Search

Air cycle machines (ACM) which are part of the air-conditioning pack in every aircraft, are one such turbomachinery device that can be affected by icing issues particularly at the turbine end. Current ice protection solutions for the air cycle machines use a heating system on the downstream pipe to heat the surface, using electric resistance heaters or hot air coming from the ACM compressor stage. Both solutions require high energy, hence the need to reduce energy consumption through the development of passive energy-saving solutions. Clean Sky 2 ERICE project aims at developing an eco-friendly and cost-effective hydrophobic / ice-phobic solution able to resist ice adhesion in the ACM turbine scroll and its downstream pipe. This paper discusses the implementation of an experimental rig to reproduce the ice formation and accretion conditions within the ACM and a new shear test method to measure the ice adhesion strength on existing and new solutions in the form of coatings. The flow through the ACM turbine exhaust has also been characterized for the first time in published literature. The results from the ice accretion and adhesion tests show that hydrophobic coatings developed for the purposes of ice protection perform better than the current industry baseline material for ACM turbine scroll pipe internal surface. While these coatings could not be used to prevent accretion, they do help in reducing adhesion of ice to the surface. European Union funding: 821301. Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking

Analise deensaios para o tratamento e prevenção da Covid-19 que foram realizados em países da América Latina e Caribe e registrados na Plataforma Internacional de Registro de Ensaios Clínicos da Organização Mundial da Saúde

This report of the WHO Working Group for Guidance on Human Challenge Studies in COVID-19 outlines ethical standards for COVID-19 challenge studies. It includes eight Key Criteria related to scientific justification, risk-benefit assessment, consultation and engagement, co-ordination of research, site selection, participant selection, expert review, and informed consent. The document aims to provide comprehensive guidance to scientists, research ethics committees, funders, policymakers, and regulators in deliberations regarding SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies by outlining criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for such studies to be ethically acceptable.

BackgroundEnsuring that countries have adequate research capacities is essential for an effective and efficient response to infectious disease outbreaks. The need for ethical principles and values embodied in international research ethics guidelines to be upheld during public health emergencies is widely recognized. Public health officials, researchers and other concerned stakeholders also have to carefully balance time and resources allocated to immediate treatment and control activities, with an approach that integrates research as part of the outbreak response. Under such circumstances, research ethics preparedness constitutes an important foundation for an effective response to infectious disease outbreaks and other health emergencies.Main textA two-day workshop was convened in March 2018 by the World Health Organisation Global Health Ethics Team and the African coaLition for Epidemic Research, Response and Training, with representatives of National Ethics Committees, to identify practical processes and procedures related to ethics review preparedness. The workshop considered five areas where work might be undertaken to facilitate rapid and sound ethics review: preparing national ethics committees for outbreak response; pre-review of protocols; multi-country review; coordination between national ethics committees and other key stakeholders; data and benefit sharing; and export of samples to third countries.In this paper, we present the recommendations that resulted from the workshop. In particular, the participants recommended that Ethics Committees would develop a formal national standard operating procedure for emergency response ethical review; that there is a need to clarify the terminology and expectations of pre-review of generic protocols and agree upon specific terminology; that there is a need to explore mechanisms for multi-country emergency ethical consultation, and to establish procedures for communication between national ethics committees and other oversight bodies and public health authorities. In addition, it was suggested that ethics committees should request from researchers, at a minimum, a preliminary data sharing and sample sharing plan that outlines the benefit to the population from which data and samples are to be drawn. This should be followed in due time by a full plan.ConclusionIt is hoped that the national ethics committees, supported by the WHO, relevant collaborative research consortia and external funding agencies, will work towards bringing these recommendations into practice, for supporting the conduct of effective research during outbreaks.

The aim of this thesis is to demonstrate that the seventeenth-century religious writer Thomas Traherne an individual who is almost never included in philological enquiries was aware of linguistic issues and added his own unique view to the debatesoftheage. Theprojectisdividedintofourmainchapters. ChapterI, "Traherne's Word Definitions," analyzes Traherne's word definitions and places him withinthecontextofphilosophicallanguagemovements. Ifocusuponhisunpublished CommentariesofHeaven,alargeencyclopediawhichpurportstoopen"TheMysteries ofFelicitie"anddefine"AllThings"asobjectsofhappiness. Despitetheidentification of this manuscript in 1982, much of Traherne scholarship ignores its existence. Chapter n, "Language and the Fall," investigates Traherne's view of prelapsarian speech. It discusses notions of Adam's language, the dumbness of infants, the Tower of Babel, and the way in which these are all sites of linguistic "falls." Chapter in, "Silence in Traherne's Writings," looks at the role of silence in religious practice, politics,andself-identity. AttimesTrahernecelebratessilenceasaspecialincubatory condition which nurtures the individual and blocks out the nefarious forces of language. Atothertimeshedescribesitasdormantandsterile. Thechapteroffersan explanationastowhyhefluctuatesbetweentheseextremes. ChapterIV,"Traherne and the Seventeenth-Century Debate Over Metaphor," analyzes the conformist and nonconformist debate over metaphor which was indicative of deep theological and political controversies of the time. My Epilogue offers a discussion of Traherne's manuscriptTheCeremonialLaw,aworkrecentlydiscoveredin1996. InmythesisI define Traherne's theological and linguistic views, while at the same time I call attention to the manuscripts Commentaries ofHeaven and The Ceremonial Law, and their crucial position in the Traherne canon.

The goal of achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) can generally be realized only in stages. Moreover, resource, capacity, and political constraints mean governments often face difficult trade-offs on the path to UHC. In a 2014 report, Making fair choices on the path to UHC, the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage articulated principles for making such trade-offs in an equitable manner. We present three case studies which illustrate how these principles can guide practical decision-making. These case studies show how progressive realization of the right to health can be effectively guided by priority-setting principles, including generating the greatest total health gain, priority for those who are worse off in a number of dimensions (including health, access to health services, and social and economic status), and financial risk protection. They also demonstrate the value of a fair and accountable process of priority setting.

Most companies' new business practices are based on customer data. These practices have raised privacy concerns because of the associated risks. Privacy laws require companies to gain customer consent before using their information, which stands as the biggest roadblock to monetise this asset. Privacy literature suggests that reducing privacy concerns and building trust may increase individuals' intention to authorise the use of personal information. Fair information practices (FIPs) are potential means to achieve this goal. However, there is lack of empirical evidence on the mechanisms through which the FIPs affect privacy concerns and trust. This research argues that FIPs load individuals with control, which has been found to influence privacy concerns and trust level. We will use an experimental design methodology to conduct the study. The results are expected to have both theoretical and managerial implications., Research-in-progress ISBN# 978-0-646-95337-3 Presented at the Australasian Conference on Information Systems 2015 (arXiv:1605.01032)

Introducing public health ethics poses two special challenges. First, it is a relatively new field that combines public health and practical ethics . Its unfamiliarity requires considerable explanation, yet its scope and emergent qualities make delineation diffi cult. Moreover, while the early development of public health ethics occurred in a Western context, its reach, like public health itself, has become global. A second challenge, then, is to articulate an approach specifi c enough to provide clear guidance yet suffi ciently fl exible and encompassing to adapt to global contexts. Broadly speaking, public health ethics helps guide practical decisions affecting population or community health based on scientifi c evidence and in accordance with accepted values and standards of right and wrong. In these ways, public health ethics builds on its parent disciplines of public health and ethics. This dual inheritance plays out in the defi nition the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers of public health ethics: “A systematic process to clarify, prioritize , and justify possible courses of public health action based on ethical principles , values and beliefs of stakeholders , and scientifi c and other information ” (CDC 2011 ). Public health ethics shares with other fi elds of practical and professional ethics both the general theories of ethics and a common store of ethical principles, values , and beliefs. It differs from these other fi elds largely in the nature of challenges that public health offi cials typically encounter and in the ethical frameworks it employs to address these challenges. Frameworks provide methodical approaches or procedures that tailor general ethical theories, principles , values, and beliefs to the specifi c ethical challenges that arise in a particular fi eld. Although no framework is defi nitive, many are useful, and some are especially effective in particular contexts. This chapter will conclude by setting forth a straightforward, stepwise ethics framework that provides a tool for analyzing the cases in this volume and, more importantly, one that public health practitioners have found useful in a range of contexts. For a public health practitioner, knowing how to employ an ethics framework to address a range of ethical challenges in public health—a know-how that depends on practice—is the ultimate take-home message.

Having a scientific basis for the practice of public health is critical. Research leads to insight and innovations that solve health problems and is therefore central to public health worldwide. For example, in the United States research is one of the ten essential public health services (Public Health Functions Steering Committee 1994 ). The Principle s of the Ethical Practice of Public Health , developed by the Public Health Leadership Society ( 2002 ), emphasizes the value of having a scientifi c basis for action. Principle fi ve specifi cally calls on public health to seek the information needed to carry out effective policies and programs that protect and promote health. This chapter pres ents ethical issues that can arise when conducting public health research. Although the literature about research ethics is complex and rich, it has at least two important limitations when applied to public health research. The fi rst is that much of research ethics has focused on clinical or biomedical research in which the primary interaction is between individuals (i.e., patient-physician or research participant- researcher). Since bioethics tends to focus on the individual, the fi eld of research ethics often neglects broader issues pertaining to communities and population s, including ethical issues raised by some public health research methods (e.g., the use of cluster randomized trials to measure population, not just individual, effects). However, if our discussion of public health research ethics begins by examining public health activities, it becomes apparent that the process of gaining consent involves more than individuals. We must consider that communities bear risks and reap benefi ts; that not only individuals but also populations may be vulnerable; and that the social, political , and economic context in which research takes place poses ethical challenges. Public health research, with its focus on intervention at community and population levels, has brought these broader ethical considerations to researchers’ attention, demonstrating how ethics guidance based on biomedical research may limit, if not distort, the ethical perspective required to protect human subjects. The second limitation has to do with how guideline s and regulations are conceived and used. As described in Chaps. 1 and 2 of this casebook, research ethics has mostly evolved out of concern for research abuses. Consequently, the intent of many guidelines and regulations is to strengthen the ethical practice of research with human subjects. These ethical guidance documents include the Nuremberg Code ( 1947); the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations 1948 ); the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association 1964 , last revised in 2013); and two documents developed by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) : International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects ( CIOMS 2002 ) and the International Ethical Guidelines for Epidemiological Studies (CIOMS 2009 ). In the United States, the primary ethical guidance for protecting human subjects is Title 45, Part 46, of the Code of Federal Regulations (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2009 ). The e thical principles of respect for persons , benefi cence , and justice have oft en framed the discussion on ethical conduct of research with human subjects . These principle s were fi rst articulated by the U.S. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research ( 1979 ) in the Belmont Report and expanded upon by Beauchamp and Childress ( 1979 ) in Principles of Biomedical Ethics .

Public health ethics can be seen both as the application of principles and norms to guide the practice of public health and as a process for identifying, analyzing, and resolving ethical issues inherent in the practice of public health. Public health ethics helps us decide what we should do and why. Although the practice of public health has always considered ethical issues, the emergence of public health ethics as a discipline is relatively new. Although rooted in bioethics and clinical and research ethics, public health ethics has many characteristics that set it apart. The defining characteristics are its focus on achieving social goods for populations while respecting individual rights and recognizing the interdependence of people. Currently there are few practical training resources for public health practitioners that consider ethical issues and dilemmas likely to arise in the practice of public health. In public health ethics training, we have found it advantageous to use cases to illustrate how ethical principles can be applied in practical ways to decision making. The use of cases encourages reflection and discussion of ethics, reinforces basic ethical concepts through application to concrete examples, highlights practical decision making, allows learners to consider different perspectives, and sensitizes learners to the complex, multidimensional context of issues in public health practice. The case-based approach (known as casuistry) contrasts with the theoretical approach to considering moral principles, rules, and theories. By describing scenarios, cases allow the learner to use ethical principles in the context of a realistic situation that sheds light on ethical challenges and illustrates how ethical principles can help in making practical decisions. This casebook comprises a broad range of cases from around the globe to highlight the ethical challenges of public health. For those new to public health ethics, Section I introduces public health ethics. Chapter 1, “Public Health Ethics: Global Cases, Practice, and Context” by Ortmann and colleagues, summarizes basic concepts and describes how public health ethics differ from bioethics, clinical ethics, and research ethics. The chapter also includes an approach for conducting an ethical analysis in public health. In Chap. 2, “Essential Cases in the Development of Public Health Ethics,” Lee, Spector-Bagdady, and Sakhuja highlight important events that shaped the practice of public health and explain how practitioners address and prevent ethical challenges. Section II is organized into chapters that discuss the following public health topics: • Resource allocation and priority setting • Disease prevention and control • Chronic disease prevention and health promotion • Environmental and occupational public health • Vulnerability and marginalized populations • International collaboration for global public health • Public health research We have invited some of the leading writers and thinkers in public health ethics to provide an overview of the major ethical considerations associated with each topic. The topic overviews offer the authors’ perspectives about applicable ethical theories, frameworks, and tools and draw attention to the cases that follow. The cases are meant to highlight the ethical issues in practice. Each represents the work of authors from around the globe who responded to a solicitation from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We worked with the authors to ensure that each case included a concise articulation of a public health situation that raises ethical tensions, challenges, or concerns that require decisions or recommendations from public health officials or practitioners. The cases are presented in a standard format that includes a background, case description, discussion questions, and references. However, we also allowed for variation in the amount of detail provided in each section and the approach used to set up the case. Our goal was to include just enough contextual information to orient the reader who is not an expert in the case topic. We include the case setting, population, or intervention in question, legal or regulatory landscape, and questions to stimulate discussion on core ethical issues. Each case—although fictionalized—is as realistic as possible to reflect the ethical challenges that public health practitioners face daily. Sometimes the cases were based on actual or composite events. In these instances, the case details were modified to exclude identifying information that could be considered private, sensitive, or disputable by others involved in the case. We deliberately did not attempt to provide a resolution or solution for the cases. Often in public health practice, there is no single correct answer. Instead, ethical analysis in public health is a process to identify the ethical dimensions of the options available and to arrive at a decision that is ethically justifiable, through deliberation and consideration of relevant facts, values, and contexts. The cases and other writings in this book represent the opinions, findings, and conclusions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position, views, or policies of the editors, the editors’ host institutions, or the authors’ host institutions. We decided which topic category to place the case in to best distribute the cases across chapters. However, you may note that some cases cross topic areas and could just as easily have been included in another chapter. This casebook is written for public health practitioners, including frontline workers, field epidemiology trainers and trainees, and managers, planners, and decision makers with an interest in learning about how to integrate ethical analysis in their day-to-day public health practice. However, the casebook will also be useful to instructors in schools of public health and public health students as well as to academic ethicists who can use the book to teach public health ethics and distinguish it from clinical and research ethics. Our hope is that the casebook will increase awareness and understanding of public health ethics and the value of ethical analysis in public health practice in all of its forms. This includes applied public health research; public health policy development, implementation, and evaluation; and public health decision making in national and international field settings and training programs. By emphasizing prospective practical decision making, rather than just presenting a theoretical academic discussion of ethical principles, we hope this casebook will serve as a useful tool to support instruction, debate, and dialogue about the nature of ethical challenges encountered in public health practice and how to resolve these challenges. We recommend discussing the cases in small groups and using the discussion questions, the ethical framework described in Chap. 1, and the information provided in the topic area overview sections as a starting place for exploring the ethical issues reflected in the cases. The ultimate goal of case-based learning is to develop skills in ethical analysis and decision making in daily public health practice. The ethical framework provides a convenient tool for putting our ideas into practice.

Clinical trial registries are one of the main sources of information concerning health research interventions that have been or are being carried out throughout the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) established a minimum data set to be recorded (20 items), which was agreed upon internationally with the stakeholders, and established a network of primary and associated records. In addition to the register ClinicalTrial.Gov (of the United States of America), there are currently two primary registries in the Americas (from Brazil and Cuba) that meet WHO requirements and provide data to WHO’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Furthermore, there are important advances in the region related to the regulations, development and implementation of national registries and to the support of the ethics committees and editors to this initiative. Los registros de ensayos clínicos (EC) constituyen una de las mayores fuentes de información de investigaciones en intervenciones en salud que se han o se están llevando a cabo en el mundo. La Organización Mundial de la Salud estableció un conjunto mínimo de datos que se deben registrar (20 ítems), consensuado a nivel internacional con las partes interesadas, y estableció una red de registros primarios y de registros asociados. Existen actualmente dos registros primarios en las Américas (Brasil y Cuba) avalados por la OMS, además del registro ClinicalTrial.Gov (de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica) que aportan datos a la plataforma internacional de registros de EC de la OMS (ICTRP). Adicionalmente, hay avances importantes en la región relacionados con las regulaciones, el desarrollo e implementación de registros nacionales y la adhesión de comités de ética y editores a la iniciativa.