Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.
Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent. ; Peer reviewed
In: Fazey , I , Schäpke , N , Caniglia , G , Hodgson , A , Kendrick , I , Lyon , C , Page , G , Patterson , J , Riedy , C , Strasser , T , Verveen , S , Adams , D , Goldstein , B , Klaes , M , Leicester , G , Linyard , A , McCurdy , A , Ryan , P , Sharpe , B , Silvestri , G , Abdurrahim , A Y , Abson , D , Adetunji , O S , Aldunce , P , Alvarez-Pereira , C , Amparo , J M , Amundsen , H , Anderson , L , Andersson , L , Asquith , M , Augenstein , K , Barrie , J , Bent , D , Bentz , J , Bergsten , A , Berzonsky , C , Bina , O , Blackstock , K , Boehnert , J , Bradbury , H , Brand , C , Böhme (born Sangmeister) , J , Bøjer , M M , Carmen , E , Charli-Joseph , L , Choudhury , S , Chunhachoti-ananta , S , Cockburn , J , Colvin , J , Connon , I L C , Cornforth , R , Cox , R S , Cradock-Henry , N , Cramer , L , Cremaschi , A , Dannevig , H , Day , C T , de Lima Hutchison , C , de Vrieze , A , Desai , V , Dolley , J , Duckett , D , Durrant , R A , Egermann , M , Elsner (Adams) , E , Fremantle , C , Fullwood-Thomas , J , Galafassi , D , Gobby , J , Golland , A , González-Padrón , S K , Gram-Hanssen , I , Grandin , J , Grenni , S , Lauren Gunnell , J , Gusmao , F , Hamann , M , Harding , B , Harper , G , Hesselgren , M , Hestad , D , Heykoop , C A , Holmén , J , Holstead , K , Hoolohan , C , Horcea-Milcu , A I , Horlings , L G , Howden , S M , Howell , R A , Huque , S I , Inturias Canedo , M L , Iro , C Y , Ives , C D , John , B , Joshi , R , Juarez-Bourke , S , Juma , D W , Karlsen , B C , Kliem , L , Kläy , A , Kuenkel , P , Kunze , I , Lam , D P M , Lang , D J , Larkin , A , Light , A , Luederitz , C , Luthe , T , Maguire , C , Mahecha-Groot , A M , Malcolm , J , Marshall , F , Maru , Y , McLachlan , C , Mmbando , P , Mohapatra , S , Moore , M L , Moriggi , A , Morley-Fletcher , M , Moser , S , Mueller , K M , Mukute , M , Mühlemeier , S , Naess , L O , Nieto-Romero , M , Novo , P , ÓBrien , K , O'Connell , D A , O'Donnell , K , Olsson , P , Pearson , K R , Pereira , L , Petridis , P , Peukert , D , Phear , N , Pisters , S R , Polsky , M , Pound , D , Preiser , R , Rahman , M S , Reed , M S , Revell , P , Rodriguez , I , Rogers , B C , Rohr , J , Nordbø Rosenberg , M , Ross , H , Russell , S , Ryan , M , Saha , P , Schleicher , K , Schneider , F , Scoville-Simonds , M , Searle , B , Sebhatu , S P , Sesana , E , Silverman , H , Singh , C , Sterling , E , Stewart , S J , Tàbara , J D , Taylor , D , Thornton , P , Tribaldos , T M , Tschakert , P , Uribe-Calvo , N , Waddell , S , Waddock , S , van der Merwe , L , van Mierlo , B , van Zwanenberg , P , Velarde , S J , Washbourne , C L , Waylen , K , Weiser , A , Wight , I , Williams , S , Woods , M , Wolstenholme , R , Wright , N , Wunder , S , Wyllie , A & Young , H R 2020 , ' Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth : Visions of future systems and how to get there ' , Energy Research and Social Science , vol. 70 , 101724 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724
Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.
Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.
Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.
United States National Science Foundation (NSF) ; Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) of the United Kingdom ; Max-Planck Society ; State of Niedersachsen/Germany ; Australian Research Council ; Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research ; EGO consortium ; Council of Scientific and Industrial Research of India ; Department of Science and Technology, India ; Science & Engineering Research Board (SERB), India ; Ministry of Human Resource Development, India ; Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad ; Conselleria d'Economia i Competitivitat and Conselleria d'Educacio Cultura i Universitats of the Govern de les Illes Balears ; National Science Centre of Poland ; European Commission ; Royal Society ; Scottish Funding Council ; Scottish Universities Physics Alliance ; Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA) ; Lyon Institute of Origins (LIO) ; National Research Foundation of Korea ; Industry Canada ; Province of Ontario through Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation ; National Science and Engineering Research Council Canada ; Canadian Institute for Advanced Research ; Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation ; Russian Foundation for Basic Research ; Leverhulme Trust ; Research Corporation ; Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan ; Kavli Foundation ; Australian Government ; National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy ; Government of Western Australia ; United States Department of Energy ; United States National Science Foundation ; Ministry of Science and Education of Spain ; Science and Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom ; Higher Education Funding Council for England ; National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ; Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago ; Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics at the Ohio State University ; Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy at Texas AM University ; Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) ; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) ; Ministerio da Ciencia, Tecnologia e Inovacao ; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft ; Collaborating Institutions in the Dark Energy Survey ; National Science Foundation ; MINECO ; Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa ; European Research Council under European Union's Seventh Framework Programme ; ERC ; NASA (United States) ; DOE (United States) ; IN2P3/CNRS (France) ; CEA/Irfu (France) ; ASI (Italy) ; INFN (Italy) ; MEXT (Japan) ; KEK (Japan) ; JAXA (Japan) ; Wallenberg Foundation ; Swedish Research Council ; National Space Board (Sweden) ; NASA in the United States ; DRL in Germany ; INAF for the project Gravitational Wave Astronomy with the first detections of adLIGO and adVIRGO experiments ; ESA (Denmark) ; ESA (France) ; ESA (Germany) ; ESA (Italy) ; ESA (Switzerland) ; ESA (Spain) ; German INTEGRAL through DLR grant ; US under NASA Grant ; National Science Foundation PIRE program grant ; Hubble Fellowship ; KAKENHI of MEXT Japan ; JSPS ; Optical and Near-Infrared Astronomy Inter-University Cooperation Program - MEXT ; UK Science and Technology Facilities Council ; ERC Advanced Investigator Grant ; Lomonosov Moscow State University Development programm ; Moscow Union OPTICA ; Russian Science Foundation ; National Research Foundation of South Africa ; Australian Government Department of Industry and Science and Department of Education (National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy: NCRIS) ; NVIDIA at Harvard University ; University of Hawaii ; National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Planetary Defense Office ; Queen's University Belfast ; National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Planetary Science Division of the NASA Science Mission Directorate ; European Research Council under European Union's Seventh Framework Programme/ERC ; STFC grants ; European Union FP7 programme through ERC ; STFC through an Ernest Rutherford Fellowship ; FONDECYT ; Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO) ; NASA in the US ; UK Space Agency in the UK ; Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI) in Italy ; Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia (MinCyT) ; Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnologicas (CONICET) from Argentina ; USA NSF PHYS ; NSF ; ICREA ; Science and Technology Facilities Council ; UK Space Agency ; National Science Foundation: AST-1138766 ; National Science Foundation: AST-1238877 ; MINECO: AYA2012-39559 ; MINECO: ESP2013-48274 ; MINECO: FPA2013-47986 ; Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa: SEV-2012-0234 ; ERC: 240672 ; ERC: 291329 ; ERC: 306478 ; German INTEGRAL through DLR grant: 50 OG 1101 ; US under NASA Grant: NNX15AU74G ; National Science Foundation PIRE program grant: 1545949 ; Hubble Fellowship: HST-HF-51325.01 ; KAKENHI of MEXT Japan: 24103003 ; KAKENHI of MEXT Japan: 15H00774 ; KAKENHI of MEXT Japan: 15H00788 ; JSPS: 15H02069 ; JSPS: 15H02075 ; ERC Advanced Investigator Grant: 267697 ; Russian Science Foundation: 16-12-00085 ; Russian Science Foundation: RFBR15-02-07875 ; National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Planetary Defense Office: NNX14AM74G ; National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Planetary Science Division of the NASA Science Mission Directorate: NNX08AR22G ; European Research Council under European Union's Seventh Framework Programme/ERC: 291222 ; STFC grants: ST/I001123/1 ; STFC grants: ST/L000709/1 ; European Union FP7 programme through ERC: 320360 ; FONDECYT: 3140326 ; Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO): CE110001020 ; USA NSF PHYS: 1156600 ; NSF: 1242090 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: Gravitational Waves ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/L000946/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/K005014/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/N000668/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/M000966/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/I006269/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/L000709/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/J00166X/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/K000845/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/K00090X/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/N000633/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/H001972/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/L000733/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/N000757/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/M001334/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/J000019/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/M003035/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/I001123/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/N00003X/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/I006269/1 Gravitational Waves ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/N000072/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/L003465/1 ; UK Space Agency: ST/P002196/1 ; This Supplement provides supporting material for Abbott et al. (2016a). We briefly summarize past electromagnetic (EM) follow-up efforts as well as the organization and policy of the current EM follow-up program. We compare the four probability sky maps produced for the gravitational-wave transient GW150914, and provide additional details of the EM follow-up observations that were performed in the different bands.
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.