how to multiply any two polynomials. What is the product of that binomial and that trinomial? Let us first consider this product. Now we know that this is 5 and this is 10, so this must be equal to 50. Let us see how this works. So 3 times 4 is 12, 3 times 7 is 21, 3 times negative 1 does minus 3, negative 3 so we take away 3 and now we distribute the 2, we first distribute the 3, now we distribute the 2, 2 times 4 is 8, plus 14, minus 2, and this is just 50. This works because it is based on the distributive property. I'm using integer decomposition because it is something that you can easily recognize and easily accept and easily apply to this other problem. So we have this binomial multiplied by that trinomial and it's applied the same technique. This first term will be multiplied by every member of that trinomial. So this is 12x cubed plus 21x squared minus 3x and then these 3 other terms plus 8x squared plus 14x minus 2. So we combine like terms and we have this is 12x cubed plus 29x squared plus 11x minus 2. Thank you.


Hello, I'm Korra Korzadz, Head of Communities at E-Life. It's my pleasure to welcome you all to our February's ECR Wednesday webinar. This series aims to give early career researchers a platform to discuss issues important to you and your research career. You can follow us on Twitter at E-Life community and with the hashtag ECR Wednesday. The session is being recorded and we will make it available on YouTube in the near future. Now it's my pleasure to invite Yara Bidiakho, a research fellow at the West African Center for Cell Biology of Infectious Pathogens at the University of Ghana and a member of the Early Career Advisory Group to introduce today's session and our panelists. Thank you Korra and hello everyone. Thanks for joining our ECR Wednesday webinar on promoting inclusion in science. My name, as Korra said, is Yara Bidiakho and I'm a member of the E-Life Early Career Advisory Group or the ECAG and I'll be moderating this webinar. E-Life is a nonprofit organization that is operating a platform to improve all aspects of research communication by encouraging and recognizing the most responsible behaviors in research. The role of the ECAG is to influence and support E-Life's work to catalyze broad reform in the evaluation and communication of science and in particular to represent the needs and aspirations of researchers at early stages of their careers for a research culture that is healthy for science and for scientists. We have applications open currently actually for five vacancies in the ECAG and so I'd encourage everybody listening who is interested to check out more details and apply at elivesciences.org slash community. We open 2021 with a webinar dedicated to exploring diversity and inclusion within academic research. Today our speakers will review selected literature on this subject and we'll discuss manifestations of bias and discrimination in academia. They will also share resources and inclusive practice examples with a view to support researchers to improve practices in recruitment, peer review and mentoring. So I'll just start with a little bit of housekeeping. Following the presentation will be relaying your questions to the panelists. So to ask a question you can type your question in the Zoom chat box or you can tweet us. We are at E-Life community using the hashtag ECR Wednesday. I will read out your name and question in the Q&A at the end of the webinar. So we just ask that during the webinar you please be respectful, honest, inclusive, accommodating, appreciative and open to learning from everyone else. Please do not attack, demean, disrupt, harass or threaten others or encourage such behavior. If at any point you feel uncomfortable or unwelcome on any of these webinars, so not just this week's, please contact E-Life by emailing events at elivesciences.org. And of course we reserve the right to ask anyone to leave and or to deny access to a subsequent webinar if you fail to follow these rules of conduct. So if you need help, please send a chat message directly to Cora Corsac. And to ask questions, as I said again, please use the Zoom chat box or tweet us at elivecommunity and use the hashtag ECR Wednesday at any point during the webinar. So without further ado, I'd like to welcome our three speakers to take us through this webinar. And I'll come back again to moderate the questions at the end. Thanks for the introduction. Before we get started today, we'd like to take an opportunity to state our support for marginalized groups, especially black academics in the US and across the world, who experience enhanced discrimination every day. This needs to change and we can all do that together by holding ourselves and each other socially accountable to address racial abuse. So let's get started. My name is Sarah Hayner. My pronouns are she, her, my assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh, but originally from Canada. Hi everyone. I'm Renuka Kudva. I'm currently a project coordinator at the National Genomics Infrastructure at PsyLife Lab in Sweden. I have a PhD in postdoctoral research experience in biochemistry. I'm Indian and I currently live in Stockholm. And hello, I'm Freya Olavstotte. I'm an IU and assistant professor and a Donters-Morpem fellow at the Donters Institute in the Netherlands. I'm originally from Iceland and my preferred pronouns are she and her. So we are all scientists and all of us have been passionate in promoting equity within our spaces. We have worked together with others to put together resources and information to improve inclusion and equity in academic science. This presentation is centered around the work of other scientists who have identified disparities in STEM, mostly in the US and Europe. We have put it together as a resource to inform and challenge ourselves, our audience and policymakers to make scientific environments more inclusive and nurturing to everyone. Regardless of their unique identities or circumstances that have shaped them, being unique is a good thing. So let's celebrate that. Our main goal today is to highlight why it is important to be inclusive in academic science. Specifically, we will present data on how ignoring the importance of equity and inclusivity contributes to weaknesses in academia. We will also provide a shared language for understanding inclusion, reflect on biases that we have, and provide suggestions for fully supporting our colleagues. It's important to know upfront that individuals who are marginalized within any work setting, including academia, often leave these settings. This is not only an issue for that individual, but rather an issue for retaining great talent within academia. There have been several scientists who were discriminated against for their differing identities and these contributions to science have been rediscovered in recent times. We would like to begin by taking a step back in time to highlight a few of them. Perhaps the most widely known scientist who experienced discrimination during their scientific career is Rosalind Franklin. During her career, Dr. Franklin was subjected to gender-based discrimination by her colleagues. Many of us probably know how she performed seminal work in solving the structure of DNA, receiving little credit in her lifetime. And even now, textbooks still often do not refer to her data. Beyond Dr. Franklin, let's take a moment to take a look at a few other well-known scientists who experienced biases for a range of individual or multiple identities. Now we have overlaid the identity discriminations these individuals experienced during their scientific careers. How many more scientists' contributions will be overlooked, lost or forgotten before we make science more inclusive? Can a change in existing policies and our own behaviors make academia a welcoming place and make scientists want to stay? Policies are inspired and shaped by data, and data is the result of years of research. There has been a lot of work on studying discrimination of different social identities over the past decades. This research has largely focused on the discrimination of women, ethnic minorities, and individuals with a disability. The following slides will describe evidence we know for these social identity groups. For now, we are a limit to the data we have, but we hope future iterations of this webinar may include data that better reflects the kinds of discrimination that exist in society. Starting with gender. Just to clarify, when we speak about gender in these subsequent slides, we're referring to the self-reported binary biological sex of individuals, which therefore doesn't include non-binary individuals and may differ from a person's gender identity. So please bear this caveat in mind as we discuss data around gender discrimination. The so-called leaky pipeline metaphor has been used extensively to describe the underrepresentation of women in academic science. This phenomenon is best illustrated by the low proportional women in senior academic ranks, shown here in orange, compared to junior ranks. Indeed, data from the European Union shows that in STEM occupations, women are not only across the board underrepresented, but the underrepresentation becomes greater in senior ranks. For example, in 2018, only 15% of grade A academic positions, i.e. the most senior positions such as professorships, were held by women. Now, if we analyze gender representation on an individual lab basis, we find that so-called elite and feeder labs, these are labs where the PI is an awardee of a prestigious prize or as a sort of powerhouse in terms of generating quality, and which are shown in white bars in this figure, do the worst in terms of gender representation, namely, these labs are less likely to train female scientists. By the way, this is true for both male and female elite PIs, although male PIs on the whole seem to have poorer gender ratios. This finding is particularly concerning as these labs contribute disproportionately to training our future leaders in science. Another form of gender-based discrimination is paying men and women doing the same job a different amount. Again, data from the EU shows female scientists earn on average just 17% less than male scientists. Similarly, in the US, women researchers also underpaid relative to men. There, the pay gap is even larger, namely, the average salary of a female scientist is almost 27% lower than the average salary of a male scientist. Importantly, the gender pay gap increases when we look at higher academic ranks and older age groups. For example, for researchers aged 55 years older or older, the average gender pay gap in the EU is almost 22%. And what's even more striking is the gender pay gap grows even more in the more researched tons of countries in Europe. For example, in Germany, the average gender pay gap for this oldest group of researchers is over 30%. The underrepresentation of women also can also be observed for publication authorship, scientific recognition and presence at seminars and conferences. For example, women shown in green bars here make up only 30% of senior authors of published papers. They are also much less likely to be the recipients of awards or to be invited to speak at seminars or conferences. Moreover, the rate of change seems to be painfully slow. Before revealing what the estimated time is for closing the gender gap, at least in terms of senior authorship, we would like to ask you how long you think it will take using this anonymous poll. So how long do you think it will take before there's gender parity in terms of senior authorship? Please provide your best guess. The answers are of course anonymous. Can we see the results? Okay. Interesting. If I just close this. So many of you think it will take 20 years for the gender gap to be closed. However, based on the current rate of change, it will actually take another 50 years. However, gender representation seems to be improving on some measures. Here, the figure shows that between 2012 and 2016, the proportion of male and female speakers became more equal. Another form of identity discrimination that has been studied extensively is racial discrimination. In the US, scientists belonging to an underrepresented minority, such as being black, mixed race or Latinx, are less likely to work in scientific occupations than white scientists. So the main refraction of senior academics are black, namely only 0.6% of all UK professors are black. Although black people are a racial minority in the UK, this number should be at least six times higher if it were to be representative of the general population. Finally, racial inequality can also be observed at the trainee level. A recent survey found that underrepresented minority PhD students published at significantly lower rates than underrepresented minority students. Racial disparities also exist for pay. In the US, underrepresented minority scientists are paid 13% less on average than their white counterparts. In the UK, black academics are paid 10% less on average, as seen highlighted on the screen. Finally, another source of discrimination is the disability status of an individual. Disability in this context refers to both physical and mental disabilities. In the United States, scientists and engineers for the disability are less likely to work in STEM occupations than scientists who do not have a disability. Moreover, in the UK, disability disclosure rates have been found to decrease with academic rank, meaning they are particularly low among senior academics. And this is particularly the case in some subjects. Finally, academics in the UK who have disclosed a disability in the high-weight bracket, as is shown highlighted on the screen, suggesting they're also discriminated against in terms of pay. Of course, many other forms of inequalities exist. For example, based on individual socioeconomic background, immigrant status, religious affiliation, marital status, LGBTQIA plus status, and many others. However, the data we've described so far puts individuals in discrete social identity categories, ignoring overlaps that invariably exist in any society which may have important duplications for how people are treated. For example, the experience of white and black women scientists may not be the same, and the same goes for white male scientists who come from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Or immigrant scientists belonging to a minority group in their host country. Indeed, there is data suggesting that multiple identities can form a basis for enhanced disparities. For example, data from the UK shows that of all black female academics, just under 2% are professors. This compares to almost 6% of white female academics. Although both of these numbers are low, it seems the representation of black women is particularly low. Moreover, the representation of men in senior academic positions also depends on race. Namely, of all black male academics, only 4.5% are professors. While for white males, this number is almost 15%. I hope that these data Freya presented and pressed upon you that biases exist in academic science. What can we do to change it? Let's begin by developing a common language to discuss issues governing inclusion and then get back into what has been done and what can be done to counter bias in academic science. First, let's discuss the basic terms of inclusion. Diversity, inclusion, equality and equity. Four terms often used, but also often misused. Diversity means respect for and appreciation of differences in ethnicity, gender, race, age, national origin, ability, sexual orientation, education, religion and more. But it's even more than this. We all bring with us diverse perspectives, work experiences, lifestyles and cultures. Diversity is all the things that differentiate people from one another. Inclusion, on the other hand, is about focusing on the needs of groups with these diverse attributes. It is valuing, respecting and supporting all people no matter their identities. In a perhaps more memorable description, diversity is the mix, meaning the range of identities every person in a group has. And inclusion is getting this mix of people with different identities to work well together. So why does diversity matter? Of course, diversity matters because it is how to be fully inclusive and is morally proper to be so. But beyond this, diverse groups have been shown in many disciplines to better, to promote better critical thinking, higher productivity, more innovation and creativity. In addition, diverse groups enhance individualist experiences by exposing others to alternative perspectives and strengthen communities. These benefits are true for academic science, but in many other fields as well. All these advantages that diverse teams provide are important skills that lead to success across disciplines. Additional terms often used when discussing inclusion are equality and equity. Equality is when each individual receives the same resource. So in this example on the right, three individuals with different needs are all given the same equal stand to see over the fence when clearly this doesn't work for each of those individuals. Equity, on the other hand, is when resources are provided based on individual needs. And in this example, each of the three individuals are given stands that assist that individual best. While these definitions seem straightforward, in practice, differences between equality and equity can be more nuanced, but hopefully this covers the basics. We want to highlight that equitable systems are required for permitting the opportunity for equal outcomes. In this example, when the three individuals were given the same stand, they could not all see over the fence. When provided stands that are designed best for that individual, they could then see over the fence. Equity is what works towards providing resources based on individual needs. Therefore, we should strive to provide equity in all opportunities. In order to be inclusive and to promote an equitable environment, it is first necessary to think about why there are disparities in academia. These come from our biases and we all have them. Even children have them. So let's try to understand what they really are through understanding a few basic terms. Discrimination simply put is the objective unequal treatment of different groups or individuals. For example, paying men and women a different salary for the same job. Discrimination can arise because of prejudice that we have for certain groups or individuals. Then there's privilege. In this context, privilege refers to access to advantageous resources or rights simply because one belongs to a particular social group. For example, children of parents who are of a lower socio-economic status are more likely to get into better schools than children of parents who have a low socio-economic status. Prejudices on the other hand represent our negative personal beliefs about social groups, which leads us to have preconceived ideas about the qualities and characteristics of individuals in those groups disregarding individual variations. For example, believing women are not good in science. As I mentioned earlier, these prejudices can lead to discrimination. Finally, a bias can be described as a preference or inclination that leads to impartial and discriminatory judgments, actions or policies. For example, preferring to hire someone that comes from the same country as oneself. These biases stem from our prejudices. Importantly, many biases are implicit, meaning individuals are not aware they have them. Yet, even though we're often not aware of our biases, it doesn't mean we can be complacent about them. The fact biases can lead to discriminatory and unfair decisions means it is essential we try to address them, even if they are unintentional. So let's have a look at how biases affect academia. Again, we will focus on biases around gender and race, as these identities have been studied most intensively. Implicit biases have been extensively studied in the context of recruitment. A seminal study by Maas Rakhazan and colleagues showed that people rate identical CVs differently, solely if the name on the CV changes from a female to a male name. Namely, in the study, participants were given fictitious CVs from student applicants to assess for a lab managerial. All CVs were identical, except half of them had a male name on them, and the other half had a female name. The participants then rated the candidates on various measures. Across all measures, the CV with a female name, shown in light gray here, was rated worse than a CV with a male name. The participants even suggested a lower starting salary for female applicants compared to male applicants. Similar results were also obtained when the name on the CV was changed from an African-American name to a name more often associated with white individuals. Moreover, groundbreaking and seminal work by Benaras involved found striking levels of gender bias in the evaluation of grot applications. The office ranked the impact of applicants independently and compared their impact rank to the competency score that applicants actually got from the Grot Review Panel. The authors found women, shown in yellow in this figure, had to receive a 2.5 times higher impact score in order to receive the same competency assessment from the Review Panel. In practice, this means that women scientists have to be more than twice as productive than men in order to be ranked equally to men. The authors also found evidence of nepotism, namely applicants that had an affiliation with one of the Grot Review Panels got higher than those that didn't, even though the affiliated person was removed from the official review. Similarly, Hop and colleagues found African-American researchers were less likely to receive R01 funding, one of the more prestigious type of funding in the US than their white counterparts. More specifically, Hop and colleagues found application from African-American researchers were less likely to be discussed, meaning they'd passed the initial review stage, received a lower impact score, and were more likely to belong to less well-funded research areas than application from white researchers. Now, institutional biases also exist. For example, closet and colleagues found that the vast majority, so this is 70 to 90% of junior faculty in the United States, comes from only 25% of all academic institutions. In practice, this suggests that the likelihood of obtaining a faculty position seems to depend a lot on where you do your training. Furthermore, closet and colleagues found new faculty were hardly ever recruited from less prestigious institutions. Only about 10% of trainees moved up the academic hierarchy. More biases around institutional prestige also seem to influence an institute's ability to obtain research funding. Before going over the evidence for this, we'd like to do another quick anonymous poll to assess how biased you think scientific funding is. So what proportion of NIH grant money, so the NIH is one of the main grant funding bodies in the U.S., so what proportion of their money do you think goes to the wealthiest 10% of universities institutes in the U.S.? Give us your best guess so we can see how biased you think the system is, see the results. Interesting. So there's a bit of a variety here, but actually the... So many of you actually think that 80% of... So that 80% of NIH grant money goes to the wealthiest 10%, which is actually correct. So you seem to have quite a realistic view of the funding landscape in the United States. But what was even more interesting is that only 10% of PIs received what being 40% of the grant money. And what's even more interesting is considering these findings is that these more prestigious institutes and labs are actually less productive than the less prestigious institutes than other institutes. Now, so it's evident biases are a strong influence in academic life, both at the individual level as well as at the level of institutions. Importantly, discrimination is bad for science. The benefits of diversity for decision-making and productivity have been well documented. For example, Al Sheblin colleagues found a clear correlation between the diversity of a research team shown on the x-axis and the impact of published research shown on the y-axis. Similarly, a fascinating study of research groups, such as being female or non-white, were more likely to make novel discoveries in their doctoral studies than individuals belonging to the majority group. For example, Lillian Bruch, who was one of the leading researchers who discovered HIV infections, came from non-human primates, seven of finding by all accounts. And she did this at a time when female biologists were highly underrepresented. In fact, Hofstra and colleagues found that the more underrepresented researchers was, the more innovations they produced. The graph on the left shows the correlation between the number of innovations introduced in a PhD thesis by female researchers and how represented female researchers were at the time in the scientific subject. The graph on the right shows the same, but for non-white PhD researchers. Both graphs show a clear negative correlation suggesting a minority status is associated with a higher degree of scientific innovation. So what can we do? First, we need to be aware of our biases in a set that we all, and that we are all biased. Except in this then means we should always strive to be self-reflective and second guess our decisions and actions, even though this may lead to uncomfortable feelings or tension. We should try to challenge biases when we see them and be the ally of those who we identify as being discriminated against, even if it means we are shaking out of our comfort zones. To help educate ourselves about our own biases, one can take implicit bias tests and participate in privileged walks. So now that Freya has mentioned how we can all be less ignorant about our own biases, over the next few minutes, I'm going to talk about a form of targeted discrimination termed microaggressions that can result from biases. Let's face it. We have all at some point likely related our perception of an individual's ability to their accent, the color of their skin, their gender, their marital status, their age, et cetera. We've also perhaps misguidedly thought we were complimenting someone or trying to be funny and being completely unaware that our actions and words have been hurtful. Well, we can all learn why this is a problem in the next few slides and think about how we can work on that together. The term microaggressions was first coined by the US psychiatrist Chester Pierce in 1970 to describe the constant put-downs that African-Americans had unleashed on them every day. This term was subsequently popularized to include a broader range of identities by Daryl Wing-Sue, who defines them as the everyday slides indignities, put-downs and insults that people of color, women, LGBTQ plus populations and other marginalized people experience in their day-to-day integrations. The use of the term microaggressions has been recently debated because micro might make it sound like these comments are minor when in fact they are discriminatory. And telling a receiver that we meant something as a compliment or as a joke and that they're being too sensitive for being hurt makes it worse. So we can all commit to recognizing that, especially if and after it's been pointed out to us. Now to move forward, here are some common examples of microaggressions that have been borrowed from the racial microaggression photo series from a few years ago. You don't speak Spanish? So what does your hair look like today? So like, what are you? So you're Chinese, right?  So what do you guys speak in Japan? Asian? By the way, microaggressions can also be non-verbal and can include actions such as eye-rolling or using dismissive body language. Scientists can encounter microaggression in all of their workspaces in the lab, at conferences, during manuscript reviews, at job interviews, et cetera. And now here are a few examples of microaggressions that we've encountered in our scientific careers. I think you're smart despite being a woman. Does your bachelor's degree even count? You give good presentations for someone who has an accent. You're too pretty to be a scientist. Of course, you received that award. How did you get your job?  People from your country are normally lazy, aren't they? You look so good for our lab. You're the ultimate diversity candidate. You people. We mentioned early on that discrimination should be addressed through stronger policies that promote responsible and inclusive behaviors. But we as individuals can also play a part. And this starts with taking responsibility and being accountable for our actions. Now taking responsibility means not getting defensive, outraged, or being dismissive if we are alerted to a microaggression that we've engaged in. Rather, we must listen, put ourselves in another shoes, reflect, and apologize. We can also refrain from telling individuals how they should and should not feel because feelings are one's own. And then we can all be allies, but it's important, and especially today when everything is virtual, to remember that these actions need to go beyond declarations on social media and should find their way into real life. We can all be discriminatory in our work, anti-discriminatory in our workspaces and challenge others to do the same. Speak to aggressors and victims. Support those that take the initiative to do so because that can be really challenging. And use these opportunities to reflect on how we as scientists can be more effective, like mentors, recruiters, managers, peer reviewers, collaborators, et cetera. However, it's also helpful to remember that not everyone wants or needs someone to stand up for them, but we are all responsible for providing a respectful and supportive workspace for our colleagues. Now to get started, we recommend taking this dignity pledge, and if you are interested in more resources, please let us know. So that was change at the individual level. Now in this last section of the webinar, we'd like to highlight what we know so far is being done by institutions and organizations to make science more inclusive. We also make some suggestions for what can be done to affect inclusive policies at all levels of academia. So at the level of hiring, there have recently been a number of initiatives that aim to promote diversity and inclusivity when hiring new faculty. For example, some universities in the US are now making it a requirement that new faculty applicants write a diversity statement that aims at describing the candidates' experience and plans to promote diversity in their new roles. Numerous universities and funding bodies across Europe also have women-only fellowships that aim to rebalance the historical underrepresentation of women in science, particularly at the faculty level where they are underrepresented. And you can see some examples of those on the screen. Now I'd like to add that these fellowships that aim to increase the representation of a minority group are helpful and can be useful in addressing inequalities in academia. However, applications for any minority focused opportunities need to clearly state this in their application requirements to ensure a fair process. And what can funding agencies do to be less biased? Well, here's an interesting study from the Canadian Institute for Health and Research. The authors conducted a study to highlight the consequences for gender representation for awarded grants when the grant review explicitly describes the caliber of the candidate called a foundation grant on the screen versus when it focuses on the quality of the proposed project. The candidate focused approach was biased towards male candidates shown here in dark green on the screen when compared with the project focused approach, although both showed an advantage for males. Now, although the male advantage appears small for each grant application, over time this accumulates to a very large advantage for male scientists on the right in green. This plot simulates the cumulative grant money a researcher of each gender would acquire over time given unequal success rates. Grant money awarded to women is shown in red. The solid line simulates money accumulated for candidate focused grants and the dashed line shows the same but for project focused grants. And the figure clearly shows that over time women accumulate dramatically less grant money if the grants are candidate focused. This suggests that evaluating funding applications based on the quality of the proposed project rather than on the candidate might indeed be a stepping stone for making scientific funding fairer. And then some funding agencies are actually trying to be more inclusive. So the NSF in the US and the Wellcome Trust in the UK have a policy that funding will be taken away from scientists who engage in workplace bullying. And the NSF explicitly also encourages collaborations that bring together groups through their includes program. And then finally in the UK, the Athena Swan Charter has started to encourage institutions to apply policies promoting gender equality and in fact even awards institutions that do so. And then journals have started also to try and adopt inclusive practices such as editors are now explicitly encouraging women underrepresented minorities and only career researchers to sign up to be peer reviewers. And some journals have started to provide statistics on submissions and reviews. So for example through the revealing the gender of reviewers and submitting authors which can promote transparency in review and highlight biases that exist. And yet others have started to implement review methods that include an open discussion among the peer reviewers through a panel or also offer open or double-blind reviews. And these have all been taken with the view to produce and highlight biases during the process of peer review. Renuka just covered some of what is being done in different sectors of academic science. Now we want to take a bit of time to discuss what you and others can do to be as inclusive and fully supportive as possible. Our group released a few resources last year pictured here which are guidelines for inclusive practices in hiring, mentoring, grant review, references and manuscript review. We chose these five resources as we think they are vital components within academic science that also largely introduced bias ultimately resulting in hindered success of individuals that experienced this discrimination. So we'll take the last few minutes here to go through what individuals can do at different career stages focusing within the structure of academic science. So what can members of research labs do to be as inclusive as possible? Renuka mentioned that you can be an advocate to marginalized groups by helping to identify and reduce discrimination through speaking with colleagues about inappropriate behavior, supporting individuals when they have been discriminated against among other actions. This holds for within a lab if your co-worker is acting in a discriminatory way speak out either to that individual or to the lab head. In addition to formal training spend time educating yourself through reading and conversation with your colleagues, mentors and friends, we are all continuously learning for our scientific endeavors and enhancing knowledge for better inclusion is no different. It is important to be inclusive and equitable toward all lab members for social events and within lab structure. For social events, for example, make sure it is one in which individuals can attend and would feel welcomed through selecting foods, activities and more that are inclusive to all lab members. And for within the lab, share lab duties equitably. Don't assume a lab member should be doing a specific or more lab chores due to a certain organizational trait or stereotype you or others have toward that person's identity that suggests a particular chore is a fit for them. Importantly treat others how they want to be treated. Do not assume everyone wants to be treated the same and do not assume how someone wants to be treated because of a stereotype or prejudice associated with one of the identities of that individual. At some point or perhaps even now you may supervise individuals such as new lab members. So be fair and inclusive in your supervision now. A PI or lab head is the leader of the group. This means you have very important requirements of your position in the way that you have a large amount of power and influence over an individual's current position and future career. You should make sure you hire diverse trainees. As Freya mentioned there is literature showing that individuals tend to hire people who are reflections of themselves and therefore it is an important bias to avoid. It is extremely important as a supervisor of any kind to be fair and equitable in your treatment of trainees. For example, it can be easy to spend additional time speaking with more social members of the lab. However, setting up timed meetings with trainees provides support in a more equitable way. Generating and using a lab expectations manual can provide transparency for your thoughts on both the scientific and social environment of your lab including the importance of inclusion. And last year we released an inclusive template for a lab expectations document that is available in individual labs to modify and use however they would like. Relatedly, every individual does not require the same type of mentorship and so you should alter your mentoring style to best assist each of your trainees' needs and their career goals rather than having trainees fit into one mentorship style. This also means always supporting your mentees in public and casual conversation with colleagues and to your other trainees. So beyond members of the lab and lab heads, what can our institutions do? Institutions should make it a primary goal to increase the number of diverse staff, faculty and students. This means altering how we both recruit and accept individuals. Furthermore, we need to focus not just on recruiting those individuals but providing support to allow those individuals to succeed. It is our purpose as educators and mentors to provide the resources and accommodations for all to succeed. Job postings for all university hires should be inclusive. For example, using gender-neutral pronouns within the job ad and posting the ad to diverse host locations. Another important modification that institutions can make is to be more family friendly through making work hours compatible with day care in schools, having day cares on site for university members, permitting work from home as able and also providing full parental leave. Finally, making sure specific quotas for different identities are reached on various committees or boards. For example, recent data has shown that the percent of female speakers at a conference directly relates to the percent of females on the organizing committee confirming the importance for diverse organizational committees. Publications containing scientific data are currency and academic science. We succeed and fail by the rate, by the impact and acceptance of our scientific publications. Careers advance largely due to success in publishing. Therefore, it is important to reduce the bias that publishing journals and manuscript reviewers have for underrepresented groups. One of our short guidelines is designed to reduce bias in manuscript review. Finally, what about funding agencies? Hand in hand with publications for academic success goes acquiring research funding. Academic science is also fraught with discrimination, however. We also generated a short guideline for grant review that can help reduce bias in this vital component of academic science. But briefly, funding agencies can alter their review processes to make this process more fair and reduce biases. Again, aspects of these more fair reviews can be altered by us when we review grant applications which we outline in this guideline. All the data we've presented is based on the disparities faced by individuals due to their different identities. But discrimination is more complex because it can be multidimensional. So it makes us think that an intersectional approach to inclusivity could be a means to building equitable and inclusive academic environments. We, and of course others, think it could because intersectional inclusion goes a step further to focus on the needs of individuals rather than grouping them together. Intersectionality is a theoretical framework that is the work of Dr. Kimberlay Crenshaw who, in her 1989 paper for the University of Chicago Legal Forum, focused on how the experiences of two identities cannot be understood by evaluating each identity independently. But rather must include the interactions of these two identities. We would now like to play a clip of Dr. Crenshaw describing what intersectionality means. Eli has procured the permission to play this clip in this presentation. Intersectionality is just a metaphor for understanding the ways that multiple forms of inequality or disadvantage sometimes compound themselves and they create obstacles that often are not understood within conventional ways of thinking about anti-racism or feminism or whatever social justice advocacy structures we have. To summarize, focusing on identifying underrepresented groups is valid but even more important is doing the work to understand the distinct layers of injustice that people of specific identities face and the layers within these identities. Parsing out the implications of these differences is what it means to be intersectional. We are glad that there have been individuals who have set some of that change in motion because it highlights some of the immediate areas that need to be worked on. This is one of the things that we have presented here today and those that have made it their life's work to highlight the gaps and advocate for equity in professional environments. We hope to have more data that focuses on overlapping identities in the future. We would like to thank the team that helped put together the resources we presented today. We have different identities but a common goal and we would like to thank you for listening and we would be happy to take questions now. We would like to thank the team for a really great webinar. Thank you so much. It's been really interesting. I believe that the chat has a number of questions, some of which actually I think have been answered by panelists as we were going. So the first question I see here I don't think has been answered yet is regarding gender equity and senior authorship, is the percentage of female less than the percentage of lab heads that are female? I can maybe answer this because I presented that slide. So undoubtedly this under-representation of female senior authors is to some extent a reflection of their under-representation of senior positions. I should caveat that by saying that a senior author is less than the percentage of lab heads that are female. I should caveat that by saying that a senior author doesn't have to be a lab head, right? So it's not a one-on-one correspondence but yes, we do think that the fact that women are less likely to be senior authors meaning they are less likely to be leading research projects is certainly one of the symptoms of the fact that they are less represented at higher academic ranks. Okay. So I hope that satisfies the question. She says the 80% of NIH for 10% of universities and the 10% of PI gets the 40% if she remembered the numbers correctly. I think that's on her right. Would introducing a funding cap allow more funding opportunities? And I think she continues to say as those PIs are less productive the additional funding can provide opportunities in early careers and diverse applicants with more risk and creative ideas. So I guess the question is do you think a funding cap potentially would help? Maybe Sarah, she and her team put together some guidelines on how to reduce biases in funding. So maybe she can address this question. Sure. I think a funding cap is one way to go about it. There's a lot of difficulty with funding caps because science is of course collaborative and so how do you assign funds if somebody has many collaborative grants or for example, if a junior scientist requires a senior author many people have senior collaborators to help strengthen their grants and if that senior author is capped on funds then they can't maybe help a junior scientist in a way. So there are some difficult things that would have to work out for a cap but certainly it's been shown that the number of people in labs you have a steady increase in productivity and publication and then there's a plateau. And so having caps could probably help but I think we need to think about creative ways to address how to make the caps because I don't think having a flat cap would work. But there are many other ideas on how to help funding. We actually also with a number of people in the E-Life Ambassadors put together a document to help increase their funding ideas such as creating lottery based systems for middle scoring grants or thinking about providing a bump like the NIH provides for example for early career researchers. So I think there's many approaches that institutes can make that those are just a couple of examples and I think really a lot of them need to be tested out to see which ones actually do reduce fires but I think a funding cap could be one of them for sure. Those are the only questions I may add to that. No please go ahead. Sorry just to add to that. So Renuka also she described a study that was really interesting from the Canadian Research Institute where they were trialing a different way of reviewing grants with the review to see how it affects biases in reviews and what they found interesting is that if you I'm sure you were listening but just to reiterate for the sake of making this point is that what they found is that if the reviewer was asked to focus on the quality of the project rather than the applicant the gender ratios were more equal women basic were more likely to get grants if they are kind of identity wasn't focused was being a criteria for success. So you know that there are lots of ways I think that we can think about that may help improve the fairness of funding. Okay. I don't know if there anymore I think there are a number of resources that have been dropped in the chat that I guess if you know we might make available the team might make available if they haven't already. So a number of people have commented if they don't see any other questions and missed anyone but I just had one since we have a little we have a couple more minutes is there a lot of work on intersectionality from outside of North America and Europe. So obviously intersectionality is often viewed as the remit of you know ethnic minorities living in the global north I'm just curious if in your research you came across anything about intersectionality done by people in Latin America, Africa or Asia in terms of how those concepts because in many ways we publish in a global environment right so depending on where you're from you're still publishing in journals that are maybe housed in Europe or North America and so come across some of these issues but I was just wondering is there any literature or any statistics or data looking at intersectionality from the lens of somebody outside of Europe or North America? So most of what we focused on was in academics and unfortunately there's very little that focused on intersectional identities in general even if we focus just in North America or Europe Europe. I do know in the US there's been a few studies that have looked at for example African-Americans versus people who come from Africa so people who were born in the US and perhaps descendants from slaves versus people who come from Africa later in terms of their status in academia and that's the only one where I think they've looked at the geographical difference in combination with race for example. That's the only study that I'm familiar with that is even closely related to what you're talking about but there might be studies outside of the realm of academia outside of the realm of academic science I should say that we're not familiar with or at least I'm not I just like that I just like to add in the context so I looked a lot for the concept because I mean it's being applied also in India where I'm from the context of the caste system but there weren't any studies on that with regards to academia I tried to look I looked a lot extensively actually when we were preparing this presentation and I haven't found it but I can definitely think that it is something that would be useful to study the disparities that exist in the culture that I come from. Yeah I think it's an important point that we tend to look at it as a northern problem but disparity exists everywhere and it can translate to academia anywhere so I think that might be an interesting to look at. Sorry I missed a question from Cindy. How can funders help dispel the perceptions in the academic community that providing resources equitably is not unfair? I think yeah I think this is the idea that for example affirmative action is hurting other people and things like that that is a complete myth so people have shown that diverse groups are more productive are more innovative are better overall for everyone it doesn't hurt anyone and actually people for example have studied the NIH funding system and crunched the numbers and if there were an increase in funding for example for black academics it would barely diminish funds for other people and so what you're enhancing is far greater of this inclusion which promotes innovation and creativity and propels other people and advances science and it helps everyone so I think this is just a myth that people have in their heads that needs to be dispelled and so the way to dispel that is to just show the data even through action type of approaches people who benefited from them for example in the US were largely white females so I mean yeah people need to look at the actual data yeah I mean I think this happens a lot especially the idea of quality dropping if you try to include more diverse people I mean that's also a misconception because oftentimes you look at those who actually perform well and it's the people you've sort of got to so I think that goes across the board we're almost out of time but there's a final from Anahi who says if it's so obvious that blind applications where January is hidden would help the share of grants why is this not taking place yet and why is it taking so long for reviewers to not be able to see the name of the applicant well I guess you could ask that to funders I mean if you have that so please go ahead well I do think this is a little bit of a difficult thing making things completely anonymous is hard because as scientists everybody knows that your science typically builds on itself you refer to your own papers you refer to things like that so even if we remove the candidate like where they did their training and who they are in that way a specific statement will likely in some ways reveal who you are which makes it a hard thing to tackle now one thing for example we proposed in the fair funding document that I think Cora put in the chart is if we separate the CV from the research statement for example then you would probably either have to be extremely familiar with the field to identify from the citation who the person is or you'd have to spend a lot of time digging into that so maybe we can separate them in that way but to be truly anonymous would actually be very difficult to do I think although I think there are steps to take to help reduce the blatant bias that exists from names and things like that okay well it's five o'clock GMT I'm not sure whatever time it is where you're watching but I think we've come to the end of our time I think it's been a really interesting webinar if I look at the comments a lot of the comments are not even questions it's just appreciation to the team for putting together such an insightful and informative piece so thank you very much to Renuka Freya and Sarah for doing this and I hope it sparks future discussion I think this is just meant to be a conversation starter on how each of us can contribute to this area so we hope you've enjoyed today's webinar the next ECR Wednesday webinar will be announced soon so please look out for the announcement and we hope you join us then but at this point I'd just like to say thank you again to the team this is quite a bit of work that's gone into this so we are really grateful for this and we thank everybody for tuning in and we hope that you will go away and think about it a little bit and perhaps ask yourself if you're contributing to this problem or helping to alleviate it maybe even worse anyway I'll leave that to you to think about so thank you very much and I guess we'll just end here goodbye thank you thank you for listening yes the slides are available


Hi everyone Joe for jaspyscasebrakes.com with 2020 2021 upper-deck series one hockey in the The special tin here This is random team break number five at the end of the break We're gonna re-randomize everybody's names and then the top six will get into that hockey mixer We just have to do one more of these sell out some spots straight up And there will be breaksville on that hockey mixer big. Thanks to everyone here for getting into the action There's all 31 teams right here So we're gonna do the break itself first. Let's roll it. Let's randomize names and teams three into two five times Each hey, what's going on man? Good good one two three four and five Got Bradley down to Darren All right three into two five times for the teams one two three four and Five fifth and final time. We've got Calgary down to st. Louis All right, here's the first half of the list here Brian with the Rangers there. Here's the second half of the list right over there No tradewood knows in these filler breaks. All right, let's get a sort this by column B by team Let's print and rip Excuse me. So there's the final official print out hot off the presses That's the bonus pack right there Posey the best Pulse in this I would imagine would be the that rangers kid Alexi Lafrenier Think he's that he's the big name in this. I think he was the first overall pig I don't know too much about hockey, but I think at least that guy and I'm sure there's some others Young guns card is basically what we're looking for But really the main point of this one box break is just to give away those mixer spots We've got Alex Ovechkin Dazzlers and the Igor Zamoula young guns card going to the Flyers. That's for Naric There's Brent Burns piece of his jersey That's gonna go to San Jose That will be for Matthew and it's a canvas young guns Jason Robertson for the Dallas Stars. That's gonna be for Brian Conor McDavid will still Still solid Eric Young Oilers Joseph Wall young guns Toronto.  All right, let's see what's in this bonus pack here Morgan gave a lardy rookies nice. He's been playing some good hockey. There's the glossy rookies There's the one with the border around it both of those kings going to Brian Croft and Morgan geeky a Geet Going to the Carolina Hurricanes. That'll be for Patrick. There you go ladies and gentlemen That is the break now. Let's flip screens really quick. Let's go back here Let's see who's gonna win at those six mixer spots. Good luck You know Matthew Parsons and a Brian Croft and everyone in between It's gonna be the top six after 11 five and a six one two three 10 and 11 the final time after 11 to the top six so from 7 down to 31 my apologies Sad times However, we do have to do one more of these and then sell some spots out straight up if we want to do that mixer tonight So if you like trying again check out Jaspie's case rakes.com. Congrats to the top six Robert, Brian, Jay, Bradley, Patrick and Brian, Brian with two of the six spots. There you have it. Congrats to you I'm Joe for Jaspie's case rakes.com. We'll see you next time for the next one. Bye. Bye


Tired of long-term commitment plans? Then Appalachian Wireless has the new plans for you! No credit checks, no contracts, and most of the features of Postpaid is Forward Pay, the simpler way to do wireless on the region's premier cellular provider. And it starts as low as $19.99 a month with unlimited talk and text. We are you. We are Appalachian Wireless. The East Kentucky Science Center in Varia Planetarium is hosting Remake Learning Days, Autism and Sensory Processing Disorder Experience Thursday, April 27th. The event will feature sensory-friendly activities, a pre-recorded program, and soft music with soothing laser light images. We focus our Remake Learning Days for an autism sensory experience. So we'll be open in the evening, we'll have the whole Science Center, very sensory-friendly, we'll have some activities in our classroom in the exhibit hall, and the Planetarium will be set up with some very sensory-friendly lighting and laser show and music, very calming and soothing. At six o'clock we'll have a pre-recorded show. The event will be held from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. and is free to attend. We know that there's a great need. A lot of times individuals with autism and parents with autism, they oftentimes, you find them at home a lot, because there's a lot of behaviors that some people might consider if they were not aware of socially inappropriate things that oftentimes parents might be judged as being a bad parent instead of understanding that their child has a diagnosis, and with that diagnosis comes certain behavioral challenges. And we want to create spaces that speak to that and say, we know that you have challenges that, and you're welcome here. And the challenges that you experience as an individual with autism and parents caring for those children, they just know that they're okay. And that's why it's so important, not just for us, but everyone to get on board with this idea of creating spaces that are where it is. Volunteers are welcome and need to arrive at 4.30. For more information, go to East Kentucky Science Center and vary a planetarium on Facebook. Reporting for Mountaintop News, I'm Brianna Robinson.


Placing your stop just below market structure usually isn't the best idea. Instead, try this. As the pullback approaches the level, turn on the stops indicator to see exactly where stops are being triggered. In this example, price keeps dropping until 155 contracts are stopped out. On the next swing, price fails to move lower and fewer stops are triggered. This is the first sign that stop-run momentum is slowing. Now turn on the liquidity heat map. It's no coincidence that high liquidity was positioned to absorb these stops. Another sign that the stop-run is over. You can now confidently trail your stop below the climax of the stop-run and the next level of significant liquidity. If new sellers enter the market here, the level will break lower. But instead, we get selling exhaustion and the level holds, keeping you in your position.


We're glad to know that you're still there. It's the run-up on Plus TV Africa. We're hoping that you're following us on all our social media platforms, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and what-of-you. So if you're following us, you can also be a part of the programs, all of our programs, send us your messages, your questions, and anything. Even send us suggestions on how to become better for you, because we're here to serve you. But on the run-up today, we're talking security, and we're using the unfortunate killing of Bolanlerahim on Christmas Day as a point to kick-start this discussion on security. And we're being joined by Mr. Augustin Ega, a security expert. Mr. Ega, welcome to the program. Thank you, Yamgula Nogche. Okay, well, on the 25th of December 2023, Bolanlerahim woke up, went to church. 2022. Yeah, so on 2022, right? And was going home rejoicing, but she didn't get home. And she was killed by the police that should be protecting her. Let's just get what you feel about that thing that happened before we continue. Well, I think the crime has just happened. And in this kind of crime, we will not look at one aspect of it. We want to profile the victims ourselves and also the offender. The circumstances that led to our death have to be looked into. And we want to look at the environment also where the crime occurred. Was there a riot? Was there unrest in that particular area? If there was unrest, then we can say maybe it's a string of legs. But if there was no sort of unrest, then I think that we must look into the matter further. Profiling late Bolanlerahim, we will have to look at what kind of practice was she into. From what I found out, she was a practicing lawyer in the property business. And we know that the Ajah area is more of the property business that is booming there. And she could have a lot of clients. Of course, she is protecting their interests. And like I said, or as we perceive, I don't believe that every police officer is corrupt. I don't believe. I also believe that some police officers are corrupt and could be compromised. So because Bolanlerahim saw this sort of juicy practices or a juicy profession, I want to believe that there could be something fishy behind our death. It was a string of legs. We want to look at where the attacker shot from. But from everything that we've seen, she was shot directly at her chest. So it was well targeted at her. And so based on this, I think the police, from what the Ajah promised and the CPI promised, they need to investigate this case properly and get to the root of it. That's an interesting angle. The police might have been compromised and we could use another word, assassination, is it possible? I think that's just the word compromised. It can be from any angle. Oh, OK. I would like to go by the word compromised. Until it's proven, you can't use any word. Let the court, let the lawyers prove to us that it's an assassination. Investigation has to be carried out. There will be a pointer today to the aspect that led to our death. OK. We can't form that judgment from our part. We want to look at police reforms now. There's been a lot of questions surrounding how the police has been in practice in Nigeria and how they've gone about their duties and all the back and forth that came with that. And all the stories and events that led up to the 2020 protest. That was a build-up from a lot of police brutality, young persons complaining, both on social media and on the mainstream media. And then it's looking like whatever the complaint has been like has continued. So what exactly do you think is the problem with the police? These people have shown a lot of lack of training, lack of proper understanding of what the duties of a proper police officer is supposed to be. What do you think is the problem? And if we're looking at police reforms, from what angle would you take it from? I think if you look at the police reforms, training and retraining is a key aspect to improve policing in Nigeria. And also, the selection, that's the recruitment aspect, has to be looked into. What kind of people are there really recruiting? But in this case of Bola-Leh's issue, I think the person who committed this crime is a senior officer of the Nigerian police force. If it's someone like a constable or a sergeant who can say that it's a low-ranking officer has not received a lot of training, but this is an officer who is supposed to be experienced in the rules of engagement. So at what circumstances did he shoot this lady? That is the question. And I believe that about three decades of his practice in the police, police in the Nigerian police, he must have gone through a lot of training. But I think even if you've gone through trainings with my interaction with some police experts outside Nigeria, I see that there are current training syllabus that most of these foreign or modern policing is really looking up to. One of those key aspects, which I don't see that we mentioned in Nigeria, is the mental health issue. Some of our police are well stressed. They are stressed. They are stressed out. Let us look up from that angle. They are stressed out. And there are modern policing that our people need to go through. Example, mental health is something that we must consider. It could be that the ASP is not compromised, but maybe it has a mental issue at that moment. So I believe that they should always recall them and do a cross-examination of their fitness for duty. That is the aspect I look at. And their training syllabus should be reviewed. These are the kind of reforms that will help us to really deal with some of these emerging violence issues against us. Also, there is a mindset about the police, in particular a police officer in court in Nigeria. The mindset of the public or the citizen against the police. They have to do a lot of public relations to convince the public that they have actually changed. Because currently the citizens don't trust it's on police. OK. You talked about recruitment as being part of the problem that the police might be facing. But how do we even get to know who is being recruited in a country where data is lacking in so many aspects? We don't even know who is who, who has what record or history, medical history, anywhere. And they just go to the police college and possibly, possibly because I've never been there, I don't know. But possibly the higher or the bigger your envelope that you go with, the higher your chances of becoming employed as a policeman. Because I've seen some people who are shorter than the mark that they give as the height that you have to reach before you're taken as a policeman. But there's police officers. So maybe some things are also associated with that. But how do we get it right in the way by way of recruitment when we don't have data in this country? Well, I think, young people, there's been a lot of improvement in data collection in Nigeria. And there being the police officers, they have access to data. If they want to really make a recruitment, I think they should search deeper. I should ask a question like if you talk about the envelope thing, some overlook, some compromise officers, they overlook. Like I said, not all police officers are corrupt. But there are some that are working for their own interests, not to the greater good of Nigeria. So when these ones are placed in that position of trust, they compromise it. The IG cannot come back and say, recruit this man or don't recruit him. They believe that there's a system that should work. There's a system that should give results. But when the man who is placed in the position of trust compromises, what do we do in the end? It's exactly what we receive now. The public will pay for it. They will pay for their own inconsistency. This is the reason why we are suffering in Nigeria. I believe there's a system. There's a walking system. Nigerian police have a walking system. I've seen some of their documentations. They actually have a very good process that can track down anyone. But if those ones that are compromising the whole issue, I think there needs to be a review. If there should be processes from the recruitment, there should be processes. If there's a check from here, there should be another check somewhere until they finally get that applicant. That is what I believe from my opinion should be done. It should not be processed, should not be left to only one officer. There should be cross-checking. There should be cross-examination of every candidate, including mental health. Sometimes they just go through the medical history. But I think the medical history now, mental health should be considered because of the stressful lifestyle in Nigeria. Mental health, mental health should be considered. Okay. Well, just stay with us. We're going to take a short break. And when we return, we'll continue with this. Because we've heard, for instance, that there's been a budget for the police. A huge one that should cater to the needs of the police force. Yet we're still finding what we're finding now. And then some of the practices and other claims. When you send out police into the society, what do they do that we can learn from to also use here in Nigeria? So we'll be taking that short break now. In a moment, we'll be back. And we're hoping you're going to stay with us. Okay, we're back now. And we're still talking with Mr. Augusten, a guy, a security expert. And we're trying to see what needs to be done to make our police better than they are right now. They must be doing a lot of things, some things that we are not seeing. But when you have one black sheep among the white, we'll tend to see that more. When you have a small black dot in a white board, you will see that black dot. And that's what you'll be describing. And leaving all the whiteness that the board has. So these people still need to be named and shamed as can be done by anybody. Because we need to trust our police that are policing us and securing us. So Mr. Egar, are you still there? Very well. I'm here with you. Okay, you talked a moment ago about what you see when you get out there to interface with other security agencies outside the country. Now, in our own climb, policemen are sent out into a civil society where there is no riot. Maybe they're anticipating riot, but there is no riot at the time they're sent out. And almost all of them are carrying guns. Is that the right way to go? What else can be done so that we can interact with them? Ask them questions and not fear them. I think the police must carry guns all the time. It's fine to carry their gun, but they have their rules of engagement, which is very strict, very rigid. They all know that you don't have the right to shoot a civilian that is on an arm. It is a primary rule that they all obey. Someone with no arm must never be shot. They carry their arms because emergencies can come at any time they're required to use their arms to de-escalate any crisis. But where there is no crisis situations, I think the gun should not be used. Rather, some civil way of de-escalating crisis should be used. So in this case, I'm very, very conversant with the Agile Roundabout. It is crowded, but not to that extent where in a Christmas there should be violence in that area. It is spacious. There's always movement in that area. So I think that they are free to use their arms. They are free to carry their arms, but they must apply the principles that they have been taught not to use their arms until it is necessary. So how do we even know when it is necessary? Because that question is very viable because what necessitates the use of arm? I mean you are in a civil society where there is no unrest like you mentioned earlier, there is no riots, there is no alert of a robbery or any kind of violence. And then you have a loaded gun. Yamgu was talking earlier during our intro and he was talking about how that these days you barely or you rarely see any police officer with batons. What happened? What changed? What brought us to the point where we had to jettison the batons and now carry loaded guns to operate in a civil society where there is no unrest? Is it even right? Is it the right thing to do to carry loaded weapons in a civil society? That is the question. Please make it make sense. Yeah there's nothing bad to carry loaded guns. Like I said there are rules of engagement. The military have their rules of engagement. The law enforcement have their rules of engagement. And because the society has changed, when it is to carry a baton, people were very low abiding. They didn't have terrorism. They didn't have violent crimes where people can kill anybody at any time. We had a very low crime rate when people used batons. But today violent crimes can erupt at any moment. And so there is nothing out of place for them to carry loaded weapons. But like I said the rules of engagement should be followed. Okay. We are the civilians. We are the civilians. We don't know those rules of engagement but you can read for that. But I know that the government, the military men, the law enforcement, they know it. And that is why like I said the investigation would be thorough because they know when an officer should shoot. When an officer should not shoot. That is why the IG and the CP they are involved in the investigations. And at the end I think we should get a very good reply from them. While you were speaking earlier, you mentioned how that in the more developed climes there are systems or other methods of policing that has emerged of which we are not practicing yet in Nigeria. And which you think you mentioned would be a better way to interact and carry out your duties as police officers. Can you go ahead and mention those and once you think that we need to emulate? I think some of those very critical domains in their training is crisis de-escalation. Crisis de-escalation is a process where you don't involve any use of weapons. Even when you see an arm made, you can still be involved in some kind of discussion or to reach the body language of the other attacker before you can get to using weapons. The other aspect in their training, they are civil way of interacting with the citizens. They tend to be very friendly with the citizens they are protecting. Here we have a very, the police in Nigeria they are very distant from the citizens they are protecting. They put themselves in such a state that even the citizens are always scared of them. If an issue happens when I say police is coming, the police officer is coming, see someone running for his life already because they know what they can get from the police officer. I think they are not friendly with the citizens and it's very important that they know how to interact with the citizens. The military are trained for their own kind of business, the DSS are trained for their own kind of business, but the police are the closest people to the citizens. And so they most understand how to interact with the citizens so that the citizens can trust them enough but relate properly with them. Okay, we have like an 11 trillion budgeted for security and the police seems to still lack a lot of things, but even if this budget is given all to the police, where do you think they should start using this money to make this police better? I think some of the most important part is training and retraining. First of all, before they start recruiting new people, they should train the people they have. They should consider the people already in the field that they experienced, because we have trained the trainer.  So if the officer that is going to lead a general officer is nowhere equipped in terms of training, how is he going to lead the support in this? So I believe that a good portion of this project should be focused on training, because crimes have gone advance. We have transnational crime happening every day. People can clearly go on the internet and learn some violin acts and then buy guns. So we believe that these will also help. I think it is important that they should put a chunk of their budget into training their officers. And secondly, equipment. Like this, in some advanced nations, they use technology a lot to do their jobs. But here, you see that Steve used the brute force, the traditional means, you're gone and you're whatever. You'll be very surprised that some of the officers can't even use computers. They can't even type on computers. Some officers, I mean not all of them. I have come across some of them that even at their high level ranking, they cannot use computers the way I expect, like you see some of the foreign police, they can do anything with their computers, they can track on their GIS. But here, they don't do it. Some don't even know what to do. And so because they don't know what to do, their approach is always traditional and brute force. So I think training will help them to know when to use a soft approach and a harder approach and to do a lot of good.  They should try to equip them better, especially the equipment they use, some kind of tech, boarding cameras, abroad they're using boarding cameras. If that police officer has a boarding camera, I'm sure they do even have the investigative body to really know what transpires because they will replay his boarding camera and bring out the footages of what happened at the moment that that lady was shot. But now there is nothing. We have to believe, they have to depend on hearsay or witnesses, what did you see, what did you see, what happened. But there are so many advanced technology that can even put the officer in check. They don't have it. Boarding cameras should be worn by police officers at this level that we are in this technology age. So you see that equipping them is very poor. They should do a lot with equipment. Of course, we cannot overrule recruiting the officer because police die every day. They kill them every day in the line of duty. So they can recruit but not just recruiting them as you train them for. Okay. Some people have said that if we have state police, policing will be easier and security will be higher now. All these banditry and all that will reduce. Do you also believe in state police? I believe. I think that is one of the major solutions to improve policing in Nigeria. They are shining away from it. But Nigeria has grown so big. The population is growing bigger. So that policing is even more difficult for them. The officers are stressed. You need to talk to some of them and see that they are stressed. And so community policing or the state policing will bring the policing very close to the citizens. Like in our villages, our communities are barred in every state. You see that they will be more friendly. They will understand the culture and tradition of the people, which will help them in achieving results. But here, they are still very far. Like for instance, the crime that has happened or like let's talk about the recruitment of police officers. If it's a state policing, they can always get data about any new recruit, up to his village, up to his community. Remember those days, they would even send some syndicates to the village heads, the community heads and find out the character of that person before they recruit them. I still believe that those things are achievable if they implement the state policing. Compromise situation will be a bit difficult because almost everybody knows themselves in the community. But now, I can assure you that what has happened now in the job that we've done, officer, it must have been transferred to somewhere else in the north or maybe Medugri, where nobody can find him and his family. And you see that is very difficult for us. But if it's a state policing, he will be very careful because they can't transfer him anywhere. He has to face the music. So that is why I believe that it's very important for us to implement state policing. But how will they interact with the federal police? Of course, there's always a way. We have the American that we copy from. They have their hierarchy. They have the FBI. And they have a lot of the CIA. They have all of those structures working for them. They even have the sheriff working in the local community reporting to the state's police. And from there, they get to the federal. So some of these systems are already available. It's just a copy and piece for Nigeria. We have it. They're available, but because of some compromising minds, they will not allow this to work in Nigeria. But I think a time has come where every state governor need to do something to protect his citizens because they are the chief executive, the chief secretary of the state. They must find a way to protect their citizens. This is interesting perspective and all that. And we're just hoping that a lot will be done to make sure that the police will become a better body that will protect us. But if you were to talk with the government or the next president on what to do to make security better, just assume that you're talking to him. What would you say to the next president of Nigeria in terms of police reform and security, the entire security apparatus in Nigeria? What would you say? Of course, some of those, like I say, security is a large domain. If you practice only fiscal security, there are so many other aspects. You need to train them on crisis management. You need to train them on fiscal security, which most of them don't receive that training. They also have other aspects of force investigation. They do it. They have other issues on management. But if you ask me to advise, I will say that training should come first of the ones that are in the line of duty. And secondly, the recruitment process should be looked into. And thirdly, there should not overlook state policing. All of this will help us to build a very strong policing community in Nigeria. What about the place of private security outfits, like the ones that some of you run? The private security aspect, you cannot put them, you see, some of the duties are limited to the environment they protect. Apart from that, we have a bill for private investigators and others to help the public sector achieve certain results. Now, the private policing or private security companies, they are law, they are confined within the space they protect. But they can only have the intelligence gallery. That is information gallery and sharing with the police authorities. They have no right to exceed such limits unless there is a certain criteria that they operate, probably with the armed main. If they are pretty much the armed main, like perhaps in banks and other areas, the armed main know how to rehearse with their commands. So what I say that the private sector is about intelligence gallery and also sharing statistics on what they see within their areas. That can help the public police to improve on their operations. Yeah, I just ask that because some people have said that a lot of these things that happen is because most of the police people or many police officers that should be on the field policing the society are attached to some VIPs and they should make it a policy in such a way that the VIPs in our society get the services, personal services from private security outfits, get their own bodyguards and there should be a law that should give the bodyguards rights to some things that they will need to protect their principles so that the police the police as they are they are marked to be to police the society and not go around carrying bags for VIPs. That's why I asked. Can the price- It's not out of place. Yeah, it's not out of place. That is something that should be done. But in a society where everybody is looking for what they will need, they try to overlook it. They've been trying to suppress the private organizations. But some of the people in the private organization mostly are ex-military men. Some are ex-police officers. Like you said, they already trained. So their certain rights will be given, like we said, for them to use guns and also to protect their principles because they already trained on the rules of engagement. They know what to do. But like we said that everybody is always crumbling for what he will get. They try to overlook, they try to oppress and ensure that they bring their men all the time on certain issues like that. I think they'll be limited to government officials that we know that they carry high risks. Some people and some individuals in the private sector that also are high profiles. That is what I can advise. Not on every occasion you see the police on the road. You see the police scouting some people. Why they should be on really real-time duties. You see them on some areas that are not even engaged. And some of the locations that are not engaged. So I quite agree with you that some place should be done in that area. Okay Mr. Agat, thank you so much for giving us insight to all these things. I do hope that the relevant authorities are listening to us right now and they will do the needful. Especially as you talked about the mental capacity of every policeman. I think that's really key. We'd like to say thank you to you for being a part of our program today. Thank you young girl. Thank you Uche. Thank you. It's a pleasure joining you today. Thank you very much. Well... Is the police really your friend? Is the police really your friend? I mean that's a question that they really need to answer. The case of the young man that was shot at the same place where Bolanle was shot. Only came up after Bolanle was shot. And now nobody's talking about him anymore. We're only focusing on Bolanle. And so many other cases. Exactly. There are so many other cases that happen that nobody knows about. And that is that's why I feel like the police can tell somebody I'll shoot you and nothing will happen. Because you know nothing will actually happen. And I've been in that situation before. I was riding home from work one day and of course with the regular roadblocks and then the policeman does whatever he wanted.  I was asking him to wind down the guy was if I can use I have I will shoot your glass. Yeah. And me my heart was already sinking to my stomach because how do you and he was already pointing the gun. Yeah the cocky. Like you know I can actually do that. And like like the expert said it is there's a possibility that if that crime is committed that person gets transferred to somewhere that you never know he's aware about all that. I hope it will not happen in this case of Bolanle. And you know now that we know that someone shot Bolanle and they have paraded that person. Let's all also know the other person that shot the young man. Yes. And subsequently even if the old things have passed away and we didn't we didn't know what to say. All those are the ones. Anyone that happens from here in or out we should know who did it and we should follow up on how the case is going until justice is served. Yes we know that a lot of them like he said die in the line of duty. And we but when they die in line of in the line of duty it's not maybe it's not a good thing to say but they signed up for the dangers that come with the territory. But the civilian didn't. So while you are doing your duty and you're knowing that maybe something can go wrong anytime the civilian never thinks of that. He just thinks the police is there to protect me or that's what he should think. But in the case where he now comes to die at the hands of the person who is supposed to protect him it's it's really disgusting. It's not even something to be talking about in this day and age in our country like a country like Nigeria. They say we are two hundred million and then we have like four hundred thousand policemen to police two hundred. So first of all they are not enough and like he said yes we understand they might be stressed out because of low pay no manpower and a lot of other things but again when you're doing your duty follow the rules of engagement. Sure whatever is what's doing at all is what doing well. We're going to go on a quick break.


The development of science and technology of advanced materials using nanoscale units can be conducted by a novel concept involving combination of nanotechnology methodology with various research disciplines, especially supermolecular chemistry. This novel concept is called nano architectonics which involves self-assembly processes being crucial in many cases involving a wide range of component materials. These examples demonstrate the strikingly wide range of possibilities and future potential of self-assembly processes and their important contribution to materials nano-architectonics. This article was offered by Kotsuhiko Ariga, Michihira Nishikawa, Taiso Mori, and others.


Hi and welcome to the session. I am Asha and I am going to help you with the following question which says let R be the relation on Z defined by the order a, b such that a and b belong to the set of integers and a minus b is an integer. Find the domain and range of R. So first let us learn what is a relation. Suppose we have any two non-empty sets, then the relation from a to b is a subset of the Cartesian product a cross b. Where a cross b is the set of all ordered pairs x, y such that x belong to a and y belong to b. Now the set of all the first element of the ordered pairs is called the domain of the relation, the set of all the second element is called the range of the relation. So this is the T idea. We are going to use this problem to find the domain and range of R. Let us now start with the solution and here we are given the relation R having ordered pair a and b such that a, b belong to the set of integers and a minus b is an integer. The relationship between the first element a and the second element b of the ordered pair in R is given to be that a minus b is an integer. And now since the difference of two integers is always an integer therefore a and b can take all the integral values domain of is equal to the set z of integers and range of R is also the set set of integers. So this completes the solution. Hope you enjoyed it. Take care and have a good day.


Nihal, a really nice game against Gill today. Tell us your thoughts. I think it was fine and I got some advantage out of the opening itself and I think it was, then I got this, I took BB5, BC6 and I got this Bishop on C5, I thought I had at least something because his Bishop is very passive and I always have something. Nihal, at what point did you feel that Black will not be able to defend his position? I don't know but he was making this BC4, BD3, B5 and all are very committal I believe. Then I was scared, I didn't know but after I got my pawn to, after 40 moves I thought I was winning, I just got my pawn to B7 and finally he did put a trap, I didn't see it before but luckily I had one. Nihal, this is your first time in Gibraltar, are you having fun here? Yes. How do you like the tournament? It's very strong. And what about meeting all these, playing with strong players and meeting all these grandmasters, how is that experience for you? It is very good, certainly. Okay so two more games left, any plans or any insight you can give us on that? Nothing. Going to try your best? Yes. Okay thank you.


Humanity loves mobility. Human beings don't want to be plugged to the wall and they want everything to be accessible wherever they want, wherever they are and whenever they want. This is really a key conference because it is at the time where we've never seen so much innovation and growth in the space economy and in the satellite industry. We have currently 2.6 billion unconnected people worldwide and WRC somehow can reduce this number in an extensive way. It's where we agree the future spectrum. We harmonize spectrum and spectrum is our lifeline. It's the blood that makes mobile operators work. WRC is the perfect opportunity. In fact, the only opportunity worldwide where the world comes and talks about what radio resources should be allocated for what sort of services. That's one of the things I really like about the ITU study process is to take into account and make sure that we still protect the services that we rely on on a day-to-day basis. We are seeing more women at this conference participating as chairs, counselors and so forth. So we are seeing progress. I think all of that has been enhanced by the efforts from the WRC 19th Gender Declaration. Outcome of this one will have impact on the industry, impact on the vendors, impact on other sectors. Spectrum and the associated orbital resources are a national resource that is scarce. We need to use it wisely. We all assume that Wi-Fi is there. We use it all the time. It's kind of omnipresent. But sometimes people forget that it also needs spectrum. Spectrum in a lot of ways is fueling our future innovation across a whole set of national economic priorities, national security priorities, and of course continuing to advance a vibrant private sector. The decisions they take will have real world consequences and will affect the sustainable development goals. We're not agreeing on simple stuff. We're agreeing on the future of wireless communication, not only for us but for our families and friends. Spectrum knows no border and therefore we need the cooperation, we need the collaboration between all the states worldwide to find the best solutions and therefore the WIC-23 is very important to know what is the future of the use of Spectrum. The rising tide, it will lift all of the boats, yes? And we have to work in cooperation, in collaboration, bearing in mind and bringing those along who are behind.


It does not matter that President Trump felt that these investigations were unfair to him. It matters that he used his office not merely to defend himself, but to obstruct investigators at every turn. Everything I read on those occasions tells me that when President Trump invited, indeed demanded foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this a republic to which we pledge allegiance. The President abused his power and must be held accountable. No one is above the law. America must remain the last, best hope on Earth. I told Mr. Yermak that I believe that the resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine took some kind of action on the public statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. As my other State Department colleagues have testified, this security aid was critical to Ukraine's defense and should not have been delayed. If what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. President Trump's actions represent the threat to our national security and an urgent threat to the integrity of the next election. This is what democracy looks like.