DIGITAL ACCESS TO

Erasmus published many books with the press of Johann Froben in Basel starting in 1514. I focus here on the imprints of the first two years of their partnership and ponder why so many of these books were composite—that is, containing multiple texts authored by one or more people. I identify three main motives for these composite books: an intellectual motive to highlight similarities between the different texts included; a practical motive to meet and/or create a minimum respectable size for a learned book; and a commercial motive to differentiate a new edition from a recent one published by another press by including supplementary material in order to avoid accusations of directly undercutting a confrere’s profit and to justify a new edition to buyers. A focus on the original publications is crucial to reconstructing these composite books since modern editions of Erasmus’s works generally do not include or mention the other items with which his work was printed.

Genome editing holds transformative potential for curing human disease. However, achieving safe and effective in vivo genome editing requires further preclinical studies, to minimize risks such as genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and immunogenicity. Unlike traditional therapies, genome editing involves irreversible DNA alterations, presenting unique challenges. This definitive and species-specific intervention necessitates additional drug development steps, ideally through human tissue models that recapitulate human-specific responses. The kidney is a predominant site for off-target effects of systemic therapies, owing to high blood flow and its concentration of exogenous factors. However, there are currently no established human models for assessing gene therapies. Here, we leverage kidney organoids as a pre-clinical testing platform for CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing via adenoassociated virus (AAV) delivery, a common strategy in clinical trials that have raised safety concerns due to supraphysiologic viral titers met with toxicity. Kidney organoids enabled the assessment of AAV tropism, revealing high transduction efficiency of AAV2 to tubules. AAV transduction, however, drove a nephrotoxic response of tubular genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and immunogenicity. Notably, tubular injury activated IL-1β and the canonical NFκB pathway, and its targeted inhibition with bardoxolone prevented the fibrotic loss of nephrons and tubular senescence. Our findings highlight the potential of kidney organoids as a preclinical platform for gene therapeutic products, which could inform clinical trials to minimize organ failures and death in patients

Under a fixed 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) timing rule aligned with U.S. spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) valuation practice, we test whether broader public information improves next-day Bitcoin forecasts and costed implementation outcomes relative to Bitcoin-only benchmarks. A Full Logit-Lasso direction model does not beat Bitcoin (BTC)-only Logit on unconditional probability loss (Brier, log loss), but conditional on the model’s activation threshold (τ = 0.55) it identifies a 26% subset of dates with mean next-day BTC return 72 basis points above non-activated dates (heteroskedasticity- and autocorrelation-consistent (HAC) p = 0.0001). Volatility model rankings are loss-dependent (Ridge on point errors; heterogeneous autoregressive ordinary least squares (HAR-OLS) on quasi-likelihood loss (QLIKE)). Carrying the direction and volatility forecasts into a dual decision rule that combines direction-based gating with volatility-targeted sizing produces a point-estimate net-Sharpe cluster of approximately 1.55 to 1.61 and compresses maximum drawdown from –0.67 for buy-and-hold to approximately –0.10 across the three Full Logit-Lasso dual variants on the 1,450-date realized-return panel. Family-wise inference on these two performance dimensions, conducted as parallel stationary-block-bootstrap stepdown maxT procedures over the paper’s fixed nine contrast reduced family, yields materially different conclusions. Sharpedifference inference does not separate any active rule from buy-and-hold or from direction gating; the closest contrasts sit at padj ≈ 0.063 to 0.066, and the incremental Sharpe contribution of adding volatility sizing on top of direction gating is approximately zero (padj ≈ 0.92). Maximum-drawdown-difference inference, by contrast, separates all nine reduced-family contrasts at padj ≤ 0.003: direction gating, volatility sizing alone, sizing over gating, and the full dual policy all reduce drawdown under the same multiplicity discipline. A conservative T−1 observability audit attenuates richer-model magnitudes but does not overturn the benchmark-first forecast conclusions or the qualitative pattern of family-wise drawdown separation. The paper’s contribution is therefore methodological as well as substantive: once timing, implementation costs, and multiplicity are treated as binding constraints, the economic value of the dual policy in this sample is concentrated in path-risk compression rather than in family-wise Sharpe separation.

Social innovations are at risk at a time when surprise is employed as a unilateral government strategy in order to shrink and refocus government operations. Social innovations involve collective efforts, frequently spanning public and private stakeholders. The needed trust and reciprocal understandings are undercut when government employs the logic of reengineering combined with surprise as a strategy— what we term “Surprise by Design.” This contrasts with past federal restructuring initiatives that employed a mix of administrative expertise (top down) and frontline continuous improvement (bottom up) as strategies for negotiated changes. Surprise is a particular type of top- down imposed change, which disrupts patterned roles and routines in order to impose a reconceptualization of how government will function in society. This article documents surprise as a change strategy and identifies needed adjustments to two relevant lateral models for negotiated change. By taking this into account, social innovation initiatives can be more resilient in the face of Surprise by Design.

Background
While the importance of physician-scientists' training is widely accepted, the unique components of their professional identity and its underlying ethical values have not been sufficiently studied. Methodology Senior physician scientists in Israel participated in a Delphi assessment aimed to develop a consensus opinion regarding the various components of identity, training and motivation of those engaged in this vocation. Results Fourteen panel members participated in 2 rounds of grading a questionnaire specifically constructed for this project. Twenty seven out of sixty-five items on the original questionnaire achieved a consensus (set as agreement of 75% and above among panel members). The panelists have agreed on the importance of possessing a moral character (with a special emphasis on truthfulness and commitment) as an ethical basis for physician-scientists' identity, on the significance of a unique professional competence (requiring a "scientific" approach to solving clinical problems) and on the central role of thirst for knowledge and curiosity in creating the motivation to become a physician-scientist. The panelists did not endorse the role of benevolence, compassion and humility as central components in the physician-scientists' identity (as compared to the identity of clinicians), and were not supportive of the need to demonstrate a differential approach to dealing with ambiguity and uncertainty in the clinic and in the lab. They have also rejected a claim that there may exist an inherent conflict between the demands of research and of clinical care. The panelists remained divided as to the impact of simultaneously engaging in research and in clinical care on the personal wellbeing of physician-scientists.

Conclusions
It was seen that senior physician-scientists on our panel sought for ways to define physician-scientists as being both ethical and competent – and as possessing unique identity components, which do not harm but rather advance the care of patients. As far as we know, this is a first attempt to present a collective opinion of senior physician-scientists regarding their professional identity. It should be viewed as an initial step in a long journey, calling for further research that will broaden and deepen our conclusions.