Honeybee Cognition as a Tool for Scientific Engagement.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Denton JA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8471026 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Honeybee Cognition as a Tool for Scientific Engagement.
Denton Jai A JA Koludarov Ivan I Thompson Michele M Bryk Jarosław J Velasque Mariana M
Insects 20210918 9
<i>Apis mellifera</i> (honeybees) are a well-established model for the study of learning and cognition. A robust conditioning protocol, the olfactory conditioning of the proboscis extension response (PER), provides a powerful but straightforward method to examine the impact of varying stimuli on learning performance. Herein, we provide a protocol that leverages PER for classroom-based community or student engagement. Specifically, we detail how a class of high school students, as part of the Ryu ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Due to intensive agriculture honeybees are threatened by various pesticides. The use of one group of them, the neonicotinoids, was recently restricted by the European Union. These chemicals bind to the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAchR) in the honeybee brain. Recently, Bayer AG released a new pesticide by the name of "Sivanto" against sucking insects. It is assumed to be harmless for honeybees, although its active ingredient, flupyradifurone, binds nAchR similar to the neonicotinoids. We investigated if this pesticide affects the taste for sugar and cognitive performance in honeybee foragers. These bees are directly exposed to the pesticide while foraging for pollen or nectar. Our results demonstrate that flupyradifurone can reduce taste and appetitive learning performance in honeybees foraging for pollen and nectar, although only the highest concentration had significant effects. Most likely, honeybee foragers will not be exposed to these high concentrations. Therefore, the appropriate use of this pesticide is considered safe for honeybees, at least with respect to the behaviors studied here.
| S-EPMC5862975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies on COVID-19 scholarly articles have primarily focused on bibliometric characteristics, neglecting the identification of institutional actors that cite recent scientific contributions related to COVID-19 in the policy domain, and their locations.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the online citation network and knowledge structure of COVID-19 research across policy domains over 2 years from January 2020 to January 2022, with a particular emphasis on geographical frequency. Two research questions were addressed. The first question was related to who has been the most active in policy engagement with science and research information sharing during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in terms of countries and organization types. The second question was related to whether there are significant differences in the types of coronavirus research shared among countries and continents.MethodsThe Altmetric database was used to collect policy report citations of scientific articles for 3 topic terms (COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 variants). Altmetric provides the URLs of policy agencies that have cited COVID-19 research. The scientific articles used for Altmetric citations are extracted from journals indexed by PubMed. The numbers of COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 variant research outputs between January 1, 2020, and January 31, 2022, were 216,787, 16,748, and 2777, respectively. The study examined the frequency of citations based on policy institutional domains, such as intergovernmental organizations, national and domestic governmental organizations, and nongovernmental organizations (think tanks and academic institutions).ResultsThe World Health Organization (WHO) stood out as the most notable institution citing COVID-19-related research outputs. The WHO actively sought and disseminated information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 vaccine citation network exhibited the most extensive connections in terms of degree centrality, 2-local eigenvector centrality, and eigenvector centrality among the 3 key terms. The Netherlands, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia were the countries that sought and shared the most information on COVID-19 vaccines, likely due to their high numbers of COVID-19 cases. Developing nations, although gaining quicker access to COVID-19 vaccine information, appeared to be relatively isolated from the enriched COVID-19 pandemic content in the global network.ConclusionsThe global scientific network ecology during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed distinct types of links primarily centered around the WHO. Western countries demonstrated effective networking practices in constructing these networks. The prominent position of the key term "COVID-19 vaccine" demonstrates that nation-states align with global authority regardless of their national contexts. In summary, the citation networking practices of policy agencies have the potential to uncover the global knowledge distribution structure as a proxy for the networking strategy employed during a pandemic.
| S-EPMC10365591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We propose a strategy and present a simple tool to facilitate scientific data reproducibility by making available, in a distributed manner, all data and procedures presented in scientific papers, together with metadata to render them searchable and discoverable. In particular, we describe a graphical user interface (GUI), Qresp, to curate papers (i.e. generate metadata) and to explore curated papers and automatically access the data presented in scientific publications.
| S-EPMC6350630 | biostudies-other
Project description:Socio-scientific argumentation (SSA) is increasingly being recognized as a key aspect of scientific literacy. Much of the reason for this is that this skill is crucial for helping students to become active participants in twenty-first-century democratic societies in which the construction of informed and critical views of socio-scientific issues (e.g. climate change, COVID-19 vaccination, genetic testing) plays a fundamental role. The problem is that instructors rarely give students explicit and research-based opportunities to enrich their SSA skills. Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide evidence that drama can be used as a platform to enrich argumentation in genetic testing. The data were derived from the written responses and the audio recordings of seventy-six university students (37 females and 39 males, 16-29 years old) in Colombia during a complete drama-based teaching-learning sequence (TLS) supervised by the same instructor. The outcomes suggest that the sequence can be used to enrich argumentation in genetic testing as it effectively provided participants with explicit opportunities to produce both arguments and counterarguments about the controversy whether the use of genetic tests among people should be encouraged. This study contributes to the literature on SSA in science education by demonstrating that drama is a promising tool to enhance argumentation about science-based social issues.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10763-022-10320-3.
| S-EPMC9535234 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The present study is an evaluation of published papers in the field of scientometrics-bibliometrics in veterinary or animal studies. The objective was the quantitative evaluation of the scientific content and the bibliometric details of papers that had used scientometrics as a methodological approach to assess various topics within the broad field of veterinary or animal studies. For the search of published papers, the Web of Science database was used; the search string {ALL FIELDS = [scientometric* OR bibliometric*]} AND {ALL FIELDS = [veterinary OR animal*]} was employed. In all, 163 papers were evaluated individually. There was a progressive increase in the number of papers published annually (slope 0.314 ± 0.063) which originated from 58 countries, mostly from the United States of America (n = 24) and 306 organizations. The databases employed most frequently for record search were the Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed (in 105, 60 and 21 papers, respectively); the median timespan of the searches was 25 years (interquartile range (IQR): 31) and the median number of records was 1082.5 (IQR: 4708) (min.: 14, max.: 207,894). The papers were published in 106 journals (Animals (n = 21), Scientometrics (n = 8)), classified into 56 Web of Science categories ('veterinary sciences' (n = 26 journals)). Searches related to 88 different topics. There were 517 unique keywords in the papers, among which 'bibliometric(s)' (n = 45) occurred most often. The median number of co-authors per paper was 4 (IQR: 3) (min.: 1, max.: 17), with a total of 689 individual authors. Most papers (n = 110 (67.5%)) were published under open access. The median number of citations received per paper was 4 (IQR: 9) (max.: 68) and the h-index was 21. In multivariable analysis, the higher number of cited references in papers and the inclusion of specific animal species in the record search emerged as significant for the number of citations received per paper yearly.
| S-EPMC11545781 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3867769 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST) was developed to examine the level of partner (e.g., patients, caregivers, advocates, clinicians, community members) engagement in research studies. The REST is aligned with eight engagement principles based on the literature and consensus reached through a five round Delphi process. Each of the engagement principles has three-five corresponding items that are assessed on two Likert type scales quantity (how often: never, rarely, sometimes, often, always, not applicable) and quality (how well: poor, fair, good, very good, excellent, not applicable). We conducted a comprehensive validation of the REST. Despite the importance of partner engagement in research, currently no gold standard measure exists.MethodsMultiple strategies were employed to validate the REST. Here, we examine the internal consistency of items for each of the eight engagement principles. In addition, we examine the convergent validity of the comprehensive (32-item) REST with other measures (e.g., medical mistrust, Community Engagement in Research Index, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool, Wilder collaboration inventory, Partnership Assessment In community-based Research). We propose two scoring approaches for the REST; one aligned with the engagement principles and the other aligned with levels of community engagement: (1) outreach and education, (2) consultation, (3) cooperation, (4) collaboration, and (5) partnership.ResultsThe REST has strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.75) for each of the eight engagement principals measured on both scales (quality and quantity). The REST had negligible (e.g., medical mistrust, community engagement in research index), low (e.g., Partnership Assessment In community-based Research, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool- benefits scale), and moderate (e.g., Wilder collaboration inventory, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool- synergy scale) statistically significant correlations with other measures based on the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. These results suggest the REST is measuring something similar and correlated to the existing measures, but it captures a different construct (perceived research engagement).ConclusionsThe REST is a valid and reliable tool to assess research engagement of community health stakeholders in the research process. Valid tools to assess research engagement are necessary to examine the impact of engagement on the scientific process and scientific discovery and move the field of stakeholder engagement from best practices and lessons learned to evidence-based approaches based on empirical data.
| S-EPMC9204858 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The language of "participant-driven research," "crowdsourcing" and "citizen science" is increasingly being used to encourage the public to become involved in research ventures as both subjects and scientists. Originally, these labels were invoked by volunteer research efforts propelled by amateurs outside of traditional research institutions and aimed at appealing to those looking for more "democratic," "patient-centric," or "lay" alternatives to the professional science establishment. As mainstream translational biomedical research requires increasingly larger participant pools, however, corporate, academic and governmental research programs are embracing this populist rhetoric to encourage wider public participation. DISCUSSION:We examine the ethical and social implications of this recruitment strategy. We begin by surveying examples of "citizen science" outside of biomedicine, as paradigmatic of the aspirations this democratizing rhetoric was originally meant to embody. Next, we discuss the ways these aspirations become articulated in the biomedical context, with a view to drawing out the multiple and potentially conflicting meanings of "public engagement" when citizens are also the subjects of the science. We then illustrate two uses of public engagement rhetoric to gain public support for national biomedical research efforts: its post-hoc use in the "care.data" project of the National Health Service in England, and its proactive uses in the "Precision Medicine Initiative" of the United States White House. These examples will serve as the basis for a normative analysis, discussing the potential ethical and social ramifications of this rhetoric. We pay particular attention to the implications of government strategies that cultivate the idea that members of the public have a civic duty to participate in government-sponsored research initiatives. We argue that such initiatives should draw from policy frameworks that support normative analysis of the role of citizenry. And, we conclude it is imperative to make visible and clear the full spectrum of meanings of "citizen science," the contexts in which it is used, and its demands with respect to participation, engagement, and governance.
| S-EPMC4893207 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) capture patients' views on their health conditions and its management, and are increasingly used in clinical trials, including those targeting type 2 diabetes (T2D). Mobile health (mHealth) tools offer novel solutions for collecting PRO data in real time. Although patients are at the center of any PRO-based intervention, few studies have examined user engagement with PRO mHealth tools.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate user engagement with a PRO mHealth tool for T2D management, identify patterns of user engagement and similarities and differences between the patients, and identify the characteristics of patients who are likely to drop out or be less engaged with a PRO mHealth tool.MethodsWe extracted user engagement data from an ongoing clinical trial that tested the efficacy of a PRO mHealth tool designed to improve hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with uncontrolled T2D. To date, 61 patients have been randomized to the intervention, where they are sent 6 PRO text messages a day that are relevant to T2D self-management (healthy eating and medication adherence) over the 12-month study. To analyze user engagement, we first compared the response rate (RR) and response time between patients who completed the 12-month intervention and those who dropped out early (noncompleters). Next, we leveraged latent class trajectory modeling to classify patients from the completer group into 3 subgroups based on similarity in the longitudinal engagement data. Finally, we investigated the differences between the subgroups of completers from various cross-sections (time of the day and day of the week) and PRO types. We also explored the patient demographics and their distribution among the subgroups.ResultsOverall, 19 noncompleters had a lower RR to PRO questions and took longer to respond to PRO questions than 42 completers. Among completers, the longitudinal RRs demonstrated differences in engagement patterns over time. The completers with the lowest engagement showed peak engagement during month 5, almost at the midstage of the program. The remaining subgroups showed peak engagement at the beginning of the intervention, followed by either a steady decline or sustained high engagement. Comparisons of the demographic characteristics showed significant differences between the high engaged and low engaged subgroups. The high engaged completers were predominantly older, of Hispanic descent, bilingual, and had a graduate degree. In comparison, the low engaged subgroup was composed mostly of African American patients who reported the lowest annual income, with one of every 3 patients earning less than US $20,000 annually.ConclusionsThere are discernible engagement phenotypes based on individual PRO responses, and their patterns vary in the timing of peak engagement and demographics. Future studies could use these findings to predict engagement categories and tailor interventions to promote longitudinal engagement.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03652389; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03652389.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/18554.
| S-EPMC9706388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Animal cognition research aims to understand animal minds by using a diverse range of methods across an equally diverse range of species. Throughout its history, the field has sought to mitigate various biases that occur when studying animal minds, from experimenter effects to anthropomorphism. Recently, there has also been a focus on how common scientific practices might affect the reliability and validity of published research. Usually, these issues are discussed in the literature by a small group of scholars with a specific interest in the topics. This study aimed to survey a wider range of animal cognition researchers to ask about their attitudes towards classic and contemporary issues facing the field. Two-hundred and ten active animal cognition researchers completed our survey, and provided answers on questions relating to bias, replicability, statistics, publication, and belief in animal cognition. Collectively, researchers were wary of bias in the research field, but less so in their own work. Over 70% of researchers endorsed Morgan's canon as a useful principle but many caveated this in their free-text responses. Researchers self-reported that most of their studies had been published, however they often reported that studies went unpublished because they had negative or inconclusive results, or results that questioned "preferred" theories. Researchers rarely reported having performed questionable research practices themselves-however they thought that other researchers sometimes (52.7% of responses) or often (27.9% of responses) perform them. Researchers near unanimously agreed that replication studies are important but too infrequently performed in animal cognition research, 73.0% of respondents suggested areas of animal cognition research could experience a 'replication crisis' if replication studies were performed. Consistently, participants' free-text responses provided a nuanced picture of the challenges animal cognition research faces, which are available as part of an open dataset. However, many researchers appeared concerned with how to interpret negative results, publication bias, theoretical bias and reliability in areas of animal cognition research. Collectively, these data provide a candid overview of barriers to progress in animal cognition and can inform debates on how individual researchers, as well as organizations and journals, can facilitate robust scientific research in animal cognition.
| S-EPMC8407565 | biostudies-literature