report research 2017

• Our Program Divisions
• Our Three Academies
• Government Affairs
• Statement on Diversity and Inclusion
• Our Study Process
• Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures
• Project Comments and Information
• Read Our Expert Reports and Published Proceedings
• Explore PNAS, the Flagship Scientific Journal of NAS
• Access Transportation Research Board Publications
• Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Economic Recovery
• Fellowships and Grants
• Publications by Division
• Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
• Division on Earth and Life Studies
• Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
• Gulf Research Program
• Health and Medicine Division
• Policy and Global Affairs Division
• Transportation Research Board
• National Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Engineering
• National Academy of Medicine
• Publications by Topic
• Agriculture
• Behavioral and Social Sciences
• Biography and Autobiography
• Biology and Life Sciences
• Computers and Information Technology
• Conflict and Security Issues
• Earth Sciences
• Energy and Energy Conservation
• Engineering and Technology
• Environment and Environmental Studies
• Food and Nutrition
• Health and Medicine
• Industry and Labor
• Math, Chemistry, and Physics
• Policy for Science and Technology
• Space and Aeronautics
• Surveys and Statistics
• Transportation and Infrastructure
• Searchable Collections
• New Releases

VIEW LARGER COVER

Fostering Integrity in Research

The integrity of knowledge that emerges from research is based on individual and collective adherence to core values of objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. Integrity in science means that the organizations in which research is conducted encourage those involved to exemplify these values in every step of the research process. Understanding the dynamics that support – or distort – practices that uphold the integrity of research by all participants ensures that the research enterprise advances knowledge.

The 1992 report Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process evaluated issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. It provided a valuable service in describing and analyzing a very complicated set of issues, and has served as a crucial basis for thinking about research integrity for more than two decades. However, as experience has accumulated with various forms of research misconduct, detrimental research practices, and other forms of misconduct, as subsequent empirical research has revealed more about the nature of scientific misconduct, and because technological and social changes have altered the environment in which science is conducted, it is clear that the framework established more than two decades ago needs to be updated.

Responsible Science served as a valuable benchmark to set the context for this most recent analysis and to help guide the committee's thought process. Fostering Integrity in Research identifies best practices in research and recommends practical options for discouraging and addressing research misconduct and detrimental research practices.

RESOURCES AT A GLANCE

• Press Release
• Report Brief

• Policy for Science and Technology — Research and Data

Suggested Citation

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Fostering Integrity in Research . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21896. Import this citation to: Bibtex EndNote Reference Manager

Publication Info

• Paperback:  978-0-309-39125-2
• Ebook:  978-0-309-39128-3

What is skim?

The Chapter Skim search tool presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter. You may select key terms to highlight them within pages of each chapter.

Fostering Integrity in Research Report Release

The Committee on Responsible Science, chaired by Dr. Robert Nerem, presenting the release of its final report, Fostering Integrity in Research on Tuesday, April 11, 2017.

Copyright Information

The National Academies Press (NAP) has partnered with Copyright Clearance Center's Marketplace service to offer you a variety of options for reusing NAP content. Through Marketplace, you may request permission to reprint NAP content in another publication, course pack, secure website, or other media. Marketplace allows you to instantly obtain permission, pay related fees, and print a license directly from the NAP website. The complete terms and conditions of your reuse license can be found in the license agreement that will be made available to you during the online order process. To request permission through Marketplace you are required to create an account by filling out a simple online form. The following list describes license reuses offered by the NAP through Marketplace:

• Republish text, tables, figures, or images in print
• Post on a secure Intranet/Extranet website
• Use in a PowerPoint Presentation
• Distribute via CD-ROM

Click here to obtain permission for the above reuses. If you have questions or comments concerning the Marketplace service, please contact:

Marketplace Support International +1.978.646.2600 US Toll Free +1.855.239.3415 E-mail: [email protected] marketplace.copyright.com

To request permission to distribute a PDF, please contact our Customer Service Department at [email protected] .

What is a prepublication?

An uncorrected copy, or prepublication, is an uncorrected proof of the book. We publish prepublications to facilitate timely access to the committee's findings.

What happens when I pre-order?

The final version of this book has not been published yet. You can pre-order a copy of the book and we will send it to you when it becomes available. We will not charge you for the book until it ships. Pricing for a pre-ordered book is estimated and subject to change. All backorders will be released at the final established price. As a courtesy, if the price increases by more than $3.00 we will notify you. If the price decreases, we will simply charge the lower price. Applicable discounts will be extended.

Downloading and Using eBooks from NAP

What is an ebook.

An ebook is one of two file formats that are intended to be used with e-reader devices and apps such as Amazon Kindle or Apple iBooks.

Why is an eBook better than a PDF?

A PDF is a digital representation of the print book, so while it can be loaded into most e-reader programs, it doesn't allow for resizable text or advanced, interactive functionality. The eBook is optimized for e-reader devices and apps, which means that it offers a much better digital reading experience than a PDF, including resizable text and interactive features (when available).

Where do I get eBook files?

eBook files are now available for a large number of reports on the NAP.edu website. If an eBook is available, you'll see the option to purchase it on the book page.

View more FAQ's about Ebooks

Types of Publications

Consensus Study Report: Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Articles in 2017

Correction: corrigendum: soil warming enhances the hidden shift of elemental stoichiometry by elevated co 2 in wheat.

• Xiangnan Li

Correction: Corrigendum: Development and validation of a prognostic model for predicting 30-day mortality risk in medical patients in emergency department (ED)

• Tam Q. Dang
• Tuan V. Nguyen

Correction: Corrigendum: Drosophila Dullard functions as a Mad phosphatase to terminate BMP signaling

• Hugo Urrutia
• Abigail Aleman
• Edward Eivers

Correction: Corrigendum: Scavenger receptor collectin placenta 1 is a novel receptor involved in the uptake of myelin by phagocytes

• Jeroen F. J. Bogie
• Jo Mailleux
• Jerome J. A. Hendriks

Correction: Corrigendum: Quantum State Transmission in a Superconducting Charge Qubit-Atom Hybrid

• María Martínez Valado
• Rainer Dumke

Correction: Corrigendum: Chemical formation of hybrid di-nitrogen calls fungal codenitrification into question

• Rebecca L. Phillips
• Bongkeun Song
• Craig Tobias

Correction: Corrigendum: Probing the early stages of shock-induced chondritic meteorite formation at the mesoscale

• Michael E. Rutherford
• David J. Chapman
• Daniel E. Eakins

Correction: Corrigendum: Kinetic ways of tailoring phases in high entropy alloys

• Zhijun Wang

Correction: Corrigendum: CRISPR/Cas9-mediated efficient and heritable targeted mutagenesis in tomato plants in the first and later generations

• Changtian Pan

Erratum: Corrigendum: Vidatox 30 CH has tumor activating effect in hepatocellular carcinoma

• Catia Giovannini
• Michele Baglioni
• Laura Gramantieri

Correction: Corrigendum: Feasibility of placenta-derived mesenchymal stem cells as a tool for studying pregnancy-related disorders

• Naoki Fuchi
• Kiyonori Miura
• Hideaki Masuzaki

Correction: Corrigendum: SUV39H1 Reduction Is Implicated in Abnormal Inflammation in COPD

• Tzu-Tao Chen
• Sheng-Ming Wu
• Kang-Yun Lee

Erratum: Variation of outdoor illumination as a function of solar elevation and light pollution

• Manuel Spitschan
• Geoffrey K. Aguirre
• Alison M. Sweeney

Correction: Corrigendum: Rapid identification of intact bacterial resistance plasmids via optical mapping of single DNA molecules

• Lena K. Nyberg
• Saair Quaderi
• Fredrik Westerlund

Correction: Corrigendum: Mechanisms underlying the activity-dependent regulation of locomotor network performance by the Na + pump

• Hong-Yan Zhang
• Laurence Picton
• Keith T. Sillar

Correction: Corrigendum: BCIP: A gene-centered platform for identifying potential regulatory genes in breast cancer

• Shuofeng Hu
• Xiaomin Ying

Correction: Corrigendum: The CUL3-SPOP-DAXX axis is a novel regulator of VEGFR2 expression in vascular endothelial cells

• Tomohisa Sakaue
• Iori Sakakibara
• Shigeki Higashiyama

Publisher Correction: Puerarin attenuates diabetic kidney injury through the suppression of NOX4 expression in podocytes

• Weijing Cai
• Yifei Zhong

Publisher Correction: A new approach towards biomarker selection in estimation of human exposure to chiral chemicals: a case study of mephedrone

• Erika Castrignanò
• Marie Mardal
• Barbara Kasprzyk-Hordern

Correction: Corrigendum: Superstatistical model of bacterial DNA architecture

• Mikhail I. Bogachev
• Oleg A. Markelov
• Armin Bunde

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Office for Research

Research Report 2017

Curiosity knows no bounds. We hunger to understand the world around us through patterns, data, explanations, interpretations,  relationships, and more. Our most creative thinkers mine  knowledge across disciplines for metaphors, connections, contexts,  models, and ideas that can be applied fruitfully in new venues.

By sharing the perspectives of colleagues with different points of view, researchers hone their questions and improve experiments. In fact, the practice of science is predicated on exposing hypotheses and discoveries to open inquiry, analysis, and criticism. Reaching out broadly and working with people with varied backgrounds is the backbone of effective research. It takes advantage of the  differences in ways that reveal the consistency and unity in nature.

View Full Report

Rooms with a View

Rensselaer and IBM Research have launched a multi-year collaboration to pioneer new frontiers in the scientific field of cognitive and immersive  systems. The research collaboration will be housed in the newly established Cognitive and Immersive Systems  Lab (CISL) in the Curtis R. Priem Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center.

Read Full Article

Human Health

On/off switch.

To learn what different cells do, scientists switch them on and off and observe the effects. There are many methods that do this, but they all have problems: too invasive, too slow, or not precise enough.

How Real is Reality TV?

According to June Deery, professor in the Department of Communication and Media, reality TV has changed television and changed reality, even for those who are not among the millions who watch.

Exploring Phosphorene

Two-dimensional phosphane, a material known as phosphorene, has potential application as a material for semiconducting transistors in ever faster and more powerful computers. But there’s a hitch.

Sustainability

The future of energy.

Today, the development of clean energy is critical to the economy and the environment of the state and the nation. Recently, the Rensselaer Center for Future Energy Systems (CFES) was selected to receive a state grant re-designating the center as part of the New York State Center for Advanced Technology (CAT) Program.

Low Center for Industrial Innovation (CII)

(518) 276-4873

Staff Directory

Health Effects of Marijuana and Cannabis-Derived Products Presented in New Report

WASHINGTON – A new  report  from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine offers a rigorous review of scientific research published since 1999 about what is known about the health impacts of cannabis and cannabis-derived products – such as marijuana and active chemical compounds known as cannabinoids – ranging from their therapeutic effects to their risks for causing certain cancers, diseases, mental health disorders, and injuries.  The committee that carried out the study and wrote the report considered more than 10,000 scientific abstracts to reach its nearly 100 conclusions.  The committee also proposed ways to expand and improve the quality of cannabis research efforts, enhance data collection efforts to support the advancement of research, and address the current barriers to cannabis research. “For years the landscape of marijuana use has been rapidly shifting as more and more states are legalizing cannabis for the treatment of medical conditions and recreational use,” said Marie McCormick, chair of the committee; the Sumner and Esther Feldberg Professor of Maternal and Child Health, department of social and behavioral sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; and professor of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass.  “This growing acceptance, accessibility, and use of cannabis and its derivatives have raised important public health concerns.  Moreover, the lack of any aggregated knowledge of cannabis-related health effects has led to uncertainty about what, if any, are the harms or benefits from its use.  We conducted an in-depth and broad review of the most recent research to establish firmly what the science says and to highlight areas that still need further examination.  As laws and policies continue to change, research must also.” Currently, cannabis is the most popular illicit drug in the United States, in terms of past-month users.  Based on a recent nationwide survey, 22.2 million Americans ages 12 and older reported using cannabis in the past 30 days.  This survey also reports that 90 percent of adult cannabis users in the United States said their primary use was recreational, with about 10 percent reporting use solely for medical purposes.  Around 36 percent reported mixed medical and recreational use.  In addition, between 2002 and 2015, the percentage of past-month cannabis users in the U.S. population ages 12 and older has increased steadily from 6.2 percent to 8.3 percent. Therapeutic Effects One of the therapeutic uses of cannabis and cannabinoids is to treat chronic pain in adults.  The committee found evidence to support that patients who were treated with cannabis or cannabinoids were more likely to experience a significant reduction in pain symptoms.  For adults with multiple sclerosis-related muscle spasms, there was substantial evidence that short-term use of certain “oral cannabinoids” – man-made, cannabinoid-based medications that are orally ingested – improved their reported symptoms.  Furthermore, in adults with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, there was conclusive evidence that certain oral cannabinoids were effective in preventing and treating those ailments. Injury and Death Evidence suggests that cannabis use prior to driving increases the risk of being involved in a motor vehicle accident.  Furthermore, evidence suggests that in states where cannabis use is legal, there is increased risk of unintentional cannabis overdose injuries among children.  In one study, ingestion was the most common route of unintentional pediatric exposure, accounting for 78 percent of all incidents.  Another study reported that from 2000 to 2013, the annual rate of poison center calls related to cannabis exposures among children younger than 6 years of age was 2.82 times higher in states that had legalized medical cannabis prior to 2000 than in states where medical cannabis remained illegal as of 2013.  The committee called for more research to determine whether and how cannabis use is associated with death or with occupational injury. Cancer Regarding the link between marijuana and cancer, the committee found evidence that suggests smoking cannabis does not increase the risk for cancers often associated with tobacco use – such as lung and head and neck cancers.  The committee also found limited evidence that cannabis use is associated with one sub-type of testicular cancer and insufficient evidence that cannabis use by a mother or father during pregnancy leads to a greater risk of cancers in the child. Heart Attack, Stroke, and Diabetes The committee said that more research is needed to determine whether and how cannabis use is associated with heart attack, stroke, and diabetes.  However, some evidence suggests that cannabis smoking may trigger a heart attack. Respiratory Disease The evidence reviewed by the committee suggests that smoking cannabis on a regular basis is associated with more frequent chronic bronchitis episodes and worse respiratory symptoms, such as chronic cough and phlegm production, but quitting cannabis smoking is likely to reduce these conditions.  The committee stated that it is unclear whether cannabis use is associated with certain respiratory diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, or worsened lung function. Immunity There is a lack of data on the effects of cannabis or cannabinoid-based therapeutics on the human immune system, as well as insufficient data to draw overarching conclusions concerning the effects of cannabis smoke or cannabinoids on immune competence, the committee stated.  There is also insufficient evidence to support or refute a statistical association between cannabis or cannabinoid use and adverse effects on immune status in individuals with HIV.  Nevertheless, limited evidence suggests that regular exposure to cannabis smoke may have anti-inflammatory activity. Mental Health The evidence reviewed by the committee suggests that cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia, other psychoses, and social anxiety disorders, and to a lesser extent depression.  Alternatively, in individuals with schizophrenia and other psychoses, a history of cannabis use may be linked to better performance on learning and memory tasks.  Heavy cannabis users are more likely to report thoughts of suicide than non-users, and in individuals with bipolar disorder, near-daily cannabis users show increased symptoms of the disorder than non-users.

Problem Cannabis Use The evidence reviewed by the committee suggests that with greater frequency of cannabis use, there is an increased likelihood of developing problem cannabis use.  There is also evidence to suggest that initiating cannabis use at a younger age increases the likelihood of developing problem cannabis use.

Cannabis Use and the Abuse of Other Substances

The committee found limited evidence that cannabis use increases the rate of initiating other drug use, primarily the use of tobacco.  However, the committee found moderate evidence to suggest that there is a link between cannabis use and the development of substance dependence and/or a substance abuse disorder for substances including alcohol, tobacco, and other illicit drugs.

Psychosocial

The committee found that learning, memory, and attention are impaired after immediate cannabis use.  Limited evidence suggests that there are impairments in cognitive domains of learning, memory, and attention in individuals who have stopped smoking cannabis.  In addition, there is limited evidence to suggest that cannabis use is related to impairments in subsequent academic achievement and education as well as social relationships and social roles.  Adolescence and young adulthood are when most youth begin to experiment with substances of abuse, including cannabis, and it is during these periods that the neural layers that underlie the development of cognition are most active.  The committee also found limited evidence of an association between cannabis use and increased rates of unemployment and low income. Prenatal, Perinatal, and Neonatal Exposure

Smoking cannabis during pregnancy is linked to lower birth weight in the offspring, some evidence suggests. However, the relationship with other pregnancy and childhood outcomes is unclear.

Challenges and Barriers in Conducting Cannabis Research

In addition to recommending more research on the beneficial and harmful effects of cannabis and cannabinoid use, the committee emphasized several challenges and barriers in conducting such research.  For instance, specific regulatory barriers, including the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance, impede the advancement of research.  Researchers also often find it difficult to gain access to the quantity, quality, and type of cannabis product necessary to address specific research questions.  The committee said a diverse network of funders is needed to support cannabis and cannabinoid research.  

The study was sponsored by Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority, Arizona Department of Health Services, California Department of Public Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CDC Foundation, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Mat-Su Health Foundation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse, Oregon Health Authority, Robert W. Woodruff Foundation, The Colorado Health Foundation, Truth Initiative, and Washington State Department of Health.  The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine.  The National Academies operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln.  

Social Media :

#CannabisHealthEffects  

Jennifer Walsh, Senior Media Relations Officer Rebecca Ray, Media Relations Assistant Office of News and Public Information 202-334-2138; e-mail  [email protected] Copies of  The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research   are available from the National Academies Press at  http://www.nap.edu  or by calling 1-800-624-6242.  Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

Marie McCormick, M.D., Sc.D.*  ( chair ) Professor Harvard School of Public Health Harvard University Boston

Donald I. Abrams, M.D. Chief Hematology-Oncology Division Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, and Professor of Medicine University of California San Francisco

Margarita Alegria, Ph.D., M.A.* Chief Disparities Research Unit Department of Medicine Massachusetts General Hospital Boston

William Checkley, M.D., Ph.D. Associate Professor of Medicine Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care John Hopkins University Baltimore Lorraine Collins, Ph.D. Associate Dean for Research School of Public Health and Health Professions, and Professor Department of Community Health and Health Behavior University at Buffalo-South Campus Buffalo, N.Y.

Ziva Cooper, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Clinical Neurobiology Department of Psychiatry Columbia University Medical Center New York City

Adre J. Du Plessis, M.D. Director Fetal Medicine Institute, Division Chief Fetal and Transitional Medicine, and Director Fetal Brain Program Children’s National Health System Washington, D.C.

Sarah Feldstein Ewing, Ph.D. Professor Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Oregon Health and Science University Portland

Sean Hennessy, Ph.D.* Professor of Epidemiology, Systems Pharmacology, and Translational Therapeutics Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia

Kent Hutchison, Ph.D. Professor Department of Psychology and Neuroscience Colorado University Boulder

Norbert E. Kaminski, Ph.D., M.S. Professor, Pharmacology and Toxicology, and Director Institute for Integrative Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Michigan State University East Lansing

Sachin Patel, M.D., Ph.D. Associate Professor and Director Division of Addiction Psychiatry Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics Vanderbilt University Medical Center Nashville, Tenn.

Danielle Piomelli, Ph.D. Professor, Anatomy and Neurobiology School of Medicine, and Louise Turner Chair in Neurosciences Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology University of California Irvine

Stephen Sidney, M.D., M.P.H. Director of Research Clinics Division of Research Kaiser Permanente Northern California Oakland

Robert B. Wallace, M.Sc., M.D.* Irene Ensminger Stecher Professor of Epidemiology and Internal Medicine Department of Epidemiology University of Iowa College of Public Health Iowa City 

John Williams, M.D. Professor of Medicine Duke University Medical Center Durham, N.C.

Leigh Jackson, Ph.D. Study Director

*Member, National Academy of Medicine

Select "Patients / Caregivers / Public" or "Researchers / Professionals" to filter your results. To further refine your search, toggle appropriate sections on or off.

Cancer Research Catalyst The Official Blog of the American Association for Cancer Research

Home > Cancer Research Catalyst > AACR Cancer Progress Report 2017: Harnessing Research Discoveries to Save Lives

AACR Cancer Progress Report 2017: Harnessing Research Discoveries to Save Lives

Today, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) released its seventh annual Cancer Progress Report . The report highlights how federally funded research that provides a deep understanding of the biology of cancer is spurring advances across the clinical cancer care continuum that are improving survival and quality of life for people around the world.

One of the approvals, announced in May 2017, opened a new chapter for precision medicine. The approval in question, which was highlighted in a previous post on this blog, was the approval of the immunotherapeutic pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for treating patients with any solid tumor characterized by either of two specific genetic characteristics—microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) and mismatch repair–deficiency. This groundbreaking decision by the FDA not only marked the first approval of an immunotherapeutic for use based on the presence of specific genetic biomarkers in a cancer, but also the first approval of an anticancer therapeutic for use based on cancer biomarkers rather than the location in the body where the cancer originated.

Adrienne Skinner  is one of the patients who is living today with no sign of cancer because she participated in one of the clinical trials on which the landmark pembrolizumab decision was made. Skinner, who is one of eight individuals to share their experiences with cancer in the AACR Cancer Progress Report 2017 , has Lynch syndrome , an inherited disorder that significantly increases a person’s risk of developing certain types of cancer. Most cancers occurring in individuals with Lynch syndrome, including Skinner’s ampullary cancer, are MSI-H and/or mismatch repair–deficient. After Skinner’s cancer progressed despite treatment with several cytotoxic chemotherapeutics, she enrolled in a clinical trial and received pembrolizumab. After 2½ months, the cancer was gone, and now, more than three years later, Skinner is living a full life as a busy working single mother of four daughters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCVOeIAJSPI&feature=youtu.be “This is an incredibly exciting time for the cancer community,” said Margaret Foti, PhD, MD (hc), chief executive officer of the AACR, in a news release . “Research has fueled advances across the continuum of cancer care that are saving lives around the world and we have the scientific knowledge and capability to deliver more lifesaving progress in the future.”

In fact, since writing of the report ceased on July 31, 2017, the FDA has already made six decisions that have added new tools to the armamentarium for physicians treating certain patients with cancer. The most heralded of these decisions was the August 30 approval of tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), the first of a new type of immunotherapy known as CAR T–cell therapy. As highlighted in a previous post on this blog, expanding the uses for CAR T–cell therapy is an area of intensive research investigation and it is likely that more patients, with an increasingly diverse array of types of cancer, will benefit from these transformational immunotherapeutics in the future.

The AACR Cancer Progress Report provides an annual snapshot of advances against cancer, but the progress occurs continuously, as illustrated by the six FDA decisions made since July 31, 2017. Unfortunately, as outlined in the report, the reality is that we need to do even more because advances against cancer have not benefited everyone equally and the burden of cancer is shouldered disproportionately by certain segments of the population, including racial and ethnic minorities, patients of lower socioeconomic status, residents in certain geographic locations, and the elderly.

In addition, the public health challenge posed by cancer is growing. The number of people in the United States dying from cancer is predicted to rise from 600,920 in 2017 to almost 1 million in 2030 without new preventive interventions and treatments. One area of cancer prevention that has yielded some success is tobacco control. Public education and policy initiatives have helped drive down rates of cigarette smoking, which is the leading cause of lung cancer, among U.S. adults from 42 percent in 1965 to 15 percent in 2015. However, some individuals continue to expose themselves to tobacco and other preventable causes of cancer so we must develop and implement more effective strategies for cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment.

Caligiuri’s comments echo the report, which calls on Congress to help us transform cancer care, save more lives from cancer, spur economic growth, and maintain the position of the United States as the global leader in science and medical research by providing annual funding increases for the NIH, NCI, and FDA that are robust, sustained, and predictable.

The AACR will be delivering its message about the importance of continued investment in lifesaving research to policymakers at numerous events over the next 12 months, including two events this week. Today, Wednesday, Sept. 13,  the organization is hosting a Congressional Briefing on Capitol Hill to unveil the AACR Cancer Progress Report 2017 . Tomorrow, it will join more than 350 institutions and advocacy organizations to participate in the annual Rally for Medical Research Hill Day .

“The AACR is heartened by the strong, bipartisan commitment from Congress to invest in cancer research and biomedical science,” said Foti. “We are committed to collaborating with all stakeholders to ensure that the current momentum is sustained and to expedite the next breakthroughs against cancer.”

• About This Blog
• Blog Policies
• Tips for Contributors

Cancer Today Highlights Lessons in Survivorship

Use of Immunotherapeutic Expanded to Fifth Type of Cancer

AACR Annual Meeting 2019: Patients as Partners in the Research Process

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Join the Discussion (max: 750 characters)...

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• 2023 Annual Report
• 2022 Annual Report
• 2021 Annual Report
• 2020 Annual Report
• 2019 Annual Report
• 2018 Annual Report
• 2017 Annual Report
• 2016 Annual Report

Research Refutes Common Belief about Overprescribing

by emli1120 | Feb 26, 2024 | 2017 , in research 2017

From Bench to Bedside for Pulmonary Hypertension

The Center for Digital Health Is Open for Business

Sometimes Diabetes Means Cancer

Riding the Immunotherapy Wave of the Future

Adventures of a Proud Data Parasite

Recent posts.

• Open Science at Stanford
• Surge Teams to the Rescue
• Whatever Is Needed To Provide The Highest Quality Care
• Can New Training Efforts Rein in Health Care Costs?
• One Leukemia Treatment to Rule Them ALL

Recent Comments

About this Report

<b>USGCRP</b>, 2017: <i>Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I</i> [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp.

As a key part of the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) oversaw the production of this stand-alone report of the state of science relating to climate change and its physical impacts.

The Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) is designed to be an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States, to serve as the foundation for efforts to assess climate-related risks and inform decision-making about responses. In accordance with this purpose, it does not include an assessment of literature on climate change mitigation, adaptation, economic valuation, or societal responses, nor does it include policy recommendations.

As Volume I of NCA4, CSSR serves several purposes, including providing 1) an updated detailed analysis of the findings of how climate change is affecting weather and climate across the United States; 2) an executive summary and other CSSR materials that provide the basis for the discussion of climate science found in the second volume of the NCA4; and 3) foundational information and projections for climate change, including extremes, to improve “end-to-end” consistency in sectoral, regional, and resilience analyses within the second volume. CSSR integrates and evaluates the findings on climate science and discusses the uncertainties associated with these findings. It analyzes current trends in climate change, both human-induced and natural, and projects major trends to the end of this century. As an assessment and analysis of the science, this report provides important input to the development of other parts of NCA4, and their primary focus on the human welfare, societal, economic, and environmental elements of climate change.

Much of this report is written at a level more appropriate for a scientific audience, though the Executive Summary is intended to be accessible to a broader audience.

Report Development, Review, and Approval Process

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) serves as the administrative lead agency for the preparation of NCA4. The CSSR Federal Science Steering Committee (SSC) 1 has representatives from three agencies (NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA], and the Department of Energy [DOE]); USGCRP; 2 and three Coordinating Lead Authors, all of whom were Federal employees during the development of this report. Following a public notice for author nominations in March 2016, the SSC selected the writing team, consisting of scientists representing Federal agencies, national laboratories, universities, and the private sector. Contributing Authors were requested to provide special input to the Lead Authors to help with specific issues of the assessment.

The first Lead Author Meeting was held in Washington, DC, in April 2016, to refine the outline contained in the SSC-endorsed prospectus and to make writing assignments. Over the course of 18 months before final publication, seven CSSR drafts were generated, with each successive iteration—from zero- to sixth-order drafts—undergoing additional expert review, as follows: (i) by the writing team itself (13–20 June 2016); (ii) by the SSC convened to oversee report development (29 July–18 August 2016); (iii) by the technical agency representatives (and designees) comprising the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR, 3–14 October 2016); (iv) by the SSC and technical liaisons again (5–13 December 2016); (v) by the general public during the Public Comment Period (15 December 2016–3 February 2017) and an expert panel convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS, 21 December 2016–13 March 2017); 3 and (vi) by the SGCR again (3–24 May 2017) to confirm the Review Editor conclusions that all public and NAS comments were adequately addressed. In October 2016, an 11-member core writing team was tasked with capturing the most important CSSR key findings and generating an Executive Summary. Two additional Lead Authors Meetings were held after major review milestones to facilitate chapter team deliberations and consistency: 2–4 November 2016 (Boulder, CO) and 21–22 April 2017 (Asheville, NC). Literature cutoff dates were enforced, with all cited material published by June 2017. The fifth-order draft including the Executive Summary was compiled in June 2017, and submitted to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). OSTP is responsible for the Federal clearance process prior to final report production and public release. This published report represents the final (sixth-order) draft.

The Sustained National Climate Assessment

The Climate Science Special Report has been developed as part of the USGCRP’s sustained National Climate Assessment (NCA) process. This process facilitates continuous and transparent participation of scientists and stakeholders across regions and sectors, enabling new information and insights to be assessed as they emerge. The Climate Science Special Report is aimed at a comprehensive assessment of the science underlying the changes occurring in Earth’s climate system, with a special focus on the United States.

Sources Used in this Report

The findings in this report are based on a large body of scientific, peer-reviewed research, as well as a number of other publicly available sources, including well-established and carefully evaluated observational and modeling datasets. The team of authors carefully reviewed these sources to ensure a reliable assessment of the state of scientific understanding. Each source of information was determined to meet the four parts of the quality assurance guidance provided to authors (following the approach from NCA3): 1) utility, 2) transparency and traceability, 3) objectivity, and 4) integrity and security. Report authors assessed and synthesized information from peer-reviewed journal articles, technical re­ports produced by Federal agencies, scientific assessments (such as the rigorously-reviewed international assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1 reports of the National Academy of Sciences and its associated National Research Council, and various regional climate impact assessments, conference proceedings, and government statistics (such as population census and energy usage).

1. The CSSR SSC was charged with overseeing the development and production of the report. SSC membership was open to all USGCRP agencies. Back

2. The USGCRP is made up of 13 Federal departments and agencies that carry out research and support the Nation’s response to global change. The USGCRP is overseen by the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR) of the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability (CENRS), which in turn is overseen by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The agencies within USGCRP are the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce (NOAA), the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Interior, the Department of State, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian Institution, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Back

3. Author responses to comments submitted as part of the Public Comment Period and a USGCRP response to the review conducted by NAS can be found on science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads . Back

Research Fronts 2017: A Collaborative Fourth Annual Report on Global Scientific Research

Clarivate Analytics and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) collaborated and released their fourth annual global scientific report “ Research Fronts 2017 ” on November 2, 2017, at a joint forum held at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing. The report, currently available online, identifies the 100 most significant and 43 emerging specialty areas in global scientific research. Spanning across 10 broad areas of sciences and social sciences, the overall report is based on 9,690 scientific literature metric analyses. The data sets obtained from the Essential Science Indicators (ESI) database, range from the period of 2011 to 2016. By definition, the Research Fronts is a specialized form of a report which has a number of highly cited papers reflecting a common theme (may be experimental or theoretical/conceptual). The Research Fronts 2016 report is also available online .

These organizations used ESI for compilations of scientific performance metrics on scholarly publications, and Web of Science for citation data. The joint-report contains 27 Research Fronts selected as specialty areas by the Institute of Science and Development of the CAS. For instance, two of the key Research Fronts this year include Nobel Prize-winning works in Chemistry and Physics.

What Do They Say?

Robert Lemmond, chief commercial officer of Clarivate Analytics, on behalf of the company, expressed his pleasure on collaborating with the CAS to release the Research Fronts 2017. He also said that the report aims to provide a solid foundation for key research trends and new areas of study, all over the world. This collaboration may thereby provide a robust platform that assists researchers, funding agencies, and policymakers to make informed decisions. In China, the report can provide insights into the country’s present and potential performance as a leader in science. According to Professor Bai Chunli, President of the CAS, the report marks a milestone of continuous effort in China to engage the international scientific community. This also includes reaffirmation of the role of CAS as China’s foremost think tank on global science and technology. Continued collaborations between Clarivate Analytics and CAS may transform the annual Research Fronts report into a global resource.

Other Reports Released by this Collaboration

To highlight national impact in global scientific research, these two organizations jointly published another analytical report. This report comparatively examines the national performance across the 143 Research Fronts to reflect China’s contribution and global citation impact. Accordingly, USA is leading in the field of global research, followed by China in second place , ahead of UK and Germany. Prolific research areas in China include Chemistry, Materials Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Computer Science. Analytics further indicate that China leads globally on research covering Mathematics, Engineering, and Computer Science.

Key Features of Research Fronts 2017

Of the delineated 100 Research Fronts , 20 noteworthy research areas include genome editing, DNA metabarcoding, and nanoarchitectonics. Similarly, of the 43 emerging areas, seven noteworthy topics include climate change, Zika virus prevention, and binary black hole formation. Incidentally, research on binary black holes relates to the work that received the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics . Similarly, the research front on cryo-electron microscopy received the 2017 Nobel Prize in Chemistry . The full 2017 report is available online in Chinese and English for open access download. The key research topics (20 Hot Research Fronts and 7 Emerging Research Fronts ) along with some of the research areas that appear on Research Fronts 2017 are listed below in Table 1. A comprehensive evaluation of the global impact of scientific research is available online for further reading.

Do you think this annual global report is beneficial for the young researchers? If yes, then how? Please let us know your thoughts in the comments section below!

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Manuscripts & Grants
• Reporting Research

Tackling Climate Crisis Needs Effective Research Collaboration — Now, More than Ever!

Climate crisis is one of the most pressing issues of our time. It threatens both…

• Diversity and Inclusion

Achieving Openness in Science With International Collaboration

Open access research leads to more access to research, where anyone in the world can…

• Industry News
• Publishing News

3 Scholarly Predictions by Elsevier- Imagining the World of Research in the Coming Decade

The research ecosystem is witnessing a profound change at an unprecedented pace. A number of…

• PhDs & Postdocs

Predicting and Strategically Planning for the Uncertain Future

This guest post is drafted by an expert team from Wiley. Wiley is one of the…

• Career Corner

How to Get the Most From Your Research Collaboration

The right collaborations can make or break a research project. Making and developing collaborations is…

3 Scholarly Predictions by Elsevier- Imagining the World of Research in the Coming…

Enago Joins the (AARP) Employer Pledge Program

How Collaborations Increase Research Impact

Senior Researchers Unwilling to Collaborate With Juniors?

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

American association for cancer research 2017 annual report

On May 7, 1907, eleven prominent scientists met at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., to develop an organization of investigators “to further the investigation and spread the knowledge of cancer.” This date marks the founding of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), the first scientific society in the world to focus specifically on cancer.

Left to right: AACR Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, PhD, MD (hc); AACR President (2016-2017) Nancy E. Davidson, MD, FAACR; AACR President (2015-2016) José Baselga, MD, PhD, FAACR; AACR President (2017-2018) Michael Caligiuri, MD.

Table of Contents

• Strategic Plan
• Progress Against Cancer in 2017
• AACR Annual Meeting
• Scientific Publishing
• AACR International
• Honoring Scientific Achievement
• Science and Education
• Scientific Review and Grants Administration
• Government Affairs / Survivor and Patient Advocacy
• AACR Foundation
• Financial Statement
• The AACR in 2018: A Look Ahead

© 2018 American Association for Cancer Research

Forrester Research Reports 2017 Fourth-Quarter And Full-Year Financial Results

Cambridge, Mass., February 7, 2018 . . . Forrester Research, Inc. (Nasdaq: FORR) today announced its 2017 fourth-quarter and full-year financial results. The company also announced that its board of directors authorized a $50 million increase in the company’s stock repurchase program, bringing the total available repurchase authorization to approximately $70 million.

Fourth-Quarter Financial Performance

Total revenues were $90.4 million for the fourth quarter of 2017, compared with $83.4 million for the fourth quarter of 2016. Research revenues increased 3%, and advisory services and events revenues increased 18%, compared with the fourth quarter of 2016. On a constant-currency basis, research revenues increased 2%, and advisory services and events revenues increased 17%, compared with the fourth quarter of 2016.

On a GAAP basis, net income was $2.1 million, or $0.11 per diluted share, for the fourth quarter of 2017, compared with net income of $5.8 million, or $0.31 per diluted share, for the same period in 2016. The company recorded a provisional income tax expense of $1.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2017 due to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that was signed into law on December 22, 2017.

On a pro forma basis, net income was $5.9 million, or $0.32 per diluted share, for the fourth quarter of 2017, which reflects a pro forma effective tax rate of 40%. Pro forma net income excludes stock-based compensation of $2.1 million, amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets of $0.2 million, and net investment gains of $0.5 million. This compares with pro forma net income of $7.1 million, or $0.38 per diluted share, for the same period in 2016, which reflects a pro forma tax rate of 40%. Pro forma net income for the fourth quarter of 2016 excludes stock-based compensation of $2.2 million, amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets of $0.2 million, and net investment gains of $0.3 million.

“Forrester met pro forma operating margin and exceeded revenue guidance and pro forma EPS guidance for the fourth quarter and full year of 2017,” said George F. Colony, Forrester’s chairman and chief executive officer. “We ended 2017 on an upswing, as more large corporations responded to the challenges of the age of the customer, and our new customer engagement model has clicked into place. In 2018, we will extend this model to Europe and Asia and accelerate the digital transformation of our products and internal operations. The empowered customer represents an existential challenge for our clients; our services will help them develop the right strategies to grow in this new world.”

Year Ended December 31, 2017 Financial Performance

Total revenues were $337.7 million, compared with $326.1 million for the same period in 2016. Research revenues increased 1%, and advisory services and events revenues increased 9%, compared with 2016. On a constant-currency basis, research revenues increased 1%, advisory services and events revenues increased 9%, and overall revenue increased 3%, compared with 2016.

On a GAAP basis, net income was $15.1 million, or $0.83 per diluted share, for 2017, compared with net income of $17.7 million, or $0.97 per diluted share, for 2016.

On a pro forma basis, net income was $22.3 million, or $1.22 per diluted share, for 2017, which reflects a pro forma effective tax rate of 40%. Pro forma net income excludes stock-based compensation of $8.5 million, amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets of $0.8 million, and net investment losses of $0.5 million. This compares with pro forma net income of $24.8 million, or $1.36 per diluted share, for 2016, which reflects a pro forma tax rate of 40%. Pro forma net income for 2016 excludes stock-based compensation of $8.0 million, amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets of $0.8 million, reorganization costs of $1.0 million, and net investment losses of $0.8 million.

A reconciliation of GAAP results to pro forma results may be found in the attached financial tables.

2018 Guidance

Forrester is providing first-quarter 2018 financial guidance as follows:

First-Quarter 2018 (GAAP):

• Total revenues of approximately $77.0 million to $80.0 million.
• Operating margin of approximately (2.0)% to 0%.
• Other income, net of zero.
• An effective tax rate of 31%.
• Loss per share of approximately $0.01 to $0.05.

First-Quarter 2018 (Pro Forma):

Pro forma financial guidance for the first quarter of 2018 excludes stock-based compensation expense of $2.0 million to $2.2 million, amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets of approximately $0.2 million, and any investment gains or losses.

• Pro forma operating margin of approximately 1.0% to 3.0%.
• Pro forma effective tax rate of 31%.
• Pro forma diluted earnings per share of approximately $0.03 to $0.07.

Our full-year 2018 guidance is as follows:

Full-Year 2018 (GAAP):

• Total revenues of approximately $352.0 million to $360.0 million.
• Operating margin of approximately 7.5% to 8.5%.
• Diluted earnings per share of approximately $1.03 to $1.10.

Full-Year 2018 (Pro Forma):

Pro forma financial guidance for full-year 2018 excludes stock-based compensation expense of $8.3 million to $8.8 million, amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets of approximately $0.7 million, and any investment gains or losses.

• Pro forma operating margin of approximately 10.0% to 11.0%.
• Pro forma diluted earnings per share of approximately $1.38 to $1.45.

Quarterly Dividend

Forrester is announcing today that its board of directors has authorized a 5% increase to its regularly quarterly dividend from $0.19 per share to $0.20 per share. The next dividend of $0.20 per share is payable March 21, 2018, to shareholders of record on March 7, 2018.

About Forrester Research

Forrester Research is one of the most influential research and advisory firms in the world. We work with business and technology leaders to develop customer-obsessed strategies that drive growth. Forrester’s unique insights are grounded in annual surveys of more than 675,000 consumers and business leaders worldwide, rigorous and objective methodologies, and the shared wisdom of our most innovative clients. Through proprietary research, data, custom consulting, exclusive executive peer groups, and events, the Forrester experience is about a singular and powerful purpose: to challenge the thinking of our clients to help them lead change in their organizations. For more information, visit forrester.com.

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements include, but are not limited to, Forrester’s financial guidance for the first quarter of and full-year 2018, statements about the success of operational improvements, and statements about Forrester’s future financial performance and financial condition. These statements are based on Forrester’s current plans and expectations and involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual future activities and results of operations to be materially different from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause actual future activities and results to differ include, among others, Forrester’s ability to retain and enrich memberships for its research products and services, technology spending, Forrester’s ability to respond to business and economic conditions and market trends, the risks and challenges inherent in international business activities, competition and industry consolidation, the ability to attract and retain professional staff, Forrester’s dependence on key personnel, the possibility of network disruptions and security breaches, and possible variations in Forrester’s quarterly operating results. Financial guidance regarding shares outstanding and per-share amounts is based on certain assumptions that are subject to change, including as a result of the number of shares repurchased by Forrester under its announced share repurchase program. Dividend declarations are at the discretion of Forrester’s board of directors, and plans for future dividends may be revised by the board at any time. Forrester undertakes no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. For further information, please refer to Forrester’s reports and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Attachments

• Forrester Q4 2017 Earnings Release Tables

Align Your Tech Architecture To Business Outcomes

Learn how forrester’s outcome-driven architecture model can help you align your ea strategy to real business outcomes., forrester research to broadcast its 2024 first-quarter earnings conference call, forrester announces 2024 b2b return on integration honorees and program of the year award winners for north america, help us improve.

Poverty Measure

The Poverty Research Team is responsible for the development of the NYCgov Poverty Measure. The alternative NYC poverty measure, in comparison to the official U.S. measure of poverty, includes a threshold that accounts for the higher cost of housing in New York City. Additionally, it incorporates the value of programs intended to alleviate poverty; adjusting family incomes for benefits such as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The work has received nationwide attention and contributed to development of the Federal Supplemental Poverty Measure.

The New York City Government Poverty Measure, 2020

The latest NYC Opportunity annual report on poverty updates the NYCgov Poverty Measure for New York City in 2020. This year’s report, which covers the first year of Covid-19, provides less robust poverty data than past reports because of significant pandemic-related limitations in data collection in 2020.

The NYCgov poverty measure that this report contains each year is based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual American Community Survey (ACS) supplemented by city, state, and other national data. The 2020 ACS survey, however, was suspended for several months, and the overall response rate was lower, and uneven across demographic categories.

To compensate for these problems, the Census Bureau issued a set of “experimental” one-year data. Making cautious use of that data, this report finds that the poverty rate fell by 0.8 percentage points in 2020, a statistically significant drop that seems plausible in light of the temporary aid New York City households received. Because of the data problems, the trend’s trajectory (a notable decline in poverty) is more reliable than the actual rate.

Technical Notes Forthcoming

Past poverty reports and technical appendices.

CEO's first working paper on poverty in New York City, issued in August of 2008, contrasted poverty rates for 2006 derived from CEO's application of the NAS methodology against those based on the official method. The 2010 report focused on how and why poverty rates using our methodology have changed over time, using the one-year ACS samples for 2005 to 2008.

The CEO Poverty Measure

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

About 1 in 4 u.s. teachers say their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the last school year.

Twenty-five years after the mass shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado , a majority of public K-12 teachers (59%) say they are at least somewhat worried about the possibility of a shooting ever happening at their school. This includes 18% who say they’re extremely or very worried, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to better understand public K-12 teachers’ views on school shootings, how prepared they feel for a potential active shooter, and how they feel about policies that could help prevent future shootings.

To do this, we surveyed 2,531 U.S. public K-12 teachers from Oct. 17 to Nov. 14, 2023. The teachers are members of RAND’s American Teacher Panel, a nationally representative panel of public school K-12 teachers recruited through MDR Education. Survey data is weighted to state and national teacher characteristics to account for differences in sampling and response to ensure they are representative of the target population.

We also used data from our 2022 survey of U.S. parents. For that project, we surveyed 3,757 U.S. parents with at least one child younger than 18 from Sept. 20 to Oct. 2, 2022. Find more details about the survey of parents here .

Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and the survey methodology .

Another 31% of teachers say they are not too worried about a shooting occurring at their school. Only 7% of teachers say they are not at all worried.

This survey comes at a time when school shootings are at a record high (82 in 2023) and gun safety continues to be a topic in 2024 election campaigns .

Teachers’ experiences with lockdowns

About a quarter of teachers (23%) say they experienced a lockdown in the 2022-23 school year because of a gun or suspicion of a gun at their school. Some 15% say this happened once during the year, and 8% say this happened more than once.

High school teachers are most likely to report experiencing these lockdowns: 34% say their school went on at least one gun-related lockdown in the last school year. This compares with 22% of middle school teachers and 16% of elementary school teachers.

Teachers in urban schools are also more likely to say that their school had a gun-related lockdown. About a third of these teachers (31%) say this, compared with 19% of teachers in suburban schools and 20% in rural schools.

Do teachers feel their school has prepared them for an active shooter?

About four-in-ten teachers (39%) say their school has done a fair or poor job providing them with the training and resources they need to deal with a potential active shooter.

A smaller share (30%) give their school an excellent or very good rating, and another 30% say their school has done a good job preparing them.

Teachers in urban schools are the least likely to say their school has done an excellent or very good job preparing them for a potential active shooter. About one-in-five (21%) say this, compared with 32% of teachers in suburban schools and 35% in rural schools.

Teachers who have police officers or armed security stationed in their school are more likely than those who don’t to say their school has done an excellent or very good job preparing them for a potential active shooter (36% vs. 22%).

Overall, 56% of teachers say they have police officers or armed security stationed at their school. Majorities in rural schools (64%) and suburban schools (56%) say this, compared with 48% in urban schools.

Only 3% of teachers say teachers and administrators at their school are allowed to carry guns in school. This is slightly more common in school districts where a majority of voters cast ballots for Donald Trump in 2020 than in school districts where a majority of voters cast ballots for Joe Biden (5% vs. 1%).

What strategies do teachers think could help prevent school shootings?

The survey also asked teachers how effective some measures would be at preventing school shootings.

Most teachers (69%) say improving mental health screening and treatment for children and adults would be extremely or very effective.

About half (49%) say having police officers or armed security in schools would be highly effective, while 33% say the same about metal detectors in schools.

Just 13% say allowing teachers and school administrators to carry guns in schools would be extremely or very effective at preventing school shootings. Seven-in-ten teachers say this would be not too or not at all effective.

How teachers’ views differ by party

Republican and Republican-leaning teachers are more likely than Democratic and Democratic-leaning teachers to say each of the following would be highly effective:

• Having police officers or armed security in schools (69% vs. 37%)
• Having metal detectors in schools (43% vs. 27%)
• Allowing teachers and school administrators to carry guns in schools (28% vs. 3%)

And while majorities in both parties say improving mental health screening and treatment would be highly effective at preventing school shootings, Democratic teachers are more likely than Republican teachers to say this (73% vs. 66%).

Parents’ views on school shootings and prevention strategies

In fall 2022, we asked parents a similar set of questions about school shootings.

Roughly a third of parents with K-12 students (32%) said they were extremely or very worried about a shooting ever happening at their child’s school. An additional 37% said they were somewhat worried.

As is the case among teachers, improving mental health screening and treatment was the only strategy most parents (63%) said would be extremely or very effective at preventing school shootings. And allowing teachers and school administrators to carry guns in schools was seen as the least effective – in fact, half of parents said this would be not too or not at all effective. This question was asked of all parents with a child younger than 18, regardless of whether they have a child in K-12 schools.

Like teachers, parents’ views on strategies for preventing school shootings differed by party. 

Note: Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and the survey methodology .

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

‘Back to school’ means anytime from late July to after Labor Day, depending on where in the U.S. you live

Among many u.s. children, reading for fun has become less common, federal data shows, most european students learn english in school, for u.s. teens today, summer means more schooling and less leisure time than in the past, about one-in-six u.s. teachers work second jobs – and not just in the summer, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

research.rabobank.com uses cookies

By using cookies we ensure our website is safe and user-friendly. They also mean we can inform you better. The level of cookies and processing of personal information we apply is up to you.

An optimized customer experience, including videos, podcasts and information about relevant products and services on Rabobank.com and research.rabobank.com.

A functioning website only.

RaboResearch

Food & Agribusiness

• Agri Commodity Markets
• Animal Protein
• Consumer Foods
• Farm Inputs
• Fresh Produce
• Grains & Oilseeds
• Packaging & Logistics
• New Zealand
• North America
• South America
•   Food & Agri Home
•   Sectors
•   Fresh Produce

World Vegetable Map 2024: Turbulent times for the global vegetable sector

• Fruit & Vegetables

Our new World Vegetable Map illustrates global vegetable trade flows and highlights recent trends from a turbulent sector – from increasing global trade to volatile consumer prices, decreasing EU production to rising US imports.

The past five years have been everything but boring for the vegetable sector. The Covid-19 pandemic, extreme weather events, skyrocketing costs for growers, and challenging logistics are just some of the factors that have impacted the sector. Our recently published World Vegetable Map reflects some of these disruptions, for example, in the remarkably high global trade in 2021 and the roller-coaster ride of consumer vegetable prices. Most of the pictured trends, however, are rather long-term developments. Mexico, Spain, and the Netherlands have remained relevant exporters in the world of fresh vegetables, and countries such as Turkey and Poland are becoming bigger producers and exporters of both fresh and processed vegetables.

EU and US vegetable production decreasing

An estimated 7% of vegetables produced globally are traded, either fresh or processed, mainly within continents and often between neighboring countries. From 2017 to 2022, global trade in both processed and fresh vegetables increased by an average of 3% per year, though not in a linear pattern due to the Covid pandemic and the subsequent global wave of inflation (see figure 1). Global vegetable production grew at a slower pace of 1.2% per year. Notably, the EU and the US both experienced declines in production, by 3.6% and 3.3% a year, respectively, in the period from 2017 to 2022.

Figure 1: Global vegetable trade, 2017-2022

US increasingly dependent on imported vegetables

During the last five years, the US reinforced its position as the world’s largest import market for fresh vegetables. The country’s share of imports for greenhouse vegetables such as cucumbers, tomatoes, and bell peppers is particularly high (see figure 2). Due to ongoing strong demand from the US, Mexico’s total fresh vegetable exports increased by almost 40% between 2017 and 2022.

Figure 2: Share of imported vegetables in total fresh vegetables available in the US, 2017 vs. 2022

A mixed bag of European vegetable imports

New players in vegetable processing, but all impacted by inflation, varying impact of inflation on consumer prices and consumption.

Inflation affected not only the vegetable processing industry but also, to a lesser extent, the fresh vegetable sector. Companies had to manage higher costs in producing, storing, packing, and transporting vegetables. In many cases, prices also increased for consumers. It is difficult to determine whether inflated vegetable prices have impacted consumer purchasing behavior. We see varying developments around the world. In Australia, per capita vegetable consumption decreased between 2017 and 2022, despite relatively limited inflation. It seems that Australian consumers are shifting from purchasing greater volumes to focusing on higher-value vegetables. While consumption of carrots, pumpkins, and onions decreased, consumer interest in leafy greens increased. In the US, the overall volume of vegetables consumed did not change that much from 2017 to 2022. German households, in contrast, strongly increased their fresh vegetable purchases (see figures 3 and 4). In 2022, there was a decline in German vegetable purchases, but they remained considerably higher than in 2019, despite the relatively high increase in vegetable prices.

Figure 3: Consumer price evolution for vegetables, in selected regions,* 2015-2023

Figure 4: Household purchases* of fresh vegetables in Germany, 2017-2022

Increasing control in vegetable production

Seeds: a small input of high importance.

Starting with high-quality materials is key for producers of quality vegetables. The fact that Russia has increased imports of vegetable seeds year after year since 2015, while the import of fresh vegetables from the EU was banned, illustrates the strategic importance of this tiny but expensive input. The breeding, production, and export of vegetable seeds is concentrated in a few countries. Over the last five years, the Netherlands has strengthened its position in the breeding and trading of high-value vegetable seeds (see figure 5). Chile also holds a unique position in seed production and exports due to its natural conditions and Southern Hemisphere location. The US is both a large exporter and importer of vegetable seeds. Many of the seeds exported from the US to Mexico return to the US as vegetables, further illustrating the close ties between these two countries.

Figure 5: Top 10 vegetable seed exporters, 2017 vs. 2022

Download the map

> Click here to download the World Vegetable Map 2024

Where to go from here

• China’s appetite for Chilean sweet cherries drives export growth
• Podcast: Almond outlook 2024
• Fresh Produce sector team

Cindy van Rijswick

Lambert van Horen

David Magaña

Gonzalo Salinas

Pia Piggott

Related content.

• Australia agribusiness April 2024: Sowing the seeds for success
• New Zealand agribusiness April 2024: Unpacking the colours of autumn
• El mundo de las hortalizas en constante cambio
• El apetito de China por las cerezas de Chile alimenta su crecimiento

Watch CBS News

Why is looking at a solar eclipse dangerous without special glasses? Eye doctors explain.

By Sara Moniuszko

Edited By Allison Elyse Gualtieri

Updated on: April 8, 2024 / 8:54 AM EDT / CBS News

The solar eclipse will be visible for millions of Americans on April 8, 2024, making many excited to see it — but how you watch it matters, since it can be dangerous for your eyes. 

A  solar eclipse occurs when the moon passes between the sun and Earth, blocking the sun's light . When the moon blocks some of the sun, it's a partial solar eclipse, but when moon lines up with the sun, blocking all of its light, a total solar eclipse occurs,  NASA explains . Either way, you need eye protection when viewing.

"The solar eclipse will be beautiful, so I hope that everyone experiences it — but they need to experience it in the right way," said Dr. Jason P. Brinton, an ophthalmologist and medical director at Brinton Vision in St. Louis.

Here's what to know to stay safe.

Why is looking at a solar eclipse dangerous?

Looking at the sun — even when it's partially covered like during an eclipse — can cause eye damage.

There is no safe dose of solar ultraviolet rays or infrared radiation, said  Dr. Yehia Hashad , an ophthalmologist, retinal specialist and the chief medical officer at eye health company Bausch + Lomb.

"A very small dose could cause harm to some people," he said. "That's why we say the partial eclipse could also be damaging. And that's why we protect our eyes with the partial as well as with the full sun."

Some say that during a total eclipse, it's safe to view the brief period time when the moon completely blocks the sun without eye protection. But experts warn against it. 

"Totality of the eclipse lasts only about 1 to 3 minutes based on geographic location, and bright sunlight suddenly can appear as the moon continues to move," notes an eclipse viewing guide published in JAMA , adding, "even a few seconds of viewing the sun during an eclipse" can temporarily or permanently damage your vision. 

Do I need special glasses for eclipse viewing?

Yes.  Eclipse glasses are needed to protect your eyes if you want to look at the eclipse.

Regular sunglasses aren't protective enough for eclipse viewing — even if you stack more than one. 

"There's no amount of sunglasses that people can put on that will make up for the filtering that the ISO standard filters and the eclipse glasses provide," Brinton said.

You also shouldn't look at the eclipse through a camera lens, phone, binoculars or telescope, according to NASA, even while wearing eclipse glasses. The solar rays can burn through the lens and cause serious eye injury.

Eclipse glasses must comply with the  ISO 12312-2 international safety standard , according to NASA, and should have an "ISO" label printed on them to show they comply. The American Astronomical Society  has a list  of approved solar viewers.

Can't find these, or they're sold out near you? You can also  make homemade viewers ,   which allow you to observe the eclipse indirectly — just don't accidentally look at the sun while using one.

How to keep kids safe during the solar eclipse

Since this eclipse is expected to occur around the time of dismissal for many schools across the country, it may be tempting for students to view it without the proper safety precautions while getting to and from their buses. That's why some school districts are  canceling classes early so kids can enjoy the event safely with their families.

Dr. Avnish Deobhakta, vitreoretinal surgeon at New York Eye and Ear Infirmary at Mount Sinai, said parents should also be careful because it can be difficult for children to listen or keep solar eclipse glasses on. 

"You want to actually, in my opinion, kind of avoid them even looking at the eclipse, if possible," he said. "Never look directly at the sun, always wear the right eclipse sunglasses if you are going to look at the sun and make sure that those are coming from a reliable source."

Brinton recommends everyone starts their eclipse "viewing" early, by looking at professional photos and videos of an eclipse online or visiting a local planetarium. 

That way, you "have an idea of what to expect," he said. 

He also recommends the foundation  Prevent Blindness , which has resources for families about eclipse safety.

What happens if you look at a solar eclipse without eclipse glasses?

While your eyes likely won't hurt in the moment if you look at the eclipse without protection, due to lowered brightness and where damage occurs in the eye, beware: The rays can still cause damage .

The harm may not be apparent immediately. Sometimes trouble starts to appear one to a few days following the event. It could affect just one or both eyes.

And while some will regain normal visual function, sometimes the damage is permanent. 

"Often there will be some recovery of the vision in the first few months after it, but sometimes there is no recovery and sometimes there's a degree to which it is permanent," Brinton said. 

How long do you have to look at the eclipse to damage your eyes?

Any amount of time looking at the eclipse without protection is too long, experts say. 

"If someone briefly looks at the eclipse, if it's extremely brief, in some cases there won't be damage. But damage can happen even within a fraction of a second in some cases," Brinton said. He said he's had patients who have suffered from solar retinopathy, the official name for the condition.

Deobhakta treated a patient who watched the 2017 solar eclipse for 20 seconds without proper eye protection. She now has permanent damage in the shape of a crescent that interferes with her vision. 

"The crescent that is burned into the retina, the patient sees as black in her visual field," he said. "The visual deficit that she has will never go away."

How to know if you've damaged your eyes from looking at the eclipse

Signs and symptoms of eye damage following an eclipse viewing include headaches, blurred vision, dark spots, changes to how you see color, lines and shapes. 

Unfortunately, there isn't a treatment for solar retinopathy.

"Seeing an eye care professional to solidify the diagnosis and for education I think is reasonable," Brinton said, but added, "right now there is nothing that we do for this. Just wait and give it time and the body does tend to heal up a measure of it."

Sara Moniuszko is a health and lifestyle reporter at CBSNews.com. Previously, she wrote for USA Today, where she was selected to help launch the newspaper's wellness vertical. She now covers breaking and trending news for CBS News' HealthWatch.

More from CBS News

Owe back taxes on April 15? Here's how tax relief can help now.

Is trendy "all-body" deodorant necessary? Dermatologists weigh in.

3 advantages HELOCs have over other credit options right now

Should you get a home equity loan before the Fed's April meeting?

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.