Report of Highway Research Board Research and Development Activities FY2007

The Highway Division of the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) engages in research and development for two reasons: first, to find workable solutions to the many problems that require more than ordinary, routine investigation; second, to identify and implement improved engineering and management practices. This report, entitled “Iowa Highway Research Board Research and Development Activities FY2007” is submitted in compliance with Sections 310.36 and 312.3A, Code of Iowa, which direct the submission of a report of the Secondary Road Research Fund and the Street Research Fund respectively. It is a report of the status of research and development projects, which were in progress on June 30, 2007; it is also a report on projects completed during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2006, and ending June 30, 2007. Detailed information on each of the research and development projects mentioned in this report is available in the Research and Technology Bureau in the Highway Division of the Iowa Department of Transportation.

Annual Report of the Iowa Highway Research Board Research and Development Activities FY 2009

The Highway Division of the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) engages in research and development for two reasons: first, to find workable solutions to the many problems that require more than ordinary, routine investigation; and second, to identify and implement improved engineering and management practices. This report, entitled ―Iowa Highway Research Board Research and Development Activities FY2009‖ is submitted in compliance with Sections 310.36 and 312.3A, Code of Iowa, which direct the submission of a report of the Secondary Road Research Fund and the Street Research Fund, respectively. It is a report of the status of research and development projects in progress on June 30, 2009. It is also a report on projects completed during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008 and ending June 30, 2009. Detailed information on each of the research and development projects mentioned in this report is available from the Research and Technology Bureau, Highway Division, Iowa Department of Transportation. All approved reports are also online for viewing at: www.iowadot.gov/operationsresearch/reports.aspx.

Annual Report of the Iowa Highway Research Board – Research and Development Activities FY 2010

This report, entitled “Iowa Highway Research Board Research and Development Activities FY 2010” is submitted in compliance with Sections 301.35 and 312.3A, Code of Iowa, which direct the submission of a report of the Secondary Road Research Fund and the Street Research Fund, respectively. T is a report of the status of research and development projects in progress on June 20, 2010. It is also a report on projects completed during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2009, and ending June 30, 2010. Detailed information on each of the research and development projects mentioned in this report is available from the Research and Technology Bureau, Highway Division, Iowa Department of Transportation. All approved reports are also online for viewing at www.iowadot.gov/operationsresearch/reports.aspx

Annual Report of Iowa Highway Research Board Research and Development Activities FY 2011, December 2011

The Highway Division of the Iowa DOT engages in research and development for two reasons: first, to find workable solutions to the many problems that require more than ordinary, routine investigation; and second, to identify and implement improved engineering and management practices. This report, entitled ―Iowa Highway Research Board Research and Development Activities FY2011‖ is submitted in compliance with Sections 310.36 and 312.3A, Code of Iowa, which direct the submission of a report of the Secondary Road Research Fund and the Street Research Fund, respectively. It is a report of the status of research and development projects in progress on June 30, 2011. It is also a report on projects completed during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2011. Detailed information on each of the research and development projects mentioned in this report is available from the Research and Technology Bureau, Highway Division, Iowa Department of Transportation. All approved reports are also online for viewing at: www.iowadot.gov/operationsresearch/reports.aspx.

Iowa Highway Research and Development Activities FY2014

This report, entitled Iowa Highway Research and Development Activities FY2014 is submitted in compliance with Iowa Code sections 310.36 and 312.3A, which direct the submission of a report of the Secondary Road Research Fund and the Street Research Fund, respectively. It is a report of the status of research and development projects in process on June 20, 2014. It is also a report on projects completed during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2013 and ending June 30, 2014. Detailed information on each of the research and development projects mentioned in this report is available from the office of Research and Analytics, Performance and Technology Division, Iowa Department of Transportation. All approved reports are also online for viewing at: http://www.iowadot.gov/research/pdf/IHRBAnnualReport.pdf.

Iowa Highway Research Board Research and Development Activities FY 2015

This report, entitled Iowa Highway Research and Development Activities FY 2015, is submitted in compliance with Iowa Code section 310.36 and 312.3A, which direct the submission of a report of the Secondary Road Research Fund and the Street Research Fund, respectively. It is a report of the status of research and development projects in process on June 30, 2015. It is also a report on projects completed during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015. Detailed information on each of the research and development projects mentioned in this report is available from the office of Research and Analytics, Performance and Technology Division, Iowa Department of Transportation. All approved reports are also online for viewing at http://www.iowadot.gov/research/pdf/IHRBAnnualReport.pdf.

Clinical and parasitological evaluation of pour-on fluazuron and ivermectin for treating canine demodicosis

The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of pour-on formulations of fluazuron and ivermectin in different therapeutic protocols for treatment of demodicosis by means of quantifying mites with skin scraping, histological and clinical evaluation in dogs. Eighteen dogs with skin scrapings positive for Demodex canis were evaluated, divided into three groups. All the animals were treated every 14 days, completing 6 treatments for each animal (days 0, 14, 28, 42, 56 and 70). In group 1, pour-on 2.5% fluazuron was used at the dose of 20mg/kg; in the group 2 pour-on 2.5% fluazuron at a dose of 20 mg/kg in association with pour-on 0.5% ivermectin at the dose of 0.6mg/kg; and in group 3, pour-on 0.5% ivermectin alone was used, at the dose of 0.6mg/kg. The treatment was evaluated and monitored through skin scrapings and clinical follow-up of the lesions every 14 days for 84 days, and through histopathological examination at the end of each treatment protocol. The success rate was defined as the percentage of dogs in each group that had negative skin scrapings after the treatment: this was 16.67% for group 1, and 50% for groups 2 and 3. The reduction in mite counts reached effectiveness of 67.66%, 88.99% and 84.29% for groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The Wilcoxon test showed that there was a significant difference between the number of mites before and after treatment in groups 2 and 3. The histopathological examination revealed that only group 1 showed no significant difference in the intensity of infestation between days 0 and 84. Clinically, there was no significant difference between the evaluation before and after treatment in the three groups. pour-on 2.5% fluazuron and pour-on 0.5% ivermectin were not effective for treating canine demodicosis, either in association or as single therapy, when applied every 14 days for a period of 70 days. Quantification of mites using skin scrapings and histological evaluation proved to be ineffective, either one as sole therapeutic evaluation parameters, for canine demodicosis.

Research and teaching: a holy or an unholy alliance?

Much of the self-image of the Western university hangs on the idea that research and teaching are intimately connected. The central axiom here is that research and teaching are mutually supportive of each other. An institution lacking such a set of relationships between research and teaching falls short of what it means to be a university. This set of beliefs raises certain questions: Is it the case that the presence of such a mutually supportive set of relationships between research and teaching is a necessary condition of the fulfilment of the idea of the university? (A conceptual question). And is it true that, in practice today, such a mutually supportive set of relationships between research and teaching characterises universities? (An empirical question). In my talk, I want to explore these matters in a critical vein. I shall suggest that: a) In practice today, such a mutually supportive set of relationships between research and teaching is in jeopardy. Far from supporting each other, very often research and teaching contend against each other. Research and teaching are becoming two separate ideologies, with their own interest structures. b) Historically, the supposed tight link between research and teaching is both of recent origin and far from universally achieved in universities. Institutional separateness between research and teaching is and has been evident, both across institutions and even across departments in the same institution. c) Conceptually, research and teaching are different activities: each is complex and neither is reducible to the other. In theory, therefore, research and teaching may be said to constitute a holy alliance but in practice, we see more of an unholy alliance. If, then, in an ideal world, a positive relationship between research and teaching is still a worthwhile goal, how might it be construed and worked for? Seeing research and teaching as two discrete and unified sets of activity is now inadequate. Much better is a construal of research and teaching as themselves complexes, as intermingling pools of activity helping to form the liquid university that is emerging today. On this view, research and teaching are fluid spaces, ever on the move, taking up new shapes, and themselves dividing and reforming, as the university reworks its own destiny in modern society. On such a perspective, working out a productive relationship between research and teaching is a complex project. This is an alliance that is neither holy nor unholy. It is an uneasy alliance, with temporary accommodations and continuous new possibilities

Advancing construction industry development, innovative research and new thinking

Academic writing has a tendency to be turgid and impenetrable. This is not only anathema to communication between academics, but also a major barrier to advancing construction industry development. Clarity in our communication is a prerequisite to effective collaboration with industry. An exploration of what it means to be an academic in a University is presented in order to provide a context for a discussion on how academics might collaborate with industry to advance development. There are conflicting agendas that pull the academic in different directions: peer group recognition, institutional success and industry development. None can be achieved without the other, which results in the need for a careful balancing act. While academics search for better understandings and provisional explanations within the context of conceptual models, industry seeks the practical application of new ideas, whether the ideas come from research or experience. Universities have a key role to play in industry development and in economic development.

Survey research and sociology

Sociologisk Forsknings digitala arkiv

ESSAYS ON INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SPILLOVERS

The dissertation consists of three essays on international research and development spillovers. In the first essay, I investigate the degree to which differences in institutional arrangements among Sub-Saharan African countries determine the extent of benefits they derive from foreign research and development spillovers. In particular, I compare the international research and development spillovers for English common law and French civil law Sub-Saharan African countries. I show that differences in the legal origin of the company law or commercial codes in these countries may reflect the extent of barriers they place in the paths of firms that engage in the investment process. To tests this hypothesis, I constructed foreign R&D spillovers variable using imports as weights and employed the endogenous growth framework to estimate elasticities of productivity with respect to foreign R&D spillovers for a sample of 17 English common law and French Civil law Sub-Saharan African countries over the period 1980-2004. My results find support for the hypothesis. In particular, foreign R&D spillovers were higher in the English common law countries than in the French civil law countries. In the second essay, I examine the question of whether technical cooperation grants and overseas development assistance grants induce R&D knowledge spillovers in Sub-Saharan African countries. I test this hypothesis using data for 11 Sub-Saharan African countries over the period 1980-2004. I constructed foreign R&D spillovers using the technical cooperation grants and overseas development assistance grants as weights and employed the endogenous growth framework to provide quantitative estimates of foreign R&D spillover effects in 11 Sub-Saharan African countries. I find that technical cooperation grants and overseas development assistance grants are major mechanisms through which returns to R&D investments in G7 countries flows to Sub-Saharan African countries. However, their influence has declined over the years. Finally, the third essay tests the hypothesis that the relationship between a country's exporters and their foreign purchasing agents may lead to the exchange of ideas and thereby improve the manufacturing process and productivity in the exporting country. I test this hypothesis using disaggregated export data from OECD countries. The foreign R&D capital stock in this essay was constructed as exports weighted average of domestic R&D capital stock. I find empirical support for the hypothesis. In particular, capital goods exports generate more learning effects and therefore best explain productivity in OECD countries than non-capital goods exports.

Multiplex assays for biomarker research and clinical application: translational science coming of age

Over the last decade, translational science has come into the focus of academic medicine, and significant intellectual and financial efforts have been made to initiate a multitude of bench-to-bedside projects. The quest for suitable biomarkers that will significantly change clinical practice has become one of the biggest challenges in translational medicine. Quantitative measurement of proteins is a critical step in biomarker discovery. Assessing a large number of potential protein biomarkers in a statistically significant number of samples and controls still constitutes a major technical hurdle. Multiplexed analysis offers significant advantages regarding time, reagent cost, sample requirements and the amount of data that can be generated. The two contemporary approaches in multiplexed and quantitative biomarker validation, antibody-based immunoassays and MS-based multiple (or selected) reaction monitoring, are based on different assay principles and instrument requirements. Both approaches have their own advantages and disadvantages and therefore have complementary roles in the multi-staged biomarker verification and validation process. In this review, we discuss quantitative immunoassay and multiple reaction monitoring/selected reaction monitoring assay principles and development. We also discuss choosing an appropriate platform, judging the performance of assays, obtaining reliable, quantitative results for translational research and clinical applications in the biomarker field.