Explore the vast range of titles available.

and are important causative agents of superficial mycoses, demonstrating emergent antifungal drug resistance. We studied the antifungal susceptibility profiles in Iranian isolates of these two species. A total of 96 and 45 isolates were subjected to molecular typing by ribosomal ITS region. Antifungal susceptibility profiles for terbinafine, griseofulvin, clotrimazole, efinaconazole, luliconazole, amorolfine and ciclopirox were obtained by CLSI broth microdilution method. The squalene epoxidase ( ) gene was subjected to sequencing for mutations, if any, in isolates exhibiting elevated MICs for terbinafine. Luliconazole and efinaconazole showed the lowest MIC values against and isolates. There were five isolates with terbinafine MICs ≥32 µg/mL in our sample. They belonged to type VIII and harbored two alternative gene sequence variants, leading to Phe397Leu and Ala448Thr or Leu393Ser and Ala448Thr substitutions in the enzyme. All terbinafine resistant strains could be inhibited by luliconazole and efinaconazole. This study documented a step in the global spread of resistance mechanisms in . However, treatment alternatives for resistant isolates were available.

What is the magic formula for turning a place into a high-tech capital? How can a city or region become a high-tech powerhouse like Silicon Valley? For over half a century, through boom times and bust, business leaders and politicians have tried to become \"the next Silicon Valley,\" but few have succeeded. This book examines why high-tech development became so economically important late in the twentieth century, and why its magic formula of people, jobs, capital, and institutions has been so difficult to replicate. Margaret O'Mara shows that high-tech regions are not simply accidental market creations but \"cities of knowledge\"--planned communities of scientific production that were shaped and subsidized by the original venture capitalist, the Cold War defense complex. At the heart of the story is the American research university, an institution enriched by Cold War spending and actively engaged in economic development. The story of the city of knowledge broadens our understanding of postwar urban history and of the relationship between civil society and the state in late twentieth-century America. It leads us to further redefine the American suburb as being much more than formless \"sprawl,\" and shows how it is in fact the ultimate post-industrial city. Understanding this history and geography is essential to planning for the future of the high-tech economy, and this book is must reading for anyone interested in building the next Silicon Valley.

While the number of think tanks active in American politics has more than quadrupled since the 1970s, their influence has not expanded proportionally. Instead, the known ideological proclivities of many, especially newer think tanks with their aggressive efforts to obtain high profiles, have come to undermine the credibility with which experts and expertise are generally viewed by public officials. This book explains this paradox. The analysis is based on 135 in-depth interviews with officials at think tanks and those in the policy making and funding organizations that draw upon and support their work. The book reports on results from a survey of congressional staff and journalists and detailed case studies of the role of experts in health care and telecommunications reform debates in the 1990s and tax reduction in 2001.

The Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) Research Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute sponsors research examining ethical, legal, and social issues arising in the context of genetics/genomics. The ELSI Program endorses an understanding of research not as the sole province of empirical study, but instead as systematic study or inquiry, of which there are many types and methods. ELSI research employs both empirical and nonempirical methods. Because the latter remain relatively unfamiliar to biomedical and translational scientists, this paper seeks to elucidate the relationship between empirical and nonempirical methods in ELSI research. It pays particular attention to the research questions and methods of normative and conceptual research, which examine questions of value and meaning, respectively. To illustrate the distinct but interrelated roles of empirical and nonempirical methods in ELSI research, including normative and conceptual research, the paper demonstrates how a range of methods may be employed both to examine the evolution of the concept of incidental findings (including the recent step toward terming them ‘secondary findings’), and to address the normative question of how genomic researchers and clinicians should manage incidental such findings.

\"In proving the existence of stem cells, Ernest Armstrong McCulloch and James Edgar Till formed the most important partnership in Canadian medical research since Frederick Banting and Charles Best, the discoverers of insulin. Together, Till and McCulloch instructed, influenced, and inspired successive generations of researchers who have used their findings to make huge advances against disease. Thousands of people who would have died from leukemia and immunological disorders now owe their lives to therapies supported by their seminal discoveries\"-- Dust jacket flap.

Background Research codesign is generally defined as end-users’ involvement in planning, implementation, and evaluation of projects. Recently, there has been a growing interest in codesign to maximise research acceptability, applicability, and impact and to address longstanding issues around power and depth of involvement. Frameworks have been developed to assist in understanding research codesign processes at a project level. However, little is known about how university based researchers construct or adopt a coherent approach to sustain research codesign in governance, methodological approaches, and practice. This study investigated the perspectives of researchers within a newly formed research institute about principles and practices of research codesign in the context of their previous and current projects. We also investigated their perceptions of institution-level enablers and barriers to codesign. University based researchers are our primary focus here and we intend to consult other stakeholders in future work. Methods Using an interview guide informed by exploratory work and a scoping review of the literature, we conducted 15 individual interviews with Caring Futures Institute (CFI) leaders and researchers at different career stages working across multiple areas of health, care, and social research. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted. Results The researchers we interviewed were involved in projects ranging from large nationally funded projects to small studies funded by the university or PhD projects. Research codesign activities were generally part of larger researcher-led projects but there were a few examples of community-led projects. There was agreement amongst participants on the principles and perceived benefits of research codesign such as partnership, co-learning, and power sharing. Less agreement was found regarding the definition of research codesign and best terminology to be used. Themes reflecting the success of research codesign included pre-existing community relationships, communication skills, knowledge, and training on codesign, balancing power relationships, use of external facilitators, and adequacy of funding, time, and resources. Conclusions The study reaffirmed the complexity of research codesign from researchers’ perspectives and identified areas of potential action that may be beneficial for university based research institutions in building codesign skills, capacity and culture for example training, peer learning and funding support. Implications for practice improvement centre on a dual strategy of building practical capacity in researchers and integrating institutional dimensions (such as governance and leadership) into codesign frameworks. This can help to ensure research codesign is integrated into organisational culture and through the work of individual researchers. Plain English summary Involving people and groups with lived experience in research is important to ensure that research is useful and makes real changes in peoples’ lives. Codesign centres on researching with people rather than about people. For true engagement and codesign to occur, university based researchers need to understand why codesign is valuable and need to be trained and supported in using effective methods for the individuals and groups they work with. University based research institutes with missions to improve peoples’ experiences of services need to embrace principles and practices of codesign and support their researchers to achieve this. They need to make sure there are appropriate governance structures and support systems that encourage people to codesign in their research. This study focussed on university based researchers as a key stakeholder group for effective codesign. These researchers work in an Australian research institute (Flinders Caring Futures Institute). They shared information about the kinds of codesign they did in their research projects, and the things that helped and other things that made it hard to utilise codesign in their research. We also asked the researchers about how research institutions could better support codesign practices. Researchers in our study shared their views that codesign is a complex process. Building relationships and trust as part of research codesign needs time and resources. Researchers had ideas about how to improve codesign as a practice in research institutes. These include providing formal and informal training, opportunities to share experiences, peer support and learning, making sure there are community representatives involved in the leadership of research organisations, and increased funding support for codesign.