Suchergebnisse

The current, widely established 3R framework for the ethical use of animals in research consists of three guiding principles, that is, Replacement, Reduction and Refinement, all aiming to safeguard the overarching ethical principle of animal welfare. However, animal welfare alone does not suffice to make animal research ethical if the research does not have sufficient scientific value. The scientific value of animal studies strongly decreases if they are not sufficiently robust, if their questions have already been sufficiently addressed or if the results are selectively reported. Against this background, we argue that three guiding principles are missing, that is, Robustness, Registration and Reporting, all of which aim to safeguard and increase the scientific value of animal research. To establish a new 6R framework, we need a multistakeholder discourse to conceptualise the specific requirements of robustness, registration and reporting and to clarify responsibilities, competencies and legislation for auditing 6R compliance.

Due to the Corona pandemic, it was necessary to cancel the conference "Positionality Reloaded. Dimensions of Reflexivity in the Relationship of Science and Society" at short notice. At the time, in May 2020, it was quite uncertain how far-reaching the consequences of the pandemic would be. This also affected the panel discussion that we had planned in order to collect practical and application-oriented perspectives on transdisciplinarity in academics. As restrictions of traveling and gatherings on social events across the globe intensified, digital conferences gradually developed into an effective format for academic exchange. In this respect, we were thrilled when we were able to save the two-hour panel discussion "Crossing Borders, Creating Together: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue on Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production" on 15 June 2020 using a live video broadcast. The main questions from the conference served as a guide: To what extent do academic publications and knowledge production rely on reflexivity and self-reflection? What consequences does this have for the self-positioning of researchers in the tense relationship between academia and society? The question of how meaningful academic activities are in society and for society correlates directly with the question of the relevance of transdisciplinary research, that is occasionally addressed as a possibility, a demand, a request, or even a necessity. While the other contributions in this collection primarily discuss these questions from a theoretical standpoint, the panel discussion was conceived as an "empirical counterpart." The objective was to explore and discuss the opportunities and challenges that arise in transdisciplinary research practice from different functional perspectives: such as political and mobility research, medicine, or architecture and urban planning. For this purpose, we invited four participants, whom we will introduce below.

Due to the Corona pandemic, it was necessary to cancel the conference "Positionality Reloaded: Dimensions of Reflexivity in the Relationship of Science and Society" at short notice. At the time, in May 2020, it was quite uncertain how far-reaching the consequences of the pandemic would be. This also affected the panel discussion that we had planned in order to collect practical and application-oriented perspectives on transdisciplinarity in academics. As restrictions of traveling and gatherings on social events across the globe intensified, digital conferences gradually developed into an effective format for academic exchange. In this respect, we were thrilled when we were able to save the two-hour panel discussion "Crossing Borders, Creating Together: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue on Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production" on 15 June 2020 using a live video broadcast. The main questions from the conference served as a guide: To what extent do academic publications and knowledge production rely on reflexivity and self-reflection? What consequences does this have for the self-positioning of researchers in the tense relationship between academia and society? The question of how meaningful academic activities are in society and for society correlates directly with the question of the relevance of transdisciplinary research, that is occasionally addressed as a possibility, a demand, a request, or even a necessity. While the other contributions in this collection primarily discuss these questions from a theoretical standpoint, the panel discussion was conceived as an "empirical counterpart." The objective was to explore and discuss the opportunities and challenges that arise in transdisciplinary research practice from different functional perspectives: such as political and mobility research, medicine, or architecture and urban planning. For this purpose, we invited four participants, whom we will introduce below.

Due to the Corona pandemic, it was necessary to cancel the conference "Positionality Reloaded: Dimensions of Reflexivity in the Relationship of Science and Society" at short notice. At the time, in May 2020, it was quite uncertain how far-reaching the consequences of the pandemic would be. This also affected the panel discussion that we had planned in order to collect practical and application-oriented perspectives on transdisciplinarity in academics. As restrictions of traveling and gatherings on social events across the globe intensified, digital conferences gradually developed into an effective format for academic exchange. In this respect, we were thrilled when we were able to save the two-hour panel discussion "Crossing Borders, Creating Together: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue on Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production" on 15 June 2020 using a live video broadcast. The main questions from the conference served as a guide: To what extent do academic publications and knowledge production rely on reflexivity and self-reflection? What consequences does this have for the self-positioning of researchers in the tense relationship between academia and society? The question of how meaningful academic activities are in society and for society correlates directly with the question of the relevance of transdisciplinary research, that is occasionally addressed as a possibility, a demand, a request, or even a necessity. While the other contributions in this collection primarily discuss these questions from a theoretical standpoint, the panel discussion was conceived as an "empirical counterpart." The objective was to explore and discuss the opportunities and challenges that arise in transdisciplinary research practice from different functional perspectives: such as political and mobility research, medicine, or architecture and urban planning. For this purpose, we invited four participants, whom we will introduce below.

Seit 2009 vergeben alle medizinischen Fakultäten in Deutschland einen bestimmten Anteil des Landeszuschusses Forschung leistungsorientiert an ihre Einrichtungen (interne LOM). Die interne LOM ist ein institutionelles Incentivierungsinstrument mit dem Ziel, über eine kompetitive Vergabe nach definierten Kriterien qualitativ hochwertige Forschung zu belohnen. Die üblichen Kriterien dafür sind verausgabte Drittmittel und/oder die Anzahl der Zitationen in einem definierten Zeitraum (Journal Impact Factor (JIF) bzw. Relative Citation Ratio (RCR)). Als erste medizinische Fakultät hat die Charité 2019 das freie Verfügbarmachen von Originaldaten zu wissenschaftlichen Publikationen (Open Data) als zusätzlichen Indikator für die LOM eingeführt. Dafür wurde eine bottum-up, partizipatorische Implementierungsstrategie angewendet, die durch transparente Kommunikation und politisch-organisatorische Weiterentwicklung seit Beginn 2018 die Diskussion der Evidenz von Nutzen und Risiken von Open Data in der biomedizinischen Forschung vorantreibt. In dieser Arbeit berichten wir über die wichtigen Schritte der Implementierung und die Herausforderungen dieses Kollaborationsprojektes zwischen dem BIH QUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research und dem Geschäftsbereich Forschung der Charité. Des Weiteren werden die Häufigkeit von Open Data im Publikationskorpus, der Open-Access-Status der Publikationen, die häufigsten Journals, in denen Open Data publiziert wurde, und die genutzten Repositorien beschrieben.

Epigenetic transcriptional regulation by histone acetylation depends on the balance between histone acetyltransferase (HAT) and deacetylase activities (HDAC). Inhibition of HDAC activity provides neuroprotection, indicating that the outcome of cerebral ischemia depends crucially on the acetylation status of histones. In the present study, we characterized the changes in histone acetylation levels in ischemia models of focal cerebral ischemia and identified cAMP-response element binding protein (CREB)–binding protein (CBP) as a crucial factor in the susceptibility of neurons to ischemic stress. Both neuron-specific RNA interference and neurons derived from CBP heterozygous knockout mice showed increased damage after oxygen-glucose deprivation (OGD) in vitro. Furthermore, we demonstrated that ischemic preconditioning by a short (5 min) subthreshold occlusion of the middle cerebral artery (MCA), followed 24 h afterwards by a 30 min occlusion of the MCA, increased histone acetylation levels in vivo. Ischemic preconditioning enhanced CBP recruitment and histone acetylation at the promoter of the neuroprotective gene gelsolin leading to increased gelsolin expression in neurons. Inhibition of CBP's HAT activity attenuated neuronal ischemic preconditioning. Taken together, our findings suggest that the levels of CBP and histone acetylation determine stroke outcome and are crucially associated with the induction of an ischemia-resistant state in neurons. ; German Research Foundation (Exc 257) ; Germany. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01 EO 08 01) ; Hermann von Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher Forschungszentren (SO-022NG) ; European Union (7th Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) grant agreement no. 201024)

While high risk of failure is an inherent part of developing innovative therapies, it can be reduced by adherence to evidence-based rigorous research practices. Numerous analyses conducted to date have clearly identified measures that need to be taken to improve research rigor. Supported through the European Union's Innovative Medicines Initiative, the EQIPD consortium has developed a novel preclinical research quality system that can be applied in both public and private sectors and is free for anyone to use. The EQIPD Quality System was designed to be suited to boost innovation by ensuring the generation of robust and reliable preclinical data while being lean, effective and not becoming a burden that could negatively impact the freedom to explore scientific questions. EQIPD defines research quality as the extent to which research data are fit for their intended use. Fitness, in this context, is defined by the stakeholders, who are the scientists directly involved in the research, but also their funders, sponsors, publishers, research tool manufacturers and collaboration partners such as peers in a multi-site research project. The essence of the EQIPD Quality System is the set of 18 core requirements that can be addressed flexibly, according to user-specific needs and following a user-defined trajectory. The EQIPD Quality System proposes guidance on expectations for quality-related measures, defines criteria for adequate processes (i.e., performance standards) and provides examples of how such measures can be developed and implemented. However, it does not prescribe any pre-determined solutions. EQIPD has also developed tools (for optional use) to support users in implementing the system and assessment services for those research units that successfully implement the quality system and seek formal accreditation. Building upon the feedback from users and continuous improvement, a sustainable EQIPD Quality System will ultimately serve the entire community of scientists conducting non-regulated preclinical research, by helping them generate reliable data that are fit for their intended use.

While high risk of failure is an inherent part of developing innovative therapies, it can be reduced by adherence to evidence-based rigorous research practices. Supported through the European Union's Innovative Medicines Initiative, the EQIPD consortium has developed a novel preclinical research quality system that can be applied in both public and private sectors and is free for anyone to use. The EQIPD Quality System was designed to be suited to boost innovation by ensuring the generation of robust and reliable preclinical data while being lean, effective and not becoming a burden that could negatively impact the freedom to explore scientific questions. EQIPD defines research quality as the extent to which research data are fit for their intended use. Fitness, in this context, is defined by the stakeholders, who are the scientists directly involved in the research, but also their funders, sponsors, publishers, research tool manufacturers, and collaboration partners such as peers in a multi-site research project. The essence of the EQIPD Quality System is the set of 18 core requirements that can be addressed flexibly, according to user-specific needs and following a user-defined trajectory. The EQIPD Quality System proposes guidance on expectations for quality-related measures, defines criteria for adequate processes (i.e. performance standards) and provides examples of how such measures can be developed and implemented. However, it does not prescribe any pre-determined solutions. EQIPD has also developed tools (for optional use) to support users in implementing the system and assessment services for those research units that successfully implement the quality system and seek formal accreditation. Building upon the feedback from users and continuous improvement, a sustainable EQIPD Quality System will ultimately serve the entire community of scientists conducting non-regulated preclinical research, by helping them generate reliable data that are fit for their intended use.

While high risk of failure is an inherent part of developing innovative therapies, it can be reduced by adherence to evidence-based rigorous research practices. Numerous analyses conducted to date have clearly identified measures that need to be taken to improve research rigor. Supported through the European Union's Innovative Medicines Initiative, the EQIPD consortium has developed a novel preclinical research quality system that can be applied in both public and private sectors and is free for anyone to use. The EQIPD Quality System was designed to be suited to boost innovation by ensuring the generation of robust and reliable preclinical data while being lean, effective and not becoming a burden that could negatively impact the freedom to explore scientific questions. EQIPD defines research quality as the extent to which research data are fit for their intended use. Fitness, in this context, is defined by the stakeholders, who are the scientists directly involved in the research, but also their funders, sponsors, publishers, research tool manufacturers and collaboration partners such as peers in a multi-site research project. The essence of the EQIPD Quality System is the set of 18 core requirements that can be addressed flexibly, according to user-specific needs and following a user-defined trajectory. The EQIPD Quality System proposes guidance on expectations for quality-related measures, defines criteria for adequate processes (i.e., performance standards) and provides examples of how such measures can be developed and implemented. However, it does not prescribe any pre-determined solutions. EQIPD has also developed tools (for optional use) to support users in implementing the system and assessment services for those research units that successfully implement the quality system and seek formal accreditation. Building upon the feedback from users and continuous improvement, a sustainable EQIPD Quality System will ultimately serve the entire community of scientists conducting non-regulated preclinical ...