Clearly, the agencies involved in Mumbai’s administration can no longer treat this as business-as-usual or an issue that will dissipate on its own as the winter ebbs, as they are most likely to, and wake up only when the smog makes the city invisible next winter
For several years, Mumbaikars believed the coastal city was a cut above New Delhi in the fierce rivalry between the two during winters, given that the national capital was generally enveloped in a smog for days, making visibility low and people’s health precarious as air pollution peaked. Mumbaikars have been forced to drop this snobbishness in the last two months as Mumbai’s air quality has seen depths that we did not think possible. The city has had more days of “poor” and “very poor” Air Quality Index (AQI) through December and January than in any previous winter, according to the data available. On some days, the AQI has been worse than in New Delhi too.The problem needs no more description or testimony; we know it, we are all living it. The question is: What have the agencies responsible to counter the air pollution done about it in the last two-three months? A more basic question, perhaps, is where, with which agency, does the buck stop.
NORTHBROOK, Ill.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Impossible Objects today announced a joint development agreement with Owens Corning to develop new materials for Impossible Objects’ revolutionary composite-based additive manufacturing (CBAM) process.
The collaboration with Owens Corning, a global building and industrial materials leader, will enable the production of stronger parts at costs lower than other 3D printing processes. Fiberglass composites boast key advantages for 3D-printed parts, including substantially greater strength-to-weight ratios compared to aluminum, lower costs, superior high-temperature performance and greater chemical resistance. Lowering material cost is important for broadening adoption of additive manufacturing; research has shown that costs of materials used in 3D printing can be higher than traditional manufacturing materials by up to a factor of eight on a per-weight basis.
“Owens Corning is committed to the development of composite materials and their applications,” said Dr. Chris Skinner, Vice President of Strategic Marketing, Composites, Owens Corning. “We seek to be at the forefront of new processing and new applications involving Composites. We have found the Impossible Objects technology and know-how potentially transformative for the conversion of some applications to composites. Because we believe it can be successful and deliver value to the market and our customers, we’ve entered into a joint agreement to support the development further.”
“Our CBAM process is a revolution in 3D printing, with faster speeds, better material properties and wider material selection,” said Robert Swartz, chairman and founder of Impossible Objects. “This collaboration with Owens Corning will allow us to quickly experiment with and refine new materials to significantly lower cost and bring unprecedented options for additive manufacturing.”
Impossible Objects’ proprietary CBAM technology can produce parts up to ten times faster than conventional fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printing. By combining high-performance polymers like Nylon and PEEK with carbon fiber and fiberglass nonwoven materials, parts printed with Impossible Objects machines are stronger, lighter, have better dimensional accuracy and have better temperature performance than what’s possible with conventional 3D printing methods. The CBAM process can use a great variety of materials including carbon fiber and fiberglass paired with PEEK, PA 6, PA 12, elastomerics and most other thermoplastics.
By bringing together Impossible Objects’ CBAM process and Owens Corning’s fully integrated glass nonwoven manufacturing capabilities, the joint development agreement will allow the scaling of the CBAM process to industrial scale, enabling it to compete with other high-volume manufacturing methods like injection molding. The CBAM process can eliminate the long lead-times and tooling costs involved in injection molding, while enabling mass customization of parts. CBAM also allows for the combination of parts, resulting in lower assembly costs.
Owens Corning is the latest materials leader to join forces with Impossible Objects to enable the development of the CBAM process. In May 2019, the chemical company BASF entered a collaboration with Impossible Objects to 3D print high-performance carbon fiber-PA6 composite parts for the first time. Also in 2019, TIGER Coatings began work with Impossible Objects for the development of thermoset-based 3D printed composites.
To learn more:
– Watch a video to learn how CBAM works
– Explore the high-performance materials available for use with CBAM
– Request a free sample part from Impossible Objects
About Impossible Objects
Impossible Objects, a 3D printer and materials company, was founded with the belief that materials science inventions would enable 3D printing to revolutionize the world in the same ways that computers and the Internet have revolutionized the way we live, work and play. The company’s composite-based additive manufacturing technology (CBAM) is an entirely new process that is fundamentally different from conventional additive manufacturing technologies. CBAM parts are stronger, lighter, have better temperature performance, and are more durable than other additive manufacturing technologies on the market. For more information, visit www.impossible-objects.com.
Recently, U-Blox AG and U-blox America Inc.
(“u-blox”), announced that it has entered into a
worldwide, non-exclusive, patent license agreement with Koninklijke
KPN N.V., (“KPN”), for a defined term while settling
their ongoing patent disputes. The patent license agreement covers the sale
of u-blox products and services that KPN believes to be essential
for telecommunication standards. Patent infringement litigation between
the two companies has been dismissed.
U-Blox is a global provider of leading positioning and wireless
communication technologies and services while KPN is Dutch
telecommunication (including fixed, mobile, television, and
internet) and ICT solution provider.
The patent license agreement was reached in the background of
patent-related disputes the two companies were engaged in
(Koninklijke KPN N.V. v U-Blox AG and U-Blox America, Inc..in the
District Court of Delaware). Specifically, the dispute was with
respect to KPN’s US Patent No. 6,212,662, titled “Method
and devices for the transmission of data with transmission error
checking” with priority going back to the year 1995. KPN is
the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 and holds all
rights, title, and interest to it, including the sole right to sue
and recover for any and all infringements.
The invention concerns a method and devices for the detection of
errors, in particular transmission errors, in data streams and/or
data packets. Transmission errors may arise, for example, through
electromagnetic radiation, inadequacies in a storage medium
(transmission in time), and errors in switching and transmission
equipment. Systematic errors, that is to say, errors that repeat
themselves, can arise inter all through an error that repeats
itself in the transmission channel (for example an interference
signal with a certain frequency) or through an equipment error.
With systematic errors, the case may therefore arise that an error
once not recognized as such, is continually not detected. With the
technology, the detection function is varied on the basis of the
time and/or the data themselves, for example by assigning an
individual variation value to each index (packet index),
effectively varying the data themselves. The invention is
particularly suitable for application to compressed data
The devices claimed in U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 have proved to
be of great importance to the field of error detection and
correction. At a minimum, such ‘662 Accused Products include
all smartphones and other mobile telecommunication devices
configured to send or receive data over an LTE, UMTS, or cdma2000
radio telecommunication network using or incorporating the error
checking technology described in Exhibit A. This includes products
like the following: the u-blox Lisa-U2 series, Toby-L2 series,
Toby-R2 series, MPCI-L2 series, EVK L2 series, Lara-R2 Series,
Sara-U2 series, C027 Series with LISA cellular module, C16 Series
Telematics Application Board with LISA cellular module, EVK-U2x,
EVK-U26/27 with SARAU2, EVK-U20//U23, EVK-L20/EVK-L22 Cellular
Evaluation Kit, ADP-L200, and ADP-L210.
United States Patent No. 6,212,662 previously was the subject of
litigation in Koninklijke KPN N.V., v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd., (Civil Action Nos. 2:14-cv-1165 and 2:15-cv-948; E.D. Tex.).
The court in that matter construed the patent. Samsung subsequently
entered into a settlement and patent license agreement with
In around January of this year (2021), KPN filed a slew of
patent infringement suits against U-Blox, as well as against Acer,
BLU Products, Bullitt Group, Xiaomi, and Yulong Computer
Telecommunications Scientific Company (Coolpad Technologies) in the
District of Delaware, most of which since then has been dismissed.
In August of this year, U-Blox filed a declaratory judgment action
in the Southern District of California against KPN (3:21-cv-01220),
asserting various claims related to KPN’s alleged failure to
license its standard-essential patents related to 2G, 3G, and 4G
cellular technology on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory
U-Blox And KPN Settle Patent Dispute And Sign Patent License
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
Bakuchiol is a monoterpene phenol isolated from the seeds of Psoralea corylifoliaLinn. It is used traditionally in Indian and Chinese medicine and has been reported to possess extensive pharmacological potential against a variety of ailments. A recent study enumerates the anticancer potential of bakuchiol.
The objective of the present review study is to explore the anticancer potential of bakuchiol which provides insight into the design and develop novel molecular entities against various disorders.
Current prose and patents emphasizing the anticancer potential of bakuchiol have been identified and reviewed with particular emphasis on their scientific impact and novelty. An extensive literature survey was performed and compiled via the search engine, PubMed, science Direct, and from many reputed foundations..
The study’s findings suggested and verified the anticancer potential that Psoralea and bakuchiol against a variety of cancer. Both Psoralea and bakuchiol also portrayed synergistic or potentiating effects when given in combination with other anticancer drugs or natural compounds.
Altogether, the promising anticancer potential of bakuchiol may open new probes for therapeutic invention in various types of tumors. Thus, the present review gives the erudition of bakuchiol and Psoralea as anticancer which paves the way for further work in exploring their potential.
Anti-cancer; Bakuchiol; Derivatives; Monoterpene; Psoralea corylifolia..
Our efforts as a society to combat the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic are continuously challenged by the emergence of new variants. These variants can be more infectious than existing strains and many of them are also more resistant to available vaccines. The appearance of these new variants cause new surges of infections, exacerbated by infrastructural difficulties, such as shortages of medical personnel or test kits. In this work, a high-resolution computational framework for modeling the simultaneous spread of two COVID-19 variants: a widely spread base variant and a new one, is established. The computational framework consists of a detailed database of a representative U.S. town and a high-resolution agent-based model that uses the Omicron variant as the base variant and offers flexibility in the incorporation of new variants. The results suggest that the spread of new variants can be contained with highly efficacious tests and mild loss of vaccine protection. However, the aggressiveness of the ongoing Omicron variant and the current waning vaccine immunity point to an endemic phase of COVID-19, in which multiple variants will coexist and residents continue to suffer from infections.
COVID‐19; agent‐based model; epidemiology; multiple variants; urban science.
© 2022 Wiley‐VCH GmbH.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
World Health Organization, WHO coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) dashboard, https://covid19.who.int (accessed: October 2022).
Kupferschmidt K., Wadman M., science 2021, 372, 1375.
Liu L., Iketani S., Guo Y., Chan J. F.‐W., Wang M., Liu L., Luo Y., Chu H., Huang Y., Nair M. S., Yu J., Chik K. K.‐H., Yuen T. T.‐T., Yoon C., To K. K.‐W., Chen H., Yin M. T., Sobieszczyk M. E., Huang Y., Wang H. H., Sheng Z., Yuen K.‐Y., Ho D. D., Nature 2022, 602, 676.
While the global picture of Open Access remains something of a patchwork (see our recent blog post The Changing Landscape of Open Access Compliance), trends are nevertheless moving in broadly the same direction, with the past decade seeing a move globally from 70% of all publishing being closed access to 54% being open access.
The White House OSTP’s new memo (aka the Nelson Memo) will see this trend advance rapidly in the United States, stipulating that federally-funded publications and associated datasets should be made publicly available without embargo.
In this blog post, Symplectic‘s Kate Byrne and Figshare‘s Andrew Mckenna-Foster start to unpack what the Nelson Memo means, along with some of the impacts, considerations and challenges that research institutions and librarians will need to consider in the coming months.
Demystifying the Nelson Memo’s recommendations
The focus of the memo is upon ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research.
The first clause of the memo is focused on working with the funders to ensure that they have policies in place to provide embargo-free, public access to research.
The second clause encourages the development of transparent procedures to ensure scientific and research integrity is maintained in public access policies. This is a complex and interesting space, which goes beyond the remit of what we would perhaps traditionally think of as ‘Open Access’ to incorporate elements such as transparency of data, conflicts of interest, funding, and reproducibility (the latter of which is of particular interest to our sister company Ripeta, who are dedicated to building trust in science by benchmarking reproducibility in research).
The third clause recommends that federal agencies coordinate with the OSTP in order to ensure equitable delivery of federally-funded research results in data. While the first clause mentions making supporting data available alongside publications, this clause takes a broader stance toward sharing results.
What does this mean for institutions and faculty?
The Nelson memo introduces a clear set of challenges for research institutions, research managers, and librarians, who now need to consider how to put in place internal workflows and guidance that will enable faculty to easily identify eligible research and make it openly available, how to support multiple pathways to open access, and how to best engage and incentivize researchers and faculty.
However, the OSTP has made very clear that this is not in fact a mandate, but rather a non-binding set of recommendations. While this certainly relieves some of the potential immediate pressure and panic around getting systems and processes in place, it is clear that what this move does represent is the direction of travel that has been communicated to federal funders.
Funders will look at the Nelson Memo when reviewing their own policies, and seek alignment when setting their own policy requirements that drive action for faculty members across the US. So while the memo does not in itself mandate compliance for institutions, universities, and research organizations, it will have a direct impact on the activities faculty are being asked to complete – increasing the need for institutions to offer faculty services and support to help them easily comply with their funders requirements.
How have funders responded so far?
We are already seeing clear indications that funders are embracing the recommendations and preparing next steps. Rapidly after the announcement, the NIH published a statement of support for the policy, noting that it has “long championed principles of transparency and accessibility in NIH-funded research and supports this important step by the Biden Administration”, and over the coming months will “work with interagency partners and stakeholders to revise its current Public Access Policy to enable researchers, clinicians, students, and the public to access NIH research results immediately upon publication”.
Similarly, the USDA tweeted their support for the guidance, noting that “rapid public access to federally-funded research & data can drive data-driven decisions & innovation that are critical in our fast-changing world.”
How big could the impact be?
While it will take some time for funders to begin to publish their updated OA Policies, there have been some early studies which seek to assess how many publications could potentially fall under such policies.
A recent preprint by Eric Schares of Iowa State University [Impact of the 2022 OSTP Memo: A Bibliometric Analysis of U.S. Federally Funded Publications, 20217-2021] used data from Dimensions to identify and analyse publications with federal funding sources. Schares found that:
- 1.32 million publications in the US were federally funded between 2017-2021, representing 33% of all US research outputs in the same period.
- 32% of federally funded publications were not openly available to the public in 2021 (compared to 38% of worldwide publications during the same period).
Schares’ study included 237 federal funding agencies – due to the removal of the $100m threshold, many more funders now fall under the Nelson memo than under the previous 2013 Holdren memo. This makes it likely that disciplines who previously were not impacted will now find themselves grappling with public access requirements.
In Schares’ visualization here, where each dot represents a research institution, we can see that two main groupings emerge. The first is a smaller group made up of the National Laboratories. They publish a smaller number of papers overall, but are heavily federally funded (80-90% of their works). The second group is a much larger cluster, representing Universities across the US. Those organisations have 30 – 60% of their publications being federally-funded, but building from a much larger base number of publications – meaning that they will likely have a lot of faculty members who will now need support.
Where do faculty members need support?
According to the 2022 State of Open Data Report, institutions and libraries have a particularly essential role to play in meeting new top-down initiatives, not only by providing sufficient infrastructure but also support, training and guidance for researchers. It is clear from the findings of the report that the work of compliance is wearing on researchers, with 35% of respondents citing lack of time as reason for not adhering to data management plans and 52% citing finding time to curate data as the area they need the most help and support with. 72% of researchers indicated they would rely on an internal resource (either colleagues, the Library or the Research Office) were they to require help with managing or making their data openly available.
How to start?
Institutions who invest now in building capacity in these areas to support open access and data sharing for researchers will be better prepared for the OSTP’s 2025 deadline, helping to avoid any last-minute scramble to support their researchers in meeting this guidance.
Beginning to think about enabling open access can be a daunting task, particularly for institutions who don’t yet have internal workflows or appropriate infrastructure set up, so we recommend breaking down your approach into more manageable chunks:
1. Understand your own Open Access landscape
- Find out where your researchers are publishing and what OA pathways they are currently using. You can do this by reviewing your scholarly publishing patterns and the OA status of those works.
- Explore the data you have for your own repositories – not only your own existing data sets, but also those from other sources such as data aggregators or tools like Dimensions.
- Begin to overlay publishing data with grants data, to benchmark where you are now and work to identify the kinds of drivers that your researchers are likely to see in the future.
2. Review your system capabilities
- Is your repository ready for both publications and data?
- Do you have effective monitoring and reporting capabilities that will help you track engagement and identify areas where your community may need more support? Are your systems researcher-friendly; how quickly and easily can a researcher make their work openly available??
3. Consider how you will support your research ecosystem
- Identify how you plan to support and incentivize researchers, considering how you will provide guidance about compliant ways of making work openly available, as well as practical support where relevant.
- Plan communication points between internal stakeholders (e.g. Research Office, Library, IT) to create a joined-up approach that will provide a shared and seamless experience to your researchers.
- Review institutional policies and procedures relating to publishing and open access, considering where you are at present and where you’d like to get to.
How can Digital Science help?
Symplectic Elements was the first commercially available research information management system to be “open access aware”, connecting to institutional digital repositories in order to enable frictionless open access deposit for publications and accompanying datasets. Since 2009 through initial integration with DSpace – later expanding our repository support to Figshare, EPrints, Hyrax, and custom home-grown systems – we have partnered with and guided many research institutions around the globe as they work to evolve and mature their approach to open access. We have deep experience in building out tools and processes which will help universities meet mandates set by national governments or funders, report on fulfilment and compliance, and engage researchers in increasing levels of deposit.
Our sister company Figshare is a leading provider of cloud repository software and has been working for over a decade to make research outputs, of all types, more discoverable and reusable and lower the barriers of access. Meeting and exceeding many of the ‘desirable characteristics’ set out by the OSTP themselves for repositories, Figshare is the repository of choice for over 100 universities and research institutions looking to ensure their researchers are compliant with the rising tide of funder policies.
Below is an example of the type of Open Access dashboard that can be configured and run using the various collated and curated scholarly data held within Symplectic Elements.
In this example, we are using Dimensions as a data source, building on data from Unpaywall about the open access status of works within an institution’s Elements system. Using the data visualizations within this dashboard, you can start to look at open access trends over time, such as the different sorts of open access pathways being used, and how that pattern changes when you look across different publishers or different journals, or for different departments within your organization. By gaining this powerful understanding of where you are today, you can begin to think about how to best prioritise your efforts for tomorrow as you continue to mature your approach to open access.
You might find yourself at Level 1 right now where you have a publications repository along with some metadata, and you’re able to track a number of deposits and do some basic reporting, but there are a number of ways that you can build this up over time to create a truly integrated OA solution. By bringing together publications and data repositories and integrating them within a research management solution, you can enter a space where you can monitor proactively, with an embedded engagement and compliance strategy across all publications and data.
For more information or if you’d like to set up time to speak to the Digital Science team about how Symplectic Elements or Figshare for Institutions can support and guide you in your journey to a fully embedded and mature Open Access strategy, please get in touch – we’d love to hear from you.
This blog post was originally published on the Symplectic website.