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.

Preferences for the organization of long-term follow-up in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors.

PURPOSE As survival rates of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients increase, a growing number of AYA cancer survivors need follow-up care. However, there is little research on their preferences for follow-up care. We aimed to (1) describe AYA cancer survivors' preferences for the organization and content of follow-up care, (2) describe their preferences for different models of follow-up, and (3) investigate clinical and sociodemographic characteristics associated with preferences for the different models. METHODS AYA cancer survivors (diagnosed with cancer at age 16-25 years; ≥5 years after diagnosis) were identified through the Cancer Registry Zurich and Zug. Survivors completed a questionnaire on follow-up attendance, preferences for organizational aspects of follow-up care (what is important during follow-up, what should be included during appointments, what specialists should be involved, location), models of follow-up (telephone/questionnaire, general practitioner (GP), pediatric oncologist, medical oncologist, multidisciplinary team), and sociodemographic characteristics. Information on tumor and treatment was available through the Cancer Registry Zurich and Zug. RESULTS Of 389 contacted survivors, 160 (41.1 %) participated and 92 (57.5 %) reported still attending follow-up. Medical aspects of follow-up care were more important than general aspects (p < 0.001). Among different organizational models, follow-up by a medical oncologist was rated higher than all other models (p = 0.002). Non-attenders of follow-up rated GP-led follow-up significantly higher than attenders (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION Swiss AYA cancer survivors valued medical content of follow-up and showed a preference for medical oncologist-led follow-up. Implementation of different models of follow-up care might improve accessibility and attendance among AYA cancer survivors.