What is the meaning of sharing: Informing, being informed or information overload?

Posted on April 29, 2019 By Shawn Douglas Journal articles

From software development companies to pharmaceutical manufacturers, businesses, governments, and non-profit entities alike are beginning to adopt tools meant to improve communication, information sharing, and productivity. In some cases, this takes the form of an enterprise social media platform (ESMP) with chat rooms, discussion boards, and file repositories. But while this can be beneficial, adding a focused attempt at sharing to work culture can create its own share of problems, argues Norwegian University of Science and Technology's Halvdan Haugsbakken, particularly due to varying definitions and expectations of what information "sharing" actually is. Using a case study of regional government in Norway, Haugsbakken found "when the end-users attempted to translate sharing into a manageable practice—as the basis for participation in a knowledge formation process—they interpreted sharing as a complicated work practice, with the larger consequence of producing disengaged users." This result "suggests a continued need for the application of theoretical lenses that emphasize interpretation and practice in the implementation of new digital technologies in organizations."

Cyberbiosecurity: An emerging new discipline to help safeguard the bioeconomy

Posted on April 22, 2019 By Shawn Douglas Journal articles

Following up on the cyberbiosecurity article posted a few weeks ago, this one by Murch et al. steps away from the strong agriculture focus of the prior and examines cyberbiosecurity from a more broad perspective. Not only do the authors provide background into the convergence of cybersecurity, cyber-physical security, and biosecurity, but they also provide a look at how it extends to biomanufacturing facilities. They conclude that cyberbiosecurity could be applied to various domains—from personalized genomics and medical device manufacturing to food production and environmental monitoring— though continued "[d]irect and ordered engagements of the pertinent sectors of the life sciences, biosecurity, and cyber-cybersecurity communities," as well as tangentially within academia and government, must continue to occur in order "to harmonize the emerging enterprise and foster measurable value, success, and sustainability."

The cannabinoid content of legal cannabis in Washington State varies systematically across testing facilities and popular consumer products

Posted on April 15, 2019 By Shawn Douglas Journal articles

In 2017, Washington State's cannabis testing laboratories were going through a mini-crisis, with questions of credibility being raised about certain laboratories' testing methodologies and practices. How much were differences in tested samples based on differences in methodologies? What more can be done by laboratories in the industry? This 2018 paper by Jikomes and Zoorob answer these questions and more, using "a large dataset from Washington State’s seed-to-sale traceability system." Their analyses of this dataset showed "systematic differences in the results obtained by different testing facilities in Washington," leading to "cannabinoid inflation" in certain labs. The authors conclude that despite the difficulties of having cannabis illegal at the federal level, efforts to standardize testing protocols etc. must continue to be made in order to protect consumers and increase confidence in the testing system.