Exploring Science and Technology Review Mechanisms Under the Biological Weapons Convention

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Revill ◽  
◽  
Alisha Anand ◽  
Giacomo Persi Paoli
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Biological Weapons ◽  
Review Mechanism ◽  
Biological Weapons Convention ◽  
Technology Review

Since the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) opened for signature in 1972, biology and other converging disciplines have advanced considerably. These changes could have profound implications for a science-based disarmament agreement like the BWC. To address changes in biology and biotechnology, BWC States Parties have established processes to review developments in science and technology (S&T), including annual expert meetings on this topic. However, shortcomings are evident in the current approaches and many BWC States Parties have expressed support for a more systematic review of science and technology under the Convention. This study seeks to inform discussions on establishing a dedicated and systematic S&T review process under the BWC through an examination of existing S&T review-type mechanisms employed in different regimes beyond the BWC, a survey of States Parties views on a possible review mechanism and a study of past and present discourse on this issue in the BWC. Based on the analysis conducted, this study also presents options for BWC States Parties to consider ahead of the Ninth BWC Review Conference.

Trends in Global Disarmament Treaties

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Casey-Maslen ◽  
Tobias Vestner
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Biological Weapons ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
State Party ◽  
Chemical Weapons Convention ◽  
Support Mechanisms ◽  
Biological Weapons Convention ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Core Features

Abstract Since the adoption of the UN Charter, states have concluded numerous international disarmament treaties. What are their core features, and are there any trends in their design? This article discusses the five global disarmament treaties, namely the 1971 Biological Weapons Convention, the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention, the 1997 Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions and the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It first considers how a broad set of prohibitions of activities with respect to specific weapons has evolved over time. Then, it analyses the treaties’ implementation and compliance support mechanisms as well as their procedural aspects regarding entry into force and withdrawal. This article finds that a pattern has developed over the last two decades to outlaw all and any use of weapons by disarmament treaty, without first instituting a prohibition on their use under international humanitarian law (IHL). It also finds that reporting obligations, meetings of States Parties and treaty-related institutions are generally created, either directly by treaty or by subsequent state party decisions. Finally, there is a tendency to make the treaty’s entry into force easier, and the withdrawal more difficult. It is argued that these trends arise from states’ attempt to establish more easily disarmament treaties, design more robust disarmament treaties and more effectively protect civilians. The article concludes by reflecting whether these trends form the basis of a new branch of international law—international disarmament law—and discusses them in the context of emerging weapons and technologies.

Externalising tacit knowledge of the systematic review process

IET Software ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 298-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Camargo Pinto Ferraz Fabbri ◽  
Katia Romero Felizardo ◽  
Fabiano Cutigi Ferrari ◽  
Elis Cristina Montoro Hernandes ◽  
Fábio Roberto Octaviano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Tacit Knowledge ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Systematic Review Process

scholarly journals Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process

PLoS ONE ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. e9810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie J. Kirkham ◽  
Doug G. Altman ◽  
Paula R. Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Systematic Review Process

scholarly journals Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 245-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Pollock ◽  
Pauline Campbell ◽  
Caroline Struthers ◽  
Anneliese Synnot ◽  
Jack Nunn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Literature Searching ◽  
Health Decision

Objectives Involvement of patients, health professionals, and the wider public (‘stakeholders’) is seen to be beneficial to the quality, relevance and impact of research and may enhance the usefulness and uptake of systematic reviews. However, there is a lack of evidence and resources to guide researchers in how to actively involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. In this paper, we report the development of the ACTIVE framework to describe how stakeholders are involved in systematic reviews. Methods We developed a framework using methods previously described in the development of conceptual frameworks relating to other areas of public involvement, including: literature searching, data extraction, analysis, and categorization. A draft ACTIVE framework was developed and then refined after presentation at a conference workshop, before being applied to a subset of 32 systematic reviews. Data extracted from these systematic reviews, identified in a systematic scoping review, were categorized against pre-defined constructs, including: who was involved, how stakeholders were recruited, the mode of involvement, at what stage there was involvement and the level of control or influence. Results The final ACTIVE framework described whether patients, carers and/or families, and/or other stakeholders (including health professionals, health decision makers and funders) were involved. We defined: recruitment as either open or closed; the approach to involvement as either one-time, continuous or combined; and the method of involvement as either direct or indirect. The stage of involvement in reviews was defined using the Cochrane Ecosystem stages of a review. The level of control or influence was defined according to the roles and activities of stakeholders in the review process, and described as the ACTIVE continuum of involvement. Conclusions The ACTIVE framework provides a structure with which to describe key components of stakeholder involvement within a systematic review, and we have used this to summarize how stakeholders have been involved in a subset of varied systematic reviews. The ACTIVE continuum of involvement provides a new model that uses tasks and roles to detail the level of stakeholder involvement. This work has contributed to the development of learning resources aimed at supporting systematic review authors and editors to involve stakeholders in their systematic reviews. The ACTIVE framework may support the decision-making of systematic review authors in planning how to involve stakeholders in future reviews.

scholarly journals Coronavirus Is A Biological Warfare Weapon

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 01-06
Author(s):  
Robert Skopec
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
World Health ◽  
Biological Weapons ◽  
Biological Warfare ◽  
University Of Illinois ◽  
College Of Law ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
The University ◽  
Biological Weapons Convention ◽  
The U.S

Dr. Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Act has given a detailed statement admitting that the 2019 Wuhan Coronavirus is an offensive Biological Warfare Weapon and that the World Health Organization (WHO) already knows about it. Francis Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, that was approved unanimously by both Houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.

scholarly journals Addressing challenges with systematic review teams through effective communication: a case report

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda C. O’Dwyer ◽  
Q. Eileen Wafford
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Communication Strategies ◽  
Core Competency ◽  
Effective Communication ◽  
Low Energy ◽  
Full Participation ◽  
Systematic Review Process

Background: Every step in the systematic review process has challenges, ranging from resistance by review teams to adherence to standard methodology to low-energy commitment to full participation. These challenges can derail the project and result in significant delays, duplication of work, and failure to complete the review. Communication during the systematic review process is key to ensuring it runs smoothly and is identified as a core competency for librarians involved in systematic reviews.Case Presentation: This case report presents effective communication approaches that our librarians employ to address challenges encountered while working with systematic review teams. The communication strategies we describe engage teams through information, questions, and action items and lead to productive collaborations with publishable systematic reviews.Conclusions: Effective communication with review teams keeps systematic review projects moving forward. The techniques covered in this case study strive to minimize misunderstandings, educate collaborators, and, in our experience, have led to multiple successful collaborations and publications. Librarians working in the systematic review space will recognize these challenges and can adapt these techniques to their own environments.

scholarly journals PRISMA2020: an R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal R Haddaway ◽  
Matthew J Page ◽  
Christopher C Pritchard ◽  
Luke A McGuinness
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
R Package ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Shiny App ◽  
Data Files ◽  
Flow Diagrams

Background Reporting standards, such as PRISMA aim to ensure that the methods and results of systematic reviews are described in sufficient detail to allow full transparency. Flow diagrams in evidence syntheses allow the reader to rapidly understand the core procedures used in a review and examine the attrition of irrelevant records throughout the review process. Recent research suggests that use of flow diagrams in systematic reviews is poor and of low quality and called for standardised templates to facilitate better reporting in flow diagrams. The increasing options for interactivity provided by the Internet gives us an opportunity to support easy-to-use evidence synthesis tools, and here we report on the development of tools for the production of PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review flow diagrams. Methods and Findings We developed a free-to-use, Open Source R package and web-based Shiny app to allow users to design PRISMA flow diagrams for their own systematic reviews. Our tools allow users to produce standardised visualisations that transparently document the methods and results of a systematic review process in a variety of formats. In addition, we provide the opportunity to produce interactive, web-based flow diagrams (exported as HTML files), that allow readers to click on boxes of the diagram and navigate to further details on methods, results or data files. We provide an interactive example here; https://driscoll.ntu.ac.uk/prisma/. Conclusions We have developed a user-friendly suite of tools for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams for users with coding experience and, importantly, for users without prior experience in coding by making use of Shiny. These free-to-use tools will make it easier to produce clear and PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review flow diagrams. Significantly, users can also produce interactive flow diagrams for the first time, allowing readers of their reviews to smoothly and swiftly explore and navigate to further details of the methods and results of a review. We believe these tools will increase use of PRISMA flow diagrams, improve the compliance and quality of flow diagrams, and facilitate strong science communication of the methods and results of systematic reviews by making use of interactivity. We encourage the systematic review community to make use of these tools, and provide feedback to streamline and improve their usability and efficiency.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document