Predictors of student mask mandate policies in United States school districts during the COVID-19 pandemic

IntroductionAlthough factors such as urbanicity, population demographics, and political affiliation have been linked with COVID-19 masking behavior and policy in community settings, little work has investigated factors associated with school mask policies. We sought to characterize United States state and school district student COVID-19 masking policies during the 2021–22 school year and determine predictors of these mandates at four time points, including before and after federal guidance relaxed school mask recommendations in February 2022.MethodsStudent mask policies for US states and the District of Columbia, as well as a sample of 56 districts were categorized as prohibited, recommended, or required in September 2021, November 2021, January 2022, and March 2022 based on the Johns Hopkins eSchool+ Initiative School Reopening Tracker. Changes in policies over time were characterized. Generalized estimating equations and logistic regression were used to evaluate whether political affiliation of governor, urbanicity, economic disadvantage, and race/ethnic composition of district students, and county-level COVID-19 incidence predicted the presence of a district mask mandate at any time point and at all four time points.ResultsState and district policies changed over time. Districts that implemented student mandates at any point were more likely to be in states with Democratic governors (AOR: 5.52; 95% CI: 2.23, 13.64) or in non-rural areas (AOR: 8.20; 95% CI: 2.63, 25.51). Districts that retained mask mandates at all four time points were more likely to have Democratic governors (AOR: 5.39; 95% CI: 2.69, 10.82) and serve a smaller proportion of economically disadvantaged students (AOR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95, 0.99). Districts serving a larger proportion of students from minoritized racial/ethnic groups were more likely to have mask mandates at any or all timepoints. Notably, county-level COVID-19 prevalence was not related to the presence of a mask mandate at any or all time points. By March 2022, no factors were significantly associated with district mask policy.DiscussionPolitical, geographic, and demographic characteristics predicted the likelihood of student mask mandates in the 2021–22 school year. Public health promotion messages and policy must account for variation in these factors, potentially through centralized and consistent messaging and unbiased, trustworthy communication

Science and Social Media

Summary He Jiankui et al. conducted an experiment that resulted in the birth of the first human babies with germline gene editing. Initial and predominant communications of their work occurred via social media and outside of the norms for reviewing, approving, and engaging around work in science. This case provides an opportunity to reflect on the evolving and increasing presence of social media in science, its strengths, weaknesses, and the potential to develop applications that improve how we review, approve, and engage around the work of science. Social media use in science presents significant challenges. The potential benefits of addressing these challenges and developing new social media tools include greater transparency, access, and engagement—and could nurture the public's trust. Stem Cells Translational Medicine  2019;8:1226&amp;1229 </jats:sec

Tweeting science and ethics: social media as a tool for constructive public engagement.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1526516100374349

Promoting justice in stem cell intellectual property

According to the World Trade Organization, intellectual property rights are “rights given to persons over the creations of their minds. They usually give the creator an exclusive right over the use of his/her creation for a certain period of time.” The rationale behind intellectual property rights is to offer a quid pro quo, between creators and the public, intended to spur innovation. Inventors gain exclusivity (and an opportunity for profits) in exchange for publicly disclosing details about their creations. The public gains free access to information – information that can then be used to support further innovation. Innovation is seen as an inherent good in this context, as it can lead to the development of things people need (e.g., treatments for disease, green energy technologies or a better mousetrap). Exclusive rights to intellectual property are managed via patents and licenses, with patenting being primarily regulated at the national level. Intellectual property rights are the dominant mechanism used in innovation policy, particularly in science. However, myriad modifications and alternatives to intellectual property rights have been proposed and utilized, including patent pooling, intellectual property exchanges and clearing houses, innovation prizes and open-source licenses. The challenges related to competing models of innovation policy present in a fairly consistent manner across most fields of science. However, this paper will focus exclusively on intellectual property rights and models of innovation policy in the context of stem cell science. It is not that the issues themselves are unique in this context, but rather that there are a series of factors that make a discussion of intellectual property rights and models of innovation policy particularly important in the context of stem cell science. </jats:p

Medicine on the Fringe: Stem Cell-Based Interventions in Advance of Evidence

Abstract Stem cell-based interventions (SCBIs) offer great promise; however, there is currently little internationally accepted, scientific evidence supporting the clinical use of SCBIs. The consensus within the scientific community is that a number of hurdles still need to be cleared. Despite this, SCBIs are currently being offered to patients. This article provides a content analysis of materials obtained from SCBI providers. We find content that strains credulity and almost no evidence of SCBIs being delivered in the context of clinical trials. We conclude that until scientific evidence is available, as a general rule, providers should only offer SCBIs in the context of controlled clinical trials. Clients should be aware that the risks and benefits of SCBIs are unknown, that their participation is unlikely to advance scientific knowledge, and they are likely to become ineligible to participate in future clinical trials of SCBIs. We recommend steps to promote patient education and enhance global oversight. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is found at the end of this article.</jats:p