Monthly Archives: July 2020

Since 2002, one of the highest-profile efforts to increase natural resource transparency in resource-rich countries has been the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), a multistakeholder initiative consisting of countries, companies, and civil society organizations. Any attempt to grapple with issues of transparency, governance, and anti-corruption in the natural resource sector must proceed with an understanding of the groundwork laid by the organization and the lessons learned from its experiences. As the EITI nears its 20-year anniversary, the time is ripe to analyze evidence surrounding EITIs successes in opening up extractive industries data, along with its shortcomingsand its potential. Charting the EITIs evolution and journey through the mechanisms of transparency, accountability, and participation can illustrate the ways in which truly effective natural resource governance can take root.

Today, the governments of 53 countries commit themselves to implementing the set of disclosure requirements known as the EITI Standard. (While the Obama administration committed the United States to EITI implementation in 2011, the Trump administration withdrew the country from the initiative in 2017.) While the EITIs original focus was on transparency in revenue collection, the Standard has expanded to cover a wide variety of resource-related data, including contracts with extractive companies, data on resource production, and extractives-related employment numbers. In other words, the Standard now encompasses much of the natural resource value chain, the sequence of resource governance decisions beginning with the decision to extract a resource and ending with government spending of resource-derived revenues. To date, $2.64 trillion in natural resource revenues have been disclosed by EITI-implementing countries.

The EITI was launched after academics in the 1990s and early 2000s began to note that large endowments of natural resources, far from ensuring a countrys economic future and the well-being of all its citizensas had been suggested by previous theories of development economicsin fact served to undermine economic growth and corrode institutions. At the same time, governments the world over were making deals with oil, gas, and mining companies that purportedly required that some of the revenue be returned to the state in the form of royalties, taxes, and other proceeds. These windfalls could have been the basis for a significant improvement in the material lives of these states citizens. But, too often, they were not.

Efforts to discover where of all the money was going had been stymied, with little information regarding how that money was spentor indeed, even how much governments received from extractive projectsmade publicly available. This opacity limited peoples ability to gauge whether their governments were using the resource wealth to benefit all citizenswho exercise sovereign rights to their countries resource endowments under international lawand so in turn inhibited their ability to hold their governments to account.

At least, that was the theory when the EITI was founded in 2002: that a flood of data about the money would unleash a wave of citizen engagement, which in turn would drive down corruption and improve development outcomes. But reality is far more complicated, and mechanisms beyond transparency are needed to more fully effect change.

Research has shown that while transparency is an important precondition for fostering accountability and ultimately reducing corruption, it is not, by itself, sufficient to promote change.

For example, a recent success stemming from EITIs transparency model demonstrates that its disclosure regime is often only the first link in a chain leading to reduced corruption. In 2017, the nonprofit investigative organization Global Witness analyzed the Democratic Republic of the Congos 2014 EITI report. It found discrepancies which showed that the mining conglomerate Glencore may have paid more than $75 million between 2013 and 2016 to Dan Gertler, a businessman previously accused of bribing senior officials there. Spurred on by these and numerous other accusations of corruption, the United States imposed sanctions on Gertler in 2017. Those sanctions, in turn, may have prompted the then-president of the DRC, Joseph Kabila, to not run for reelection.

The EITI, as this example illustrates, is largely reliant on othersincluding infomediaries, such as journalists and civil society organizationsto translate technical information (which includes all resource-related disclosures) for a general audience. This, in turn, helps foster the participatory civic engagement that is critical to promoting accountability.

From the EITIs inception to the present, transparency has been at the core of the its work, while participatory and accountability mechanisms were often weak or absent. To be sure, the EITIs model requires all implementing countries to form multistakeholder groups (MSGs) consisting of representatives from government, industry, and civil society to oversee EITI implementation and thereby to presumably foster participation. But many MSGs are not representative of society as a whole, and (with a few exceptions), only operate at the national level, leaving critical stakeholders at the regional and city levels out of the discussion. Moreover, the EITI has been criticized for prioritizing the release of data and diminishing the decisionmaking authority of national MSGs. As a result, while some MSGs have become legitimatearenasfor dialogue,in other places they often prove less able to impact decisions or prompt policy changes that are responsive to their concerns.

What participatory efforts like MSGs can missand what is increasingly recognized by academics and practitioners as a critical part of the pictureis an intentional focus on accountability mechanisms. Pioneering work by Jonathan Fox has argued in favor of a sandwich strategy to foster social accountability, which requires an opening from above in the form of commitment by reformists with power over policy implementation along with more traditional citizen engagement efforts that push from below. The mutually reinforcing mechanisms of the sandwich strategy can both strengthen citizen participation efforts and create accessible and responsive institutions.

Of course, a key challenge of the sandwich strategy involves the difficulty of finding powerful policymakers willing to engage with transparency and participatory efforts. Here, one useful tactic is to remove the roadblocks that can inhibit pro-reform policymakers. A requirement first introduced in the 2016 EITI standard could be of use in tackling this challenge: the mandatory disclosure of beneficial ownership information beginning in 2020. Beneficial owners (i.e., the real owners or those who benefit from the profits) of extractive companies often hide behind shell companies and other unaccountable corporate entities, making it impossible to tell if the real owners are, in fact, government officials themselves. These politically exposed persons, as they are known, are fundamentally unable to serve in the role of reformists committed to effective governance in natural resource management, since their personal interests override common interests. Furthermore, murky ownership schemes can fuel perceptions of corruption and trigger citizens to lose confidence in government institutions. While beneficial ownership disclosures are also unlikely to be a panacea for fostering top-down accountability efforts, they will greatly assist in the identification of those government officials who can never serve that role.

Evidence to date suggests that a bundled approach of transparency, accountability, and participatory (TAP) mechanisms is most effective in promoting effective governanceof natural resources and beyond. (Indeed, the EITI itself acknowledges that implementing the Standard is not a silver bullet to solve all corruption issues, but instead can be a tool to identify and address weaknesses in natural resource management.) Bottom-up citizen engagement efforts rely on transparency in policy, actions, and expenditure, so that citizens are aware of government officials actions and can work to hold them to account. Avenues for citizens to participate in the policy process and express their concerns to government officials further this work, and receptive, accountable policymakers committed to reform are indispensable for responding effectively to citizen concerns.

The Leveraging Transparency to Reduce Corruption (LTRC) project adds another hypothesis to this TAP troika: that careful attention to contextual factors; consideration of the implementation gap within TAP programs; and attention to natural resource-specific complementary institutions, structures, and programs that are likely to significantly interact with TAP interventions are needed to have a greater chance of success. (See here and here for more on the TAP-Plus hypothesis and the pilot studies we are undertaking to test it).

The EITI has achieved successes in producing high-quality open data across the natural resource value chain in implementing countries. Now, it is time to test new strategies by developing country-adapted and evidence-informed strategies toaddresscorruption and to achieve sustainable development goals.

Research and editing assistance from Joseph Glandorf. Editing assistance from Robin Lewis.

Read more here:

The evolution of the EITI and next steps for tackling extractive industries corruption - Brookings Institution

Dating apps have evolved to enable users to find social connections generally as well as romance, and in doing so are giving brands more opportunities to create moments which are worth talking about.

Writing for WARC, Chase Buckle, trends manager at GlobalWebIndex, parses the figures from the research agencys custom coronavirus research, which shows increased smartphone usage across 20 countries since March.

He reports that 46% of single millennials and 43% of single Gen Z say theyve used an online dating app or service via any device in the past month. Increased mobile usage, more time spent at home with fewer distractions, and the need to remain connected are likely key drivers of dating app uptake, he notes.

The virus has also changed how people interact: the app is no longer simply an initial introductory space that is quickly left as singles meet up in person. Lockdown and social distancing has meant theres a greater focus on slower dating. (For more details, read Love in lockdown: Online dating during COVID-19.)

Users are taking the time to get to know the other person, spending longer messaging or video calling, and theyre doing activities together virtually. This has all led to a greater demand for more sophisticated features and support from dating apps that go beyond mere matchmaking, Buckle notes.

Tinder, for example, recently announced that it will begin to test video chat in its mobile dating apps in select markets. It had previously tested video chat before the COVID-19 outbreak and didnt see any significant adoption, but that will change this behaviour is one that will stick, says Buckle.

In our latest wave of coronavirus research, 41% of Gen Z say they plan to continue video calling more frequently after the outbreak. Expect to see this behaviour become the norm.

Brands looking to leverage dating apps in their marketing campaigns need to recognise this change of pace and rethink what makes them unique environments to advertise in.

People are using these apps to enjoy themselves, and theyre more likely to engage with brands that celebrate this idea of fun, he says.

Sourced from WARC

Visit link:

The evolution of the dating app and what it means for brands | WARC - Warc

In a biopic about the mating rituals of anglerfish, its unclear what would earn the film its R-rating: the sex or the violence.

Born into an inky deep sea world, the males of certain anglerfish species exist solely to sniff out their mates. Upon locating his lady (who might be up to 60 times his size), the male will nip at her belly. His mouth then dissolves in a sludge of chemicals that physically fuse him to his bioluminescent bride, forever commingling his blood and tissues with hers.

This grotesque ritual, called sexual parasitism, looks just as bizarre as it sounds. To an immunologist, though, the aesthetics of this macabre form of unholy matrimony arent actually the weirdest part.

Two genetically distinct animals, no matter how much in love, shouldnt be able to merge their flesh without serious consequences, said Dr. Thomas Boehm of the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics. Its the same reason that transplanted organs often get rejected by a recipients body: Vertebrate immune systems are built to wage war on any foreign matter.

And yet, some male anglerfish are full-time grafts the ultimate live-in boyfriends. It really is a mysterious phenomenon, Dr. Boehm said.

With the help of modern genetic sequencing, Dr. Boehm and his colleagues may have solved this deep sea dilemma. Anglerfish have largely jettisoned a branch of the immune system thats been a fixture of vertebrate bodies for the last 500 million years, they report in a study published Thursday in Science. The adaptation may help the clingiest of couples stick together.

Its a substantial sacrifice to make, even for sex: Similar changes would be lethal for humans and no other animals have yet been documented doing the same.

This is some of the cooler science Ive read in a while, said Jesyka Melndez Rosa, an evolutionary biologist and expert in the genetics of the immune system at the University of Puerto Rico who wasnt involved in the study. It just goes to show, nothing is sacred.

Anglerfish have good reason to resort to extreme evolution. Thousands of feet below the surface of the sea, where the suns rays dont shine, both food and friends are scarce. Many males never actually manage to find a female. So if they do meet up, what better thing to do than to bite and hold and stay that way? said Theodore Pietsch, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Washington and an author on the study.

Thats probably why sexual parasitism has supposedly evolved multiple times across the anglerfish family tree. In some cases, the attachments are temporary the boys hop on and off as they please. In others, though, the males become permanent fixtures on the females.

These longer-lasting hookups come with a price. After males glom onto their girls, their innards rapidly atrophy until little more is left than a bulbous pair of testes, fringed with gills, protruding from the females flank like a sperm-filled saddlebag. Theres basically no integrity at this point, Dr. Pietsch said.

In the most extreme version of this trait, females of some species will host up to eight male consorts at a time.

To figure out how the fish tissues tolerate each other, the researchers sequenced the genes of 10 types of anglerfishes. They found that two of the most decorated species, where females sported entourages of males, had lost their ability to produce functional antibodies and T cells two types of immune system sentinels that greatly underpin the bodys ability to distinguish its own cells from unfamiliar ones, and annihilate inbound threats.

That strategy comes in handy when animals must contend with germs or cancerous cells, said Zuri Sullivan, an immunologist at Yale University who wasnt involved in the study. The so-called adaptive immune system, to which antibodies and T cells belong, also helps the body remember past encounters with pathogens so they can be vanquished again. It provides this huge benefit, Ms. Sullivan said. Its a big thing to lose.

Similar genetic changes were present in anglerfish that melded monogamously, though to a lesser degree. These more faithful fish still had genes that allowed them to manufacture a limited selection of disease-fighting antibodies, for instance.

Least altered of all were the ephemeral attachers, who seem to have retained the genes for T cells and a blunted antibody response. In general, the less durable the bond, the more intact the immune system, Dr. Boehm said. That pattern makes sense: Short-lived flings between partners can withstand some tissue rejection, but the stakes are far higher when a relationship is for keeps.

Dr. Boehm said the data so far point to the possibility that deterioration of anglerfish immunity preceded the rise of sexual parasitism. But figuring out the order of these events is really a chicken or egg situation, Dr. Melndez Rosa said.

The researchers also dont yet know how anglerfish manage to ward off infections. But theres more to the immune system than antibodies and T cells; perhaps other members of this complex cavalry have risen in the ranks to compensate, Ms. Sullivan said. Clearly, these animals are doing fine, she said.

Finding these answers will likely require finding more rare deep sea anglerfish. It took several years to amass 31 specimens with enough DNA to analyze, Dr. Boehm said. But the researchers are up for the challenge.

We are not quite sure what lessons the anglerfish will teach us, Dr. Boehm said. But we know they have done something really incredible.

Excerpt from:

The Male Anglerfishs Evolutionary Solution to Female Rejection - The New York Times

Some whales are wonky. You might not know it to look at them, but their skulls are actually incredibly asymmetrical. This mysterious feature helps with echolocation, the way that whales work out where things are by making sounds and sensing how they are reflected back.

But this wonkiness isnt present in all whales. My colleagues and I recently conducted research to find out why and when wonky whales started to evolve in a different way to their symmetrical cousins. We now know wonky whale skulls first appeared around 30 million years ago, and that they continued to become even more asymmetrical as the creatures evolved into the modern species we know today.

In order to understand how wonky whales got this way, we needed to look at how they lived and adapted in the past. Fortunately for us, the whale fossil record is so remarkably represented that scientists have even called the whale a posterchild of evolution. Complete skulls and skeletons stretch right back to the earliest whales of 50 million years ago, and more fossils are dotted throughout whale history, right up to the living animals we know today.

With this record, were able to see that whales nostrils have moved from the tip of their snout to the top of their head, an evolutionary tactic to make for easy breathing at the surface of the water. And the skulls of whales with teeth (which technically includes dolphins, as well as species such as sperm whales) have become more lopsided, with the bones on one side in different positions to the same bones on the other side.

This is because of a mass of fatty tissue called a melon that toothed whales use for echolocation. The melon and the soft tissue needed for echolocation are positioned leftwards above the skull on toothed whales, giving them a bulbous forehead and also causing the bones in the skull underneath to grow skewed to the left. As toothed whales evolved, their skulls got wonkier.

But why dont all whales have this wonkiness? The first whales were called archaeocetes (which literally means ancient whales). They evolved from walking on land to being fully aquatic in a relatively short 8 million years or so.

We know that archaeocete fossils have wonky rostrums (or snouts). This might be a distortion of the fossils or a feature that helped archaeocetes work out which direction sounds were coming from underwater.

Then, around 39 million years ago, whales diverged into two groups: those with teeth in their mouths, known as the odontocetes, and those with baleen (rows of bristles that allow whales to filter food from the water), known as the "mysticetes.

At some point, the toothed whales evolved wonky skulls and echolocation. However, the mysticetes, which include the big baleen whales (such as blue whales), diverged down a completely different evolutionary path. They evolved baleen and filter feeding and skulls that are more symmetrical than both the archaeocetes and the toothed whales.

We wanted to understand why, and exactly when, this happened. So to track asymmetry in the evolution of the whale skull, we produced 3D scans of 162 skulls, 78 of which were fossils. By mapping this wonky shape change in the skull across the whale family tree, we could track precisely when in evolutionary history it first appeared and in which families it evolved.

Based on analyses of these skulls, naso-facial asymmetry (wonkiness) appears to have first evolved around 30 million years ago. This was after the transition from archaeocetes to modern whales, and after the split between the odontocetes and the mysticetes. Around the same time this wonkiness was appearing, these early toothed whales were evolving high-frequency hearing and complex echolocation.

We also confirmed that early ancestors of living whales had little cranial asymmetry in the naso-facial area and likely were not able to echolocate. As such, its likely that baleen whales have never been able to echolocate.

Most surprisingly, this asymmetry has reached its highest levels in some specific animals such a sperm whales and narwhals and other species that live in deep or extreme environments.

This suggests that animals living in these complex environments, including belugas that live in icy, cluttered waters and river dolphins that live in shallow, murky rivers, have evolved a different echolocation ability such as a more diverse or discrete sound repertoire to help them navigate and hunt, and with it the bones around the nasal and face have become more asymmetrical.

This evolutionary path of toothed whales becoming ever more asymmetrical suggests that their skulls and the overlying soft tissues may continue to get wonkier as their echolocation techniques become more specialised.

These findings remind us not only of the complex evolutionary pathways that cetaceans have undergone to become the superbly adapted iconic ocean inhabitants that we know today, but also that despite living alongside some of the largest animals that have ever existed, there is still a lot for us to learn about them.

See the original post:

Mysterious evolution of wonky whale skulls revealed by new study - The Conversation UK

Sponsored by Pulsara

By Rachel Zoch, EMS1 BrandFocus Staff

Technology is a fact of life and an integral part of modern medicine. EMS1 sat down to discuss the evolving role of technology in EMS with Kris Kaull, co-founder of EMS1.com and currently chief marketing officer for Pulsara. We asked him how EMS agencies can best leverage current and future tech tools to enhance patient care, and whats next for EMS overall.

What do you think is the minimum technology standard for EMS agencies right now?

Thats a good question. Times are changing in that were less hardware dependent and more connectivity dependent, so I believe the bare necessity is access to mobile-first technology. That device or computer, I should say that you carry in your pocket is an untapped, invaluable resource, from communications to reference lookup to even documentation, coordination, communication and collaboration.

The minimum tech standard should be smartphone technology, and then connectivity, whether thats dedicated WiFi from the ambulance or through cell service. Connectivity is really the name of the game, and what device we use today may or may not be the device we use tomorrow, so its important to steer clear of focusing too much on hardware. Instead, we should be focusing on the value that being connected brings to the clinician and the teams they work with.

In the back of the ambulance, I envision a future environment where everything is connected. To do that, you need dedicated bandwidth. For public safety, FirstNet provides the first high-speed, wireless broadband dedicated to first responders. In the future, were going to see much greater cell coverage with technologies such as Quality of Service, Priority, and Preemption, aka QPP, even in rural areas.

What about the medical devices themselves?

As new medical devices come onto the market whether its AEDs and heart monitors, the stretcher or any device youd expect to see in the back of an ambulance they will all be smart. Ideally, these devices connect with each other so that the story of the care being provided to the patient is centrally located for documentation and then communicated with the entire care team in real time.

Of course, thats easier said than done. Getting every company on the same standard and allowing different hardware devices to all work together and share information will be a challenge. Not a technical challenge a people challenge. The difficulty will be aligning corporate agendas to a unified vision.

So its not so much that agencies should be adopting a specific technology, but rather a goal of communication and interconnectivity?

Exactly. Thats actually a mindset that needs to change we buy technology, and because we spend a lot of money in capital dollars on hardware, we think it should last 20 years. That kind of thinking simply isnt true anymore.

When purchasing a technology solution for the back of the ambulance, we need to be thinking about how it can adapt and change for what we need in the future. Those solutions need to be flexible and scalable for the unknown. We dont know what we dont know. Thats the tough part.

In EMS, we have a tendency to create one-off solutions for disasters or the next big thing. Instead of building a specific solution or technology or a plan around COVID-19 or the opioid epidemic, we need to leverage existing or new technologies that can be used for all illnesses and injuries, for small or large events and for short and extended incidents. Thats a big paradigm shift from what weve historically done.

We need to be asking, Can I use this technology across the board, and is it scalable to adapt and change for my clinical needs? Its why I use the example of the mobile phone: How I use this mobile phone today may or may not be how Ill use this technology tomorrow, and the needs of my ambulance service may change tomorrow. A mobile phone is simply a platform for other solutions.

What are the biggest challenges EMS faces when it comes to technology in the next five years?

EMS is at a crossroads. Instead of being the prehospital provider, which is a common term now, we are becoming out-of-hospital clinicians. I often hear people asking, How do we better communicate between the back of the ambulance and the emergency department? That question is fundamentally flawed because it automatically labels EMS with the limited scope of transport only. The better question is, How do we better communicate as a healthcare team?

With mobile integrated health and the expanded scope of community paramedicine, well be that out-of-hospital caregiver, not prehospital. The COVID-19 pandemic had already rapidly modified our scope to meet the unprecedented needs. We are not just one step in a linear progression from the time of injury to arrival at the hospital. Instead, we are another access channel for healthcare and ongoing wellness in our communities, and theres a lot of discussion around technology and how we communicate.

EMTs and paramedics need to be able to communicate dynamically with different people, for different needs, for different patients, each and every call. And the technologies to allow them to do that in a safe and secure, HIPAA-compliant way will need to be dynamic and able to cross different organizations, not just from point A to point B, not just from the back of the ambulance to the emergency department.

How is Pulsara addressing these challenges, including HIPAA compliance?

The technology is really about connecting the people. Who are the people that need to be connected, and how do we do that on the fly? And, because every call is different, how do we connect the right people at the right time with a simple tap? Thats what Pulsara does. It allows EMS services or hospital facilities, nursing homes, standalone emergency departments, urgent cares, and referring hospitals all to be on the same network with each other and to be able to communicate in real time.

Pulsara is fully HIPAA-compliant. Its encrypted at both ends, meaning at the senders end on their smart device, as well as the receivers end and at rest. For example, EMS personnel show up on scene of a car crash, they take photos of the scene and the injuries. Those images are sent with the patient alert to the hospital requesting the trauma team. The hospital then alerts all the caregivers within the hospital that are part of that trauma team on their smart devices. At the end of the day, none of the sensitive data is actually on the phone. None of those photos are in the camera roll. It was all done within a HIPAA-compliant, secure encrypted app.

So youre adding a purpose-built tool for first responders to that familiar smartphone, rather than them needing a new device or mode of communication.

Yes. Healthcare providers from physicians to nurses to lab techs to allied health to paramedics use what they normally use in their real life. Take that same car crash example. If its easier to FaceTime or make a phone call or text the hospital with those images, thats what they do, including physician to physician; even if its against policy and not secure.

The key to great design isnt to change the behavior of what they do naturally. I would argue that if live video, messaging, sending photos and recording audio are a well-thought-out, good way to communicate day-to-day, then its probably a good way to communicate about the patient within that setting. The only difference is that we need to put safeguards around it so that we can be protected and we know where that data is, whos seen it and that we are protecting the community and the providers from needless liability.

When an entire region is using the same communication platform, it enables the opportunity for transparent communications without a lot of back and forth. Ineffective communication, especially during transitions of care, is the No. 1 cause for medical errors in healthcare.

Whats the difference between sharing data and communicating?

I do think theres a difference between communication and data. Let's go back to the future concept that all medical devices in the back of the ambulance are smart devices. And, for the sake of this example, lets agree that they are all seamlessly interoperable with each other. Ideally, theres an opportunity for all that data to automatically flow into one clear, chronological picture within the documented patient care report. Its good for streamlining the paramedic workload, its good for quality assurance, its good for consistency of patient care, its good for billing its good for a number of things. That is data.

And then theres also communication. You are sharing data, but its about sharing the right information at the right time with the right people for the right patient. So, what are the key pieces of data that I need now in real time in order to mobilize the right resources and then make the right decisions for my patient? Thats what communication is.

Data and communications are partners in patient care, but we often blur the lines and say that interoperability, smart machines, wearables, health information exchanges, data repositories, or post care documentation are the same as communicating, but they arent. When treating and transporting the trauma patient from the car crash, the paramedic may have access to a thousand pieces of data.But at that moment, the emergency department doesnt need to know all 1,000 data points. They simply need to know key pieces of information so that they have the right people and resources available upon EMS arrival at the hospital.

Whats next for EMS?

The EMS industry must be proactive to the ongoing and changing needs of our communities. In preparation, we should be incorporating technologies, processes and leadership skills that allow us to scale and change accordingly.

If you want a glimpse into the future of EMS, just take a look at what you do in your regular life. So, if my mother, whos in her late 60s, can video chat with my nephew whos 3, and they dont need an instruction book, thats probably a good way to transfer information. We should consider communicating in a similar fashion in the back of the ambulance.

Note: The above conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity. This article originally appeared in 2020 EMS Trend Report: Heed industry warning signs, commit to change.

Get more info from Pulsara.

Read Next: 3 ways your smartphone can improve communication between EMS and hospital EDs

See original here:

Q&A: How can EMS agencies leverage technology for growth and evolution? - EMS1.com