| 1. |
- Thompson, Paul M., et al.
(author)
-
The ENIGMA Consortium : large-scale collaborative analyses of neuroimaging and genetic data
- 2014
-
In: BRAIN IMAGING BEHAV. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1931-7557 .- 1931-7565. ; 8:2, s. 153-182
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) Consortium is a collaborative network of researchers working together on a range of large-scale studies that integrate data from 70 institutions worldwide. Organized into Working Groups that tackle questions in neuroscience, genetics, and medicine, ENIGMA studies have analyzed neuroimaging data from over 12,826 subjects. In addition, data from 12,171 individuals were provided by the CHARGE consortium for replication of findings, in a total of 24,997 subjects. By meta-analyzing results from many sites, ENIGMA has detected factors that affect the brain that no individual site could detect on its own, and that require larger numbers of subjects than any individual neuroimaging study has currently collected. ENIGMA's first project was a genome-wide association study identifying common variants in the genome associated with hippocampal volume or intracranial volume. Continuing work is exploring genetic associations with subcortical volumes (ENIGMA2) and white matter microstructure (ENIGMA-DTI). Working groups also focus on understanding how schizophrenia, bipolar illness, major depression and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affect the brain. We review the current progress of the ENIGMA Consortium, along with challenges and unexpected discoveries made on the way.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kehoe, Laura, et al.
(author)
-
Make EU trade with Brazil sustainable
- 2019
-
In: Science. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 0036-8075 .- 1095-9203. ; 364:6438, s. 341-
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 3. |
- Schweinsberg, Martin, et al.
(author)
-
Same data, different conclusions : Radical dispersion in empirical results when independent analysts operationalize and test the same hypothesis
- 2021
-
In: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. - : Elsevier BV. - 0749-5978 .- 1095-9920. ; 165, s. 228-249
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In this crowdsourced initiative, independent analysts used the same dataset to test two hypotheses regarding the effects of scientists' gender and professional status on verbosity during group meetings. Not only the analytic approach but also the operationalizations of key variables were left unconstrained and up to individual analysts. For instance, analysts could choose to operationalize status as job title, institutional ranking, citation counts, or some combination. To maximize transparency regarding the process by which analytic choices are made, the analysts used a platform we developed called DataExplained to justify both preferred and rejected analytic paths in real time. Analyses lacking sufficient detail, reproducible code, or with statistical errors were excluded, resulting in 29 analyses in the final sample. Researchers reported radically different analyses and dispersed empirical outcomes, in a number of cases obtaining significant effects in opposite directions for the same research question. A Boba multiverse analysis demonstrates that decisions about how to operationalize variables explain variability in outcomes above and beyond statistical choices (e.g., covariates). Subjective researcher decisions play a critical role in driving the reported empirical results, underscoring the need for open data, systematic robustness checks, and transparency regarding both analytic paths taken and not taken. Implications for orga-nizations and leaders, whose decision making relies in part on scientific findings, consulting reports, and internal analyses by data scientists, are discussed.
|
|
| 4. |
- Breznau, Nate, et al.
(author)
-
Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty
- 2022
-
In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. - : National Academy of Sciences. - 0027-8424 .- 1091-6490. ; 119:44
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This study explores how researchers analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each teams workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings.
|
|
| 5. |
- Gaskell, George, et al.
(author)
-
Biotechnology and the European public
- 2000
-
In: Nature Biotechnology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1087-0156 .- 1546-1696. ; 18:9, s. 935-938
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The latest European sample survey of public perceptions of biotechnology reveals widespread opposition to genetically modified (GM) food in much of Europe, but public attitudes to medical and environmental applications remain positive.
|
|
| 6. |
- Feijoo, C., et al.
(author)
-
Harnessing artificial intelligence (AI) to increase wellbeing for all: The case for a new technology diplomacy
- 2020
-
In: Telecommunications Policy. - : Elsevier BV. - 0308-5961. ; 44:6
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The field of artificial intelligence (AI) is experiencing a period of intense progress due to the consolidation of several key technological enablers. AI is already deployed widely and has a high impact on work and daily life activities. The continuation of this process will likely contribute to deep economic and social changes. To realise the tremendous benefits of AI while mitigating undesirable effects will require enlightened responses by many stakeholders. Varying national institutional, economic, political, and cultural conditions will influence how AI will affect convenience, efficiency, personalisation, privacy protection, and surveillance of citizens. Many expect that the winners of the AI development race will dominate the coming decades economically and geopolitically, potentially exacerbating tensions between countries. Moreover, nations are under pressure to protect their citizens and their interests—and even their own political stability—in the face of possible malicious or biased uses of AI. On the one hand, these different stressors and emphases in AI development and deployment among nations risk a fragmentation between world regions that threatens technology evolution and collaboration. On the other hand, some level of differentiation will likely enrich the global AI ecosystem in ways that stimulate innovation and introduce competitive checks and balances through the decentralisation of AI development. International cooperation, typically orchestrated by intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, private sector initiatives, and by academic researchers, has improved common welfare and avoided undesirable outcomes in other technology areas. Because AI will most likely have more fundamental effects on our lives than other recent technologies, stronger forms of cooperation that address broader policy and governance challenges in addition to regulatory and technological issues may be needed. At a time of great challenges among nations, international policy coordination remains a necessary instrument to tackle the ethical, cultural, economic, and political repercussions of AI. We propose to advance the emerging concept of technology diplomacy to facilitate the global alignment of AI policy and governance and create a vibrant AI innovation system. We argue that the prevention of malicious uses of AI and the enhancement of human welfare create strong common interests across jurisdictions that require sustained efforts to develop better, mutually beneficial approaches. We hope that new technology diplomacy will facilitate the dialogues necessary to help all interested parties develop a shared understanding and coordinate efforts to utilise AI for the benefit of humanity, a task whose difficulty should not be underestimated.
|
|
| 7. |
- Wagner, W, et al.
(author)
-
Europe ambivalent on biotechnology
- 1997
-
In: Nature. - London : Nature Publishing Group. - 0028-0836 .- 1476-4687. ; 387, s. 845-847
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Eurobarometer on Biotechnology (46.1) was conducted during October and November 1996. The survey conducted in each EU (European Union) country used a multi-stage random sampling procedure and provided a statistically representative sample of national residents aged 15 and over. The total sample within the EU was 16,246 respondents (about 1,000 per EU country). The survey questionnaire was designed by the authors as part of a larger study involving the comparative analysis of public perceptions, media coverage and public policy in relation to biotechnology from 1973 to the present.
|
|
| 8. |
- Bauer, C., et al.
(author)
-
The Effect of Ingroup Identification on Conformity Behavior in Group Decision-Making : The Flipping Direction Matters
- 2023
-
In: <em>Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences</em>. - : IEEE Computer Society. - 9780998133164 ; , s. 2242-2251
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Various social influences affect group decision-making processes. For instance, individuals may adapt their behavior to fit in with the group's majority opinion. Furthermore, ingroup favoritism may lead individuals to favor the ideas of ingroup members rather than the outgroup. So far, little is explored on how these phenomena of social conformity and ingroup favoritism manifest in group decision-making processes when a group has to decide in favor or against an item. We address such a scenario where the 'flipping direction' of conformity (in favor or against an item) matters. Specifically, we explore whether and how the ingroup favoritism manifests differently in terms of conformity behavior depending on the 'flipping direction'. The results show that group inclusiveness does not play a role in the general tendency to conform. However, when it comes to a negative flipping direction, a higher feeling of group inclusiveness seems to play a role; yet, for individualist cultures only.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Holder, Brianna M., et al.
(author)
-
Brain barriers virtual : an interim solution or future opportunity?
- 2022
-
In: Fluids and Barriers of the CNS. - : Springer Nature. - 2045-8118. ; 19:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundScientific conferences are vital communication events for scientists in academia, industry, and government agencies. In the brain barriers research field, several international conferences exist that allow researchers to present data, share knowledge, and discuss novel ideas and concepts. These meetings are critical platforms for researchers to connect and exchange breakthrough findings on a regular basis. Due to the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, all in-person meetings were canceled in 2020. In response, we launched the Brain Barriers Virtual 2020 (BBV2020) seminar series, the first stand-in virtual event for the brain barriers field, to offer scientists a virtual platform to present their work. Here we report the aggregate attendance information on two in-person meetings compared with BBV2020 and comment on the utility of the virtual platform.MethodsThe BBV2020 seminar series was hosted on a Zoom webinar platform and was free of cost for participants. Using registration- and Zoom-based data from the BBV2020 virtual seminar series and survey data collected from BBV2020 participants, we analyzed attendance trends, global reach, participation based on career stage, and engagement of BBV2020. We compared these data with those from two previous in-person conferences, a BBB meeting held in 2018 and CVB 2019.ResultsWe found that BBV2020 seminar participation steadily decreased over the course of the series. In contrast, live participation was consistently above 100 attendees and recording views were above 200 views per seminar. We also found that participants valued BBV2020 as a supplement during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Based on one post-BBV2020 survey, the majority of participants indicated that they would prefer in-person meetings but would welcome a virtual component to future in-person meetings. Compared to in-person meetings, BBV2020 enabled participation from a broad range of career stages and was attended by scientists in academic, industry, and government agencies from a wide range of countries worldwide.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that a virtual event such as the BBV2020 seminar series provides easy access to science for researchers across all career stages around the globe. However, we recognize that limitations exist. Regardless, such a virtual event could be a valuable tool for the brain barriers community to reach and engage scientists worldwide to further grow the brain barriers research field in the future.
|
|
