This article presents a landscape assessment of the findings from the 2021 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Evaluators Survey. This survey was the most recent iteration of a well established, national, peer-led systematic snapshot of the CTSA evaluators, their skillsets, listed evaluation resources, preferred methods, and identified best practices. Three questions guided our study: who are the CTSA evaluators, what competencies do they share and how is their work used within hubs. We describe our survey process (logistics of development, deployment, and differences in historical context with prior instruments); and present its main findings. We provide specific recommendations for evaluation practice in two main categories (National vs Group-level) including, among others, the need for a national, strategic plan for evaluation as well as enhanced mentoring and training of the next generation of evaluators. Although based on the challenges and opportunities currently within the CTSA Consortium, takeaways from this study constitute important lessons with potential for application in other large evaluation consortia. To our knowledge, this is the first time 2021 survey findings are disseminated widely, to increase transparency of the CTSA evaluators' work and to motivate conversations within hub and beyond, as to how best to leverage existent evaluative capacity.

One challenge with animal welfare assessment programmes is that standards that make a meaningful difference to welfare can be difficult for a broad spectrum of producers to meet, thereby preventing many from engaging at all. Global Animal Partnership's (GAP's) 5-Step™ Animal Welfare Rating Standards are unique in that they are designed as a multi-tiered system that encourages continuous welfare improvement. The 5-Step program allows for a wide variety of production models — from small farms raising fewer than 50 animals in extensive, outdoor systems to larger, indoor operations raising tens of millions — and allows producers to move up the Steps as they choose. Each additional Step provides a four-fold benefit: the animals have improved welfare, the producer has the opportunity of greater rewards and more accurate representation of her or his farming practices, retailers can provide wider product selection to meet their customer demands, and consumers have the guarantee of ever-increasing, welfare-friendly choices as well as a transparent source of information on how their meat was raised. GAP began piloting its 5-Step program in 2008 with comprehensive on-farm/on-ranch and transport standards for meat chickens, pigs and beef cattle in an exclusive, two-year partnership with Whole Foods Market (WFM), North America's largest natural-foods grocer. The variety of farms and ranches supplying WFM provided a thorough testing ground for the programme. Chicken, pork, beef and turkey products ranging from Step 1 to Step 5+ are available regionally in WFM stores in the USA and Canada. Having successfully completed this pilot phase with WFM, GAP is now negotiating with other retailers, both restaurants and grocers, as well as further-processors, in North America and beyond. The essence of the Steps is captured by the following phrases: Step 1 — no crowding, cages or crates; Step 2 — an enriched environment; Step 3 — enhanced outdoor access; Step 4 — pasture centred; Step 5 — animal-centred: bred for the outdoors; and Step 5+ — animal-centred: entire life on the same farm. As of 1 December 2011, more than 1,740 third-party audited and certified farms and ranches are raising more than 140 million animals annually according to GAP's 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards.

Translational science is, by definition, groundbreaking; however, without an emphasis on quality and efficiency, some innovations in healthcare may translate into unnecessary risk, suboptimal solutions, and potentially loss of well-being and even lives. The COVID-19 pandemic and the Clinical and Translational Sciences Award Consortium’s response created an opportunity for quality and efficiency to be better defined, expediently and thoughtfully addressed, and further studied as central foundations in the translational science mission. This paper presents findings of an environmental scan of adaptive capacity and preparedness to illuminate the assets, institutional environment, knowledge, and forward-looking decision-making needed to optimize and sustain research quality and efficiency.

For the past 4 years, as part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) grant award number UL1TR001436, the Clinical Translational Science Institute of Southeast Wisconsin (CTSI) has used process engineering approaches to identify and understand barriers that local researchers and other stakeholders face when engaging in clinical and translational science. We describe these approaches and present preliminary results. We identified barriers from published and unpublished work at other CTSA hubs, supplemented by surveys and semi-structured interviews of CTSI faculty. We then used a multifaceted approach to organize, visualize, and analyze the barriers. We have identified 27 barriers to date. We ranked their priority for CTSI to address based on the barrier’s impact, the feasibility of intervention, and whether addressing the barrier aligned with CTSI’s institutional role. This approach provides a systematic framework to scope and address the “barriers to research problem” at CTSI institutions.

Historiquement chacune des entités nucléaires du groupe AREVA mettait en œuvre séparément la démarche ALARA. Malgré la diversité des métiers pratiqués et la diversité des environnements radiologiques AREVA a choisi de fédérer l'ensemble des entités nucléaires autour d'une politique commune de sûreté nucléaire dont nous rappelons ici les grands principes. Ce processus volontariste, pour lequel l’autorité nucléaire reste incitative, et auquel participent tous les acteurs à chaque niveau de la chaîne hiérarchique, permet d’optimiser les résultats de radioprotection.