Suchergebnisse

Summary. -- 1. Introduction. -- 1.1 Origins of this study. -- 1.2 Scope and motivation of this report. -- 1.3 Solar geoengineering is not a substitute for mitigations. -- 1.4 The study process. -- 1.5 The report roadmap. -- 2. Assessment of the current solar geoengineering research and research governance landscape. -- 2.1 Overview of proposed solar geoengineering methods. -- 2.2 Natural science and technology dimensions. -- 2.3 Social dimensions. -- 2.4 Synthesis of research assessment. -- 2.5 Current mechanisms for research governance. -- 3. The decision space: context and key considerations for solar geoengineering research and research governance. -- 3.1 Enabling future decision makers. -- 3.2 Societal context for solar geoengineering research. -- 3.3 Intersecting dimensions of research, society, and research governance. -- 3.4 Principles for solar geoengineering research and research governance. -- 4. A solar geoengineering research program: goals and approach. -- 4.1 Introduction. -- 4.2 Goals and attributes of a solar geoengineering research program. -- 4.3 Capacity needed to advance solar geoengineering research and research governance. -- 4.4 Federal agency participation and coordination. -- Roles for philanthropic support. -- 5. Solar geoengineering research governance. -- 5.1 Introduction. -- 5.2 National/domestic research governance. -- 5.3 International research governance. -- 6. An integrated agenda for solar geoengineering research. -- 6.1 High-level framing for the research agenda. -- 6.2 The research agenda topics. -- 6.3 outdoor solar geoengineering experimentation. -- 6.4 Fudning considerations for solar geoengineering research. -- 6.5 Concluding thoughts. -- References. -- Appendices.

Much is known about patient attitudes to ethical and legal questions in the context of biobanking, particularly regarding privacy protection and consent. However, little is known about the attitudes of medical researchers who use biobanks for research to these issues. Four focus groups with medical researchers in the UK were conducted in 2010–2011. The study highlights a range of issues associated with the research oversight and consent process (including obtaining ethical approval to use biobank samples and particular concerns for international studies), the benefits and limitations of broad consent and the possibilities of revoking consent. Many of these issues originate in the relatively static consent processes that currently govern the biobanking process. However, it is now possible to develop reliable, dynamic processes using information technology that can resolve many of these ethical and legal concerns. The 'dynamic consent' approach therefore offers the opportunity to fundamentally transform the process of medical research in a manner that addresses the concerns of both patients and medical researchers.

The governance of research, innovation and higher education systems have been subject to profound changes in the past decades. It has become a complex territory where the boundaries between levels are blurred and where power and authority between different actors in the system are in flux (Middlehurst, 2013, p. 276). Due to changes in the steering role of government in general, several policy arenas have opened up for new actor constellations.

There are many challenges to 'shared governance' at institutions of higher learning, including the fact that there is no consensus as to exactly what constitutes effective and appropriate shared governance. The document cited most often in regards to shared governance is the 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, jointly formulated by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Council on Education (ACE), and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB).[i] The document lays out a set of broad principles, without giving specific instructions as to how to implement them. Two recent articles from the Chronicle of Higher Education illustrate the diversity of opinion on the state of affairs with regards to shared governance. In his 2009 article entitled, "Exactly What Is 'Shared Governance'?" Gary Olson, then provost at Idaho State University, offers a view of shared governance where input from all groups is balanced. He makes the statement that "[s]hared governance is much more complex; it is a delicate balance between faculty and staff participation in planning and decision-making processes, on the one hand, and administrative accountability on the other."[ii]In contrast is a 2011 article by faculty member John Lachs entitled, Shared Governance Is A Myth. Lachs goes so far as to state, "….that faculty influence on the operation of the university is an illusion, and that shared governance is a myth."[iii] Ultimately, shared governance is not guaranteed, but it is generally considered to be a goal worth striving to achieve. Within our own faculty ranks, there are greatly divergent opinions regarding the importance of shared governance. Some choose not to be engaged in the decision making processes, while others hold that shared governance is good and necessary for the vitality of the institution.

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

Forced migration is not new to DRC but its extent and its consequences are still shocking. Good governance and research must play a stronger role if life is to improve for the citizens of DRC. Adapted from the source document.

"Die Corporate-Governance-Forschung hat sich lange Zeit vor allem auf die Veränderungen in den kontinentaleuropäischen 'Insidersystemen' konzentriert. Nach den dramatischen Unternehmensskandalen in den USA und im Zuge der steigenden Anforderungen an ein 'nachhaltiges Wirtschaften' werden in den letzten Jahren jedoch auch die Veränderungen in den angelsächsischen 'Outsidersystemen' stärker thematisiert. Damit wird die Prinzipal-Agenten-Theorie als die bislang dominierende Theorie der Corporate Governance einer grundlegenden Kritik unterzogen. Es verstärkt sich der Ruf nach neuen theoretischen Modellen, die der komplexen Realität dynamischer Corporate-Governance-Systeme besser entsprechen, als das klassische Paradigma. Die kritische Reflexion der Principal-Agent-Annahmen hat in den angelsächsischen Ländern in den letzten Jahren zu einem Aufschwung von Ansätzen und Studien geführt, die gegenüber der traditionellen Forschung breitere Sichtweisen auf die Corporate Governance einnehmen und neue Fragen im Hinblick auf die Gestaltung der Systeme aufwerfen. Die Ergebnisse dieser Forschung werden in Deutschland noch wenig diskutiert. Sie können aber wichtige Impulse für die Diskussion zur Reform der Unternehmensmitbestimmung und Weiterentwicklung der Aufsichtsratsarbeit bieten. Ziel des Literaturberichts ist es, die neueren Ansätze und Studien in Abgrenzung zur Principal-Agent-Theorie darzustellen und damit Ansatzpunkte für eine ressourcen- und prozessbezogene Veränderungsperspektive des deutschen Corporate-Governance-Systems zu entwickeln." (Autorenreferat)

This paper explores recent public debates around research assessment and its future as part of a dynamic landscape of governance discourses and practices, and organizational, professional and disciplinary cultures. Drawing reflectively on data from RAE 2001, RAE 2008 and REF 2014 (reported elsewhere), the paper highlights how recent debates around research assessment echo longer-term changes in research governance. The following changes, and several critiques of their implications, are discussed: shifts in the principles for governing research and the rise of multi-purpose assessment; the spread of performancebased funding and external accountability for research; the use of metrics and indicators in research assessment; the boundary work taking place in defining and classifying units or fields for assessment; the emphasis on research impact as a component of research value; organizational recalibration across the sector; and the specialization of blended professional practice. These changes are underpinned by persistent tensions around accountability; evaluation; measurement; demarcation; legitimation; agency; and identity in research. Overall, such trends and the discursive shifts that made them possible have challenged established principles of funding and governance and have pushed assessment technologies into a pivot position in the political dynamics of renegotiating the relationships between universities and the state.

Results of the research "Quality of communication between citizens and governance using the Internet" are analysedin detail and some comparisons are made on the bases of similar surveys conducted in other countries on a topic ofelectronic governance. Different information evaluation criteria were used in survey describing the communicationbetween citizens and every government institution's group (ministries, local authorities). Those criteria were set inaccordance with international and Lithuanian legal acts. Internet websites of Lithuanian governance institutions,communication between citizens and governance via e-mail was analysed in article too.