, the government has introduced interim measures allowing the testator (and witnesses, if required) to appear before the notary by audio-video technology, leading to authorized remote notarization and remote witnessing. The same has been done in common law jurisdictions where only witnessed wills are offered, including Australia, New Zealand and some states in the United States with regard to witnessing. The first part of this paper researches the different types of last wills and seeks to explain why countries have responded differently in this respect to COVID-19. The second part discusses the different solutions available and argues that solutions introducing audio-video technology as an alternative for physical presence are more favourable than other solutions. Remote authentication and remote witnessing leaves intact the existing will-types of the particular jurisdiction as they are, modernizing the presence requirement of the notary and/or the witnesses, while at the same time preserving legal certainty by anchoring these possibilities in legislation. Introducing audio-video technology in making last wills seems a logical step forward in the 21st century. Building on the two previous parts, the third part investigates a more fundamental issue relating to the physical presence requirement for notarial wills from a European Union free movement of services perspective. Discussing ECJ case law and two applicable directives, it shows that Member States are allowed to restrict the freedom of establishment of notaries and freedom to provide notarial services. These restrictions often lead to a domestic monopoly of notaries, where notaries appointed in the Member State offer exclusively notarial services under the legislation of that Member State, with the requirement that these notaries can only be established in and only offer their services that Member State. Combined with the physical presence requirement, these restrictions to the freedom of establishment and the freedom of services effectively force a testator desiring to make its last will before a notary to travel to the Member State of that notary. Even without COVID-19, it is the question whether this physical presence requirement unnecessarily restricts the freedom of services under art. 56 TFEU, as it deprives the notary and the testator of a rapid and direct technique of passing notarial wills. The possibility of remote authentication under interim legislation raises the question whether the physical presence requirement is objectively justified and proportionate to restrict the freedom of services.

This report was composed as part of Stronger Combined – an international R&I project funded by Interreg to explore the role of combined mobility, primarily within rural regions and areas. As such, this report examines the academic literature on Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) to investigate the geographical and conceptual areas that are covered by existing MaaS research and those which have been overlooked, aiming to deliver insights that can 1) spur developments in rural areas; and 2) inform future R&I programming within the broader MaaS field. Hence in addition to the above aims, this report also identifies gaps and shortcomings in academic scholarship, making recommendations for future research. The main findings of this report are summarized as follows: - MaaS is a concept forming in real-time. There is still much debate about the 'true meaning' of MaaS and the steps necessary to fully realize it. - MaaS research is overwhelmingly focused on urban places and populations. Rural and suburban areas are severely underrepresented in existing peer-reviewed research. MaaS for special populations and purposes like riders with disabilities or tourists is also underrepresented. - Authors of MaaS scholarship come from institutions in multiple countries, but 80% of articles come from seven countries: Sweden, Australia, UK, Netherlands, Switzerland, and Finland. These countries also tend to be the focus of MaaS research, although a sizeable number of articles are context-free (e.g. theoretical or conceptual). - Existing experimental and pilot-based research shows that access to MaaS has a measurable influence on individuals' use of different travel modes, including a decline in personal vehicle use. However, multiple studies cast doubt on the ability of MaaS to displace personal vehicles completely. - The individuals most likely to adopt MaaS are mode agnostic – they already use multiple transportation modes for daily travel and are not strongly committed to any single mode. - Stated-preference surveys reveal that 10-15 percent of surveyed individuals are enthusiastic about adopting MaaS while another 30-40 percent are at least open-minded to the concept. The remainder are unlikely to adopt MaaS as currently conceived, for a variety of reasons. - Subscription-based MaaS with multiple bundled transportation services faces many obstacles including the complexity of service agreements and low stated-preferences for mobility bundles (albeit with exceptions). Several papers recommend that MaaS initiatives advance incrementally by including a small number of service providers and/or pay-as-you-go rather than subscription payment. - The governance of MaaS (i.e., the approach that different government entities take to making MaaS work) is critical. Different cities and public transit systems have approached MaaS governance in different ways. While there is no apparent "one-size-fits-all" approach, there is some consensus in the governance literature that enhanced data sharing, standardization, and participatory visioning processes have been and will continue to be important to the success of MaaS in the coming years. - The COVID-19 pandemic presents challenges to MaaS as conventionally envisioned, but some experts see opportunities for MaaS with expanded service offerings or as a tool for transportation resilience.