Refine
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Brain tumor (1)
- EWSR1 (1)
- Gene fusion (1)
- Global risk (1)
- MN1 (1)
- Neuroepithelial (1)
- Neurooncology (1)
- PATZ1 (1)
- Pediatric (1)
- Problem structuring (1)
Institute
This assessment concept paper provides a methodological approach for the formative assessment and summative assessment of GIZ’s International Water Stewardship Programme (IWaSP) and its component partnerships. IWaSP promotes partnerships between the private sector (corporations and SMEs), the public sector and the society to tackle shared water risks and to manage water equitably to meet competing demands. This evaluative assessment concept describes the generic approach of the assessment, the cycle for the assessment of partnerships, the country coordination and the programme.
The overall goal of the assessment is to provide evidence for taxpayers in the donor countries and for citizens in the partnership countries. It also aims to examine the relevance of the programme’s approach, its underlying assumptions, and the heterogeneity of stakeholders and their specific interests. Since the assessment is also formative feedback to GIZ and IWaSP stakeholders, it aims to guide the future implementation of the partnerships and the programme.
The assessment is guided by several generic principles: assessing for learning (formative assessment); assessment of learning (summative assessment); iteration; structuring complex problems; unblocking results; and conformity with other assessment criteria set out by the OECD the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and GIZ’s Capacity Works success factors (GTZ 2010).
These generic criteria are adapted to the three levels of the IWaSP structure. First, the assessment cycle for partnerships includes the validation of stakeholders (mapping), the analysis of secondary literature, face-to-face interviews and a process for feeding back the findings. Generic tools are provided to guide the assessment, such as a list of key documents and an interview guide. Partnerships will undergo a baseline, interim assessment and final assessment. As progress varies across individual IWaSP partnerships, the steps taken by each partnership to assess shared water risks, prioritise and agree interventions, are expected to differ slightly. In response to these differences the sequencing and content of the assessment may need to be adapted for the different partnerships.
Second, the country-level assessment considers issues such as the coordination of partnerships within a country, scoping strategies, and interaction between partnership and the programme. Information gathered during the partnership assessment feeds into the country-level assessment.
Third, the assessment cycle for the programme involves a document and monitoring plan analysis, reflection on the different perspectives of the programme staff, country staff and external stakeholders.
The final section is concerned with reporting. Several annexes are provided relating to the organisation and preparation of the assessment, including question guidelines and analysis procedures.
The diagnosis that we are living in a world risk society formulated by Ulrich Beck 20 years ago (Beck, Kölner Z Soziol Sozialpsychol 36:119–147, 1996) has lost nothing of its power, especially against the background of the Anthropocene debate. “Global risks” have been identified which are caused by human activities, technology, and modernization processes. Microplastics are a by-product of exactly these modernization processes, being distributed globally by physical processes like ocean currents, and causing effects far from their place of origin. In recent years, the topic has gained great prominence, as microplastics have been discovered nearly everywhere in the environment, raising questions about the impacts on food for human consumption. But are microplastics really a new phenomenon or rather a symptom of an old problem? And exactly what risks are involved? It seems that the phenomenon has accelerated political action—the USA has passed the Microbead-Free Waters Act 2015—and industries have pledged to fade out the use of microbeads in their cosmetic products. At first sight, is it a success for environmentalists and the protection of our planet?
This chapter deals with these questions by adopting a social-ecological perspective, discussing microplastics as a global risk. Taking four main characteristics of global risks, we develop four arguments to discuss (a) the everyday production of risk by societies, (b) scientific risk evaluation of microplastics, (c) social responses, and (d) problems of risk management. To illustrate these four issues, we draw on different aspects of the current scientific and public debate. In doing so, we contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the social-ecological implications of microplastics.
Large-scale molecular profiling studies in recent years have shown that central nervous system (CNS) tumors display a much greater heterogeneity in terms of molecularly distinct entities, cellular origins and genetic drivers than anticipated from histological assessment. DNA methylation profiling has emerged as a useful tool for robust tumor classification, providing new insights into these heterogeneous molecular classes. This is particularly true for rare CNS tumors with a broad morphological spectrum, which are not possible to assign as separate entities based on histological similarity alone. Here, we describe a molecularly distinct subset of predominantly pediatric CNS neoplasms (n = 60) that harbor PATZ1 fusions. The original histological diagnoses of these tumors covered a wide spectrum of tumor types and malignancy grades. While the single most common diagnosis was glioblastoma (GBM), clinical data of the PATZ1-fused tumors showed a better prognosis than typical GBM, despite frequent relapses. RNA sequencing revealed recurrent MN1:PATZ1 or EWSR1:PATZ1 fusions related to (often extensive) copy number variations on chromosome 22, where PATZ1 and the two fusion partners are located. These fusions have individually been reported in a number of glial/glioneuronal tumors, as well as extracranial sarcomas. We show here that they are more common than previously acknowledged, and together define a biologically distinct CNS tumor type with high expression of neural development markers such as PAX2, GATA2 and IGF2. Drug screening performed on the MN1:PATZ1 fusion-bearing KS-1 brain tumor cell line revealed preliminary candidates for further study. In summary, PATZ1 fusions define a molecular class of histologically polyphenotypic neuroepithelial tumors, which show an intermediate prognosis under current treatment regimens.