Suchergebnisse

RésuméCette étude examine les approches réglementaires de dix pays : la France, le Danemark, l'Australie, le Canada, les États-Unis, la Russie, le Japon, le Brésil, la Chine et l'Inde, relativement à la réglementation des antimicrobiens aux trois points d'entrée principaux dans le processus agricole, soit dans le cadre de la médecine vétérinaire, de la production agricole et de la vente des produits agricoles. Pour être efficace, la réglementation doit tenir compte du contexte dans lequel elle s'inscrit. Cette étude tente donc de tirer des leçons des dix juridictions ci-haut à la lumière des réalités qui entourent l'utilisation d'antimicrobiens dans les processus agricoles.

Scientific advisory committees (SACs) are a critically important part of global environmental policy. This commentary reviews the role of SACs in six global and regional environmental regimes, defined here as the set of rules, norms, and procedures that are developed by states and international organizations out of their common concerns and used to organize common activities. First, SACs play a critical role in putting issues on the political agenda and the creation of an overarching regime. Second, the effectiveness of a given SAC and the associated regime is highly variable. Third, there is also considerable variation in the extent to which the regime is driven by an overarching scientific consensus, for example, high in the case of climate change, lower in the case of whaling. Fourth, the role of science in a given regime is also a function of whether the problem being addressed is relatively benign or more malign, that is to say, marked by deep political disagreements (i.e., climate change). Finally, the cases examined here suggest that the institutional design of the SAC matters and can influence the overall effectiveness of the SAC and by extension, the regime, but it is seldom decisive.

BACKGROUND: Several countries allocate official development assistance (ODA) for research on global health and development issues that is initiated in the donor country. The integration of such research within domestic research systems aligns with efforts to coordinate ODA investments with science, technology and innovation policies towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). METHODS: Through a document synthesis and interviews with research funders in ODA donor and recipient countries, we evaluated the performance of this funding approach across seven donor-country programmes from five donor countries and examined the institutional design elements that increase its chances of advancing development goals and addressing global challenges. RESULTS: We found that carefully designed programmes provide a promising pathway to producing valuable and contextually relevant knowledge on global health and development issues. To achieve these outcomes and ensure they benefit ODA-receiving countries, programmes should focus on recipient-country priorities and absorptive capacity; translate research on global public goods into context-appropriate technologies; plan and monitor pathways to impact; structure equitable partnerships; strengthen individual and institutional capacity; and emphasize knowledge mobilization. CONCLUSIONS: Global health and development research programmes and partnerships have an important role to play in achieving the SDGs and addressing global challenges. Governments should consider the potential of ODA-funded research programmes to address gaps in their global health and development frameworks. In the absence of concrete evidence of development impact, donor countries should consider making increases in ODA allocations for research additional to more direct investments that have demonstrated effectiveness in ODA-receiving countries. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00859-6.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 has disproportionately affected disadvantaged communities across the USA. Risk perceptions for social interactions and essential activities during the COVID-19 pandemic may vary by sociodemographic factors. METHODS: We conducted a nationally representative online survey of 1592 adults in the USA to understand risk perceptions related to transmission of COVID-19 for social (eg, visiting friends) and essential activities (eg, medical visits or returning to work). We assessed relationships for activities using bivariate comparisons and multivariable logistic regression modelling, between responses of safe and unsafe, and participant characteristics. Data were collected and analysed in 2020. RESULTS: Among 1592 participants, risk perceptions of unsafe for 13 activities ranged from 29.2% to 73.5%. Large gatherings, indoor dining and visits with elderly relatives had the highest proportion of unsafe responses (>58%), while activities outdoor, accessing healthcare and going to the grocery store had the lowest (<36%). Older respondents were more likely to view social gatherings and indoor activities as unsafe but less likely for other activities, such as going to the grocery store and accessing healthcare. Compared with white/Caucasian respondents, black/African-American and Hispanic/Latino respondents were more likely to view activities such as dining and visiting friends outdoor as unsafe. Generally, men versus women, Republicans versus Democrats and independents, and individuals with higher versus lower income were more likely to view activities as safe. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based interventions should be tailored to sociodemographic differences in risk perception, access to information and health behaviours when implementing efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic.

There are over 250,000 international treaties that aim to foster global cooperation. But are treaties actually helpful for addressing global challenges? This systematic field-wide evidence synthesis of 224 primary studies and meta-analysis of the higher-quality 82 studies finds treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects. The only exceptions are treaties governing international trade and finance, which consistently produced intended effects. We also found evidence that impactful treaties achieve their effects through socialization and normative processes rather than longer-term legal processes and that enforcement mechanisms are the only modifiable treaty design choice with the potential to improve the effectiveness of treaties governing environmental, human rights, humanitarian, maritime, and security policy domains. This evidence synthesis raises doubts about the value of international treaties that neither regulate trade or finance nor contain enforcement mechanisms.