An Appeal to the Global Health Community for a Tripartite Innovation: An "Essential Diagnostics List," "Health in All Policies," and "See-Through 21(st) Century Science and Ethics".

Diagnostics spanning a wide range of new biotechnologies, including proteomics, metabolomics, and nanotechnology, are emerging as companion tests to innovative medicines. In this Opinion, we present the rationale for promulgating an "Essential Diagnostics List." Additionally, we explain the ways in which adopting a vision for "Health in All Policies" could link essential diagnostics with robust and timely societal outcomes such as sustainable development, human rights, gender parity, and alleviation of poverty. We do so in three ways. First, we propose the need for a new, "see through" taxonomy for knowledge-based innovation as we transition from the material industries (e.g., textiles, plastic, cement, glass) dominant in the 20(th) century to the anticipated knowledge industry of the 21st century. If knowledge is the currency of the present century, then it is sensible to adopt an approach that thoroughly examines scientific knowledge, starting with the production aims, methods, quality, distribution, access, and the ends it purports to serve. Second, we explain that this knowledge trajectory focus on innovation is crucial and applicable across all sectors, including public, private, or public-private partnerships, as it underscores the fact that scientific knowledge is a co-product of technology, human values, and social systems. By making the value systems embedded in scientific design and knowledge co-production transparent, we all stand to benefit from sustainable and transparent science. Third, we appeal to the global health community to consider the necessary qualities of good governance for 21st century organizations that will embark on developing essential diagnostics. These have importance not only for science and knowledge-based innovation, but also for the ways in which we can build open, healthy, and peaceful civil societies today and for future generations.

Translating biotechnology to knowledge-based innovation, peace, and development? Deploy a Science Peace Corps--an open letter to world leaders.

Scholarship knows no geographical boundaries. This science diplomacy and biotechnology journalism article introduces an original concept and policy petition to innovate the global translational science, a Science Peace Corps. Service at the new Corps could entail volunteer work for a minimum of 6 weeks, and up to a maximum of 2 years, for translational research in any region of the world to build capacity manifestly for development and peace, instead of the narrow bench-to-bedside model of life science translation. Topics for translational research are envisioned to include all fields of life sciences and medicine, as long as they are linked to potential or concrete endpoints in development, foreign policy, conflict management, post-crisis capacity building, and/or peace scholarship domains. As a new instrument in the global science and technology governance toolbox, a Science Peace Corps could work effectively, for example, towards elucidating the emerging concept of "one health"--encompassing human, environmental, plant, microbial, ecosystem, and planet health--thus serving as an innovative crosscutting pillar of 21(st) century integrative biology. An interdisciplinary program of this caliber for development would link 21(st) century life sciences to foreign policy and peace, in ways that can benefit many nations despite their ideological differences. We note that a Science Peace Corps is timely. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations released the Fifth Assessment Report on March 31, 2014. Worrisomely, the report underscores that no person or nation will remain untouched by the climate change, highlighting the shared pressing life sciences challenges for global society. To this end, we recall that President John F. Kennedy advocated for volunteer work that has enduring, transgenerational, and global impacts. This culminated in establishment of the Peace Corps in 1961. Earlier, President Abraham Lincoln aptly observed, "nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." We therefore petition President Barack Obama, other world leaders, and international development agencies in positions of power around the globe, to consider deploying a Science Peace Corps to cultivate the essential (and presently missing) ties among life sciences, foreign policy, development, and peace agendas. A Science Peace Corps requires support by a credible and independent intergovernmental organization or development agency for funding, and arbitration in the course of volunteer work when the global versus local (glocal) value-based priorities and human rights intersect in synergy or conflict. In all, Science Peace Corps is an invitation to a new pathway for competence in 21(st) century science that is locally productive and globally competitive. It can open up scientific institutions to broader considerations and broader inputs, and thus cultivate vital translational science in a world sorely in need of solidarity and sustainable responses to the challenges of 21(st) century science and society.

Ready to put metadata on the post-2015 development agenda? Linking data publications to responsible innovation and science diplomacy.

Metadata refer to descriptions about data or as some put it, "data about data." Metadata capture what happens on the backstage of science, on the trajectory from study conception, design, funding, implementation, and analysis to reporting. Definitions of metadata vary, but they can include the context information surrounding the practice of science, or data generated as one uses a technology, including transactional information about the user. As the pursuit of knowledge broadens in the 21(st) century from traditional "science of whats" (data) to include "science of hows" (metadata), we analyze the ways in which metadata serve as a catalyst for responsible and open innovation, and by extension, science diplomacy. In 2015, the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) will formally come to an end. Therefore, we propose that metadata, as an ingredient of responsible innovation, can help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on the post-2015 agenda. Such responsible innovation, as a collective learning process, has become a key component, for example, of the European Union's 80 billion Euro Horizon 2020 R&D Program from 2014-2020. Looking ahead, OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, is launching an initiative for a multi-omics metadata checklist that is flexible yet comprehensive, and will enable more complete utilization of single and multi-omics data sets through data harmonization and greater visibility and accessibility. The generation of metadata that shed light on how omics research is carried out, by whom and under what circumstances, will create an "intervention space" for integration of science with its socio-technical context. This will go a long way to addressing responsible innovation for a fairer and more transparent society. If we believe in science, then such reflexive qualities and commitments attained by availability of omics metadata are preconditions for a robust and socially attuned science, which can then remain broadly respected, independent, and responsibly innovative. "In Sierra Leone, we have not too much electricity. The lights will come on once in a week, and the rest of the month, dark[ness]. So I made my own battery to power light in people's houses." Kelvin Doe (Global Minimum, 2012) MIT Visiting Young Innovator Cambridge, USA, and Sierra Leone "An important function of the (Global) R&D Observatory will be to provide support and training to build capacity in the collection and analysis of R&D flows, and how to link them to the product pipeline." World Health Organization (2013) Draft Working Paper on a Global Health R&D Observatory.

Application of cost/benefit analysis for surgical gown and drape selection: a case study.

BACKGROUND: The selection of medical textiles is an important subject for the health care sector in terms of benefits and costs. The basic cost calculation does not always yield to proper results in product selection; it would even mislead. It is usually a complicated task to give a decision whether to use reusable or single-use products, especially when the patient and surgeons lives are in consideration. The objective of the present paper is to carry out a cost/benefit study to help hospital managers and surgical team in comparing reusable and single-use surgical gowns and drapes. METHODS: A detailed case study was carried out to determine the net benefits and costs associated with reusable and single-use surgical gown and drape use in the University of Gaziantep Hospital. The Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to evaluate qualitative benefit data. The relevant data were determined through the literature research and interviews with the doctors, administrators, and personnel of related departments (such as infection control, cleaning, and others) in the hospital. The benefit/cost ratios of the alternatives have been examined, and a sensitivity analysis has been carried out to measure the impact of changes in costs and benefits. CONCLUSION: After the study, it is concluded that, even though cost is relatively higher, single-use gown and drape sets provide the highest benefit rates. Reduction of prices of single-use sets will make them more competitive and attractive in the health care sector.