Acute lung injury (ALI) remains a significant source of morbidity and mortality in the critically ill patient population. Defined by a constellation of clinical criteria (acute onset of bilateral pulmonary infiltrates with hypoxemia without evidence of hydrostatic pulmonary edema), ALI has a high incidence (200,000 per year in the US) and overall mortality remains high. Pathogenesis of ALI is explained by injury to both the vascular endothelium and alveolar epithelium. Recent advances in the understanding of pathophysiology have identified several biologic markers that are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Phase III clinical trials by the NHLBI ARDS Network have resulted in improvement in survival and a reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation with a lung-protective ventilation strategy and fluid conservative protocol. Potential areas of future treatments include nutritional strategies, statin therapy, and mesenchymal stem cells.

We investigated the existence, nature, and processes underscoring backlash (social and economic penalties) against men who violate gender stereotypes by working in education, and whether backlash is exacerbated by internal (vs. external) behavioral attributions. Participants (N = 303) rated one of six applications for an elementary teaching position, identical apart from target gender and behavioral attribution type. Male applicants were rated as more likely to be gay, posing a greater safety threat, and less likeable (but not less hireable) than identical female applicants. Perceived sexuality and threat mediated target gender differences in likeability. Unexpectedly, behavioral attributions did not interact with target gender, suggesting that providing internal attributions may not exacerbate men's backlash. Implications for backlash theory and education gender disparities are discussed.

Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the ‘3Rs’), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, ‘cultures of care’, harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. For over two decades, geographers concerned with undoing what Judith Butler (2009) has referred to as "the conceit of anthropocentrism" have brought animals in from the margins of thought. Geography's contributions to animal studies have been diverse, but a key consideration has been a retreat from thinking with animals, toward a plural more-than-human analysis. A recent privileging of "spaces of encounter" with nonhuman others challenges the significance of animals altogether, enjoining them to other nonhuman entities-along with nonliving processes, the movement of molecules, viruses, forces, and affects that circulate and connect in 'events' and 'sites' -on the terrain of ethical and political conflict. There is much at stake here in how geographical methods are carried out as well as how response, analysis, and political action proceed. In what follows, I reflect on field notes from an ethnographic encounter with lobster experimentation in a neuroscience laboratory to contrast thinking 'with animals' and 'with encounters.' I assess the implications of each for transforming who and what we consider in ethical and political terms. I find that while the encounter moves beyond the limitations of more traditionally defined animal studies, a corresponding focus on the present loses sight of wider temporal and spatial relations--including the political economies--that are relevant to the elements in any encounter. Drawing on Boaventura de Sousa Santos, I argue for a geography of the encounter that "expands the present" rather than residing in it, with consequences for the 'new materialism' movement. In the case of the lobster experiment, this leads me to consider how scientific practices with animals are also immediately a part of ongoing trends in the US that 'militarize' biological life. In conclusion, I argue that concern for animals in the laboratory ought to expand to include concern for past and future political conditions of life, death, and the production of knowledge.

The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of social cognition and insight in the prediction of violence in a psychiatric inpatient sample. Violence history, demographic information, symptomatology, neuropsychological functioning, social cognition (i.e., attributional style), and insight were assessed in 29 inpatients with severe mental illness. Greater posttest violence was associated with greater pretest violence, less education, greater psychiatric distress, neuropsychological impairment, and hostile attributional and personalizing biases. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that history of violence contributed the most variance to posttest violence. Hostile attributional and personalizing biases were also uniquely associated with posttest violence. Overall, this study supported the modest utility of attributional style measures in the prediction of inpatient violence. The predictive value of insight in this context appears limited.