Cascade Climate’s Post

Nothing says love like DNA, testimony and training 🥰 Should be a great webinar!

Check out this informative webinar discussing the potential impact of the Smith vs. Arizona case on laboratory operations and expert testimony in the U.S.—a highly relevant topic for forensic practitioners!

New paper….."Development and Validation of Observational and Qualitative Study Protocol Reporting Checklists for Novice Researchers (ObsQual Checklist)." This publication outlines the creation and rigorous validation of the ObsQual checklist, a tool designed to assist novice researchers in effectively reporting observational and qualitative study. It was fun to be involved with.

📢 The Call for Abstracts for CWW 2025 is now open until 11:59 pm CET on January 31, 2025 ! We invite you to submit an abstract for an oral presentation, a poster, a workshop or a special session (for example a panel). ➡️ Live oral presentations will represent the largest part of the conference. Sessions will be organized according to the topics of the conference. ➡️ Contributors located outside of Europe, the United States and Canada can choose to provide an abstract for a 5-minute-long pre-recorded video presentation if they are unable to attend CWW2025 in person. ➡️ Workshops and special sessions will also take place during the conference. If you would like to run an interactive workshop on a scientific topic or a special session with multiple presentations dedicated to one of the conference topics, or have a new topic in mind, please submit an abstract that outlines the proposed topic, length of the workshop/session, invited speakers and how many people you expect to attend. 🔎 All abstracts submitted will be reviewed by the Scientific Advisory Committee of the CWW2025 made up of 18 international experts. 📲 Find out more here : https://lnkd.in/dCGKPmxV  

This is a must read blog post from Dorothy Bishop "Now you see it, now you don't: the strange world of disappearing Special Issues at MDPI" https://buff.ly/47lKFRO Dorothy, please turn this into a peer reviewed article. I recently published an article on OMICS (https://buff.ly/3SeUs5I). I did this, so that what I said/thought was validated by others and it now is available in the scientific archive forever. I believe that we: 1️⃣ Need to ensure that evidence such as this is reported in the peer reviewed literature. 2️⃣ That it deserves to be validated by peer review so that we know that others have looked at it and agree that what is being reported is robust.

The ERCLab Research Roundup video series begins with an overview from Hugh Walpole, PhD on what we measure when conducting research on public response to alerts and warnings. This is an important conversation that sets the stage for all of the work that the ERCLab and affiliated researchers conduct. We are guided by theory; in particular the Warning Response Model (Mileti and Sorensen,1970). A key quote from this talk is: “Effective warning messages should motivate timely protective action decisions… the focus in measuring warning response should be on the outcomes that lead to decision-making—or the prerequisites for protective action" Take a listen below and reach out if you've got comments or questions. For further reading, go here: https://lnkd.in/egWvqSmw Micki Olson, Ph.D Lauren B. Cain Manny Centeno Wade Witmer Michele M Wood Zach Stanford Eddie Bertola, MA Savannah Olivas Erica Kuligowski Lori Peek

The report on the scientific assessment of completed ERC projects has been published in October 2024 by the ERC. About the risk dimension in ERC project you can read… "Different risks were identified by evaluators, mainly in connection with technical and methodological challenges. Some projects were risky from the beginning because they opened up a new research area or dealt with difficult theoretical problems far beyond the state of the art. In other cases, the research plan covered many interdependent tasks and did not always include mitigation plans. Projects of a high interdisciplinary nature were sometimes identified as risky because their dependency on several disciplines was not fully covered by the available expertise (within the research team or in the associated research groups). Some projects showed risks associated to field work, which, for example, required access to conflict areas or locations where there was only weak cooperation with local authorities. Other risks were related to the accessibility of resources (such as the recruitment of a large enough sample of patients) or to constraints in data acquisition (for example, interviews). The evaluators recommended that applicants be asked to describe how they would mitigate the risk component of their proposals through the adoption of risk-management strategies. Strategies could include performing preliminary work to support their hypotheses, identifying potential weaknesses in their methodology or drawing up a robust workplan by designing low interdependency work packages or setting out a contingency plan for each objective.” You can find the full report "The ERC pioneering years" here: https://lnkd.in/ePtkWcxc

November's EGU #Science4Policy Newsletter is out now! This month, it highlights recently published #science4policy reports and studies that examine Europe’s science for policy landscape. Not only do these reports highlight some of the institutional and individual challenges that those working on the science-policy interface are facing but also some of the steps we can collectively take to support evidence-informed policymaking and improve the integration of research into policy processes! Featuring the Scientific Advice Mechanism, European Commission, & the Joint Research Centre reports - there's plenty to dive into if you're hoping to gain a better understanding of the #SciPol interface! Read it here: https://lnkd.in/dTrVbeT8 Toby Wardman Mario Scharfbillig Alessandro Allegra Kristian Krieger Lorenzo Melchor David Mair Stephany B. Mazon Lene Topp Noel C. Baker, Ph.D. Emmanuel Salmon Erika von Schneidemesser Alfonso Acosta Gonçalves Ilias Grampas

This is a must read blog post from Dorothy Bishop "Now you see it, now you don't: the strange world of disappearing Special Issues at MDPI" https://buff.ly/47lKFRO Dorothy, please turn this into a peer reviewed article. I recently published an article on OMICS (https://buff.ly/3SeUs5I). I did this, so that what I said/thought was validated by others and it now is available in the scientific archive forever. I believe that we: 1️⃣ Need to ensure that evidence such as this is reported in the peer reviewed literature. 2️⃣ That it deserves to be validated by peer review so that we know that others have looked at it and agree that what is being reported is robust.

Here our new paper on TALE base editing!!