Life partnerships in childhood cancer survivors, their siblings, and the general population

Background: Life partnerships other than marriage are rarely studied in childhood cancer survivors (CCS). We aimed (1) to describe life partnership and marriage in CCS and compare them to life partnerships in siblings and the general population; and (2) to identify socio-demographic and cancer-related factors associated with life partnership and marriage. Methods: As part of the Swiss Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (SCCSS), a questionnaire was sent to all CCS (aged 20–40 years) registered in the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry (SCCR), aged <16 years at diagnosis, who had survived ≥5 years. The proportion with life partner or married was compared between CSS and siblings and participants in the Swiss Health Survey (SHS). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with life partnership or marriage. Results: We included 1,096 CCS of the SCCSS, 500 siblings and 5,593 participants of the SHS. Fewer CCS (47%) than siblings (61%, P < 0.001) had life partners, and fewer CCS were married (16%) than among the SHS population (26%, P > 0.001). Older (OR = 1.14, P < 0.001) and female CCS (OR = 1.85, <0.001) were more likely to have life partners. CCS who had undergone radiotherapy, bone marrow transplants (global PTreatment = 0.018) or who had a CNS diagnosis (global PDiagnosis < 0.001) were less likely to have life partners. Conclusion: CCS are less likely to have life partners than their peers. Most CCS with a life partner were not married. Future research should focus on the effect of these disparities on the quality of life of CCS.

Research partnerships: the benefits of North-South collaboration

Partnerships between Northern and Southern researchers are a powerful tool for studying problems of global change and for shaping development policies. North–South partnerships enable teams of researchers to focus on specific problems and to strengthen research capacities in developing countries. They also enable Southern researchers to contribute to their home countries as part of an international network. This issue of evidence for policy draws on recent publications from the NCCR North-South to illustrate how partnership benefits science and sustainable development.

Business and Public–Private Partnerships for Sustainability: Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility?

This article analyses public–private partnerships (PPPs) in the field of sustainable development from an international relations perspective with insights from the business and ethics literature. We argue that the role of business in these types of arrangements has not been sufficiently explored. After presenting three ways of approaching PPPs to stress the many facets of partnerships across the public–private divide, we discuss the emergence of these novel forms of governance from a demand side and contrast such a functionalist reading with the supply side. Then we look at the micro-economic incentives for corporations to engage in such endeavours. We develop arguments derived from the dominant literature to provide an analytical framework for explaining business participation. Finally, we discuss the role of PPPs in light of input and output legitimacy. We conclude by alluding to the emergence of an expectation-capacity gap and normative issues related to the global PPP architecture.

Ethics in science: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production and the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal. This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface. UNESCO points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer. Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity. To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach, I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

Knowledge as a resource: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science (Lubchenco 1998; WBGU 2011 and 2012) towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production as a contribution to the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal (UNESCO 2005). This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface (Hirsch Hadorn et al 2006; Hirsch Hadorn et al 2008; Jäger 2009; Adger and Jordan 2009; KFPE 2012). UNESCO (2010) points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer (Standing and Taylor 2007; Zingerli 2010). Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity (Wiesmann et al 2011). To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route (Mukhopadhyay et al 2006) – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach (Pohl et al 2008; Stock and Burton 2011), I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

Research for Mitigating Syndromes of Global Change: Research for Mitigating Syndromes of Global Change. A Transdisciplinary Appraisal of Selected Regions of the World to Prepare Development-Oriented Research Partnerships

The present publication is the final outcome of the "Syndrome Pre-SynthesisProject" (SPSP), a preparatory project initiated in 2001 to pave the way for the NCCR North-South. The SPSP applied a transdisciplinary approach to identify research partnerships for development in 8 regions of the world. The primary aim of the present publication is to present an initial synthesis of core problems in each region, of the status and focus of related research, and of corresponding new research needs. Based on the results of this participatory process, the NCCR North-South programme has followed up on the outcomes of the regional syntheses by identifying future research aims along the general lines determined in the workshops.

Swiss Migration Partnerships

Workshop "Fostering the nexus of migration, human rights, trade and investment for development" Introductory note on Swiss Migrations Partnerships and the possibilities for fostering the nexus of migration, human rights, trade and investment for more development This presentation was held during a workshop "Fostering the nexus of migration, human rights, trade and investment for development".