Blockchain Papers

Helen Munday

Springtime always sees plenty of activity in the IFST calendar. This year the AGM was at the end of March, where we take necessary and important decisions that support the governance of the Institute, but also where we have the opportunity of acknowledging the changes to our Board. We say thanks to those members who are outgoing and have done so much for IFST and also confirm the appointment and welcome those who are incoming. We have four new trustees joining the Board this year including President Elect Sterling Crew. Much of our engagement is now ‘remote/electronic’ procedures, which included, for the first time this year, the President-Elect ballot and, indeed, the AGM itself. It is good to see the numbers of members who can engage in such important processes increasing as a result – good democratic governance in action! It was also very gratifying to see the strength of the field putting themselves forward for President Elect and I hope this is a sign of the ambition many members have for IFST. Whilst online engagement has many benefits, by the time this volume of the Journal is in print, many of us will have met in Birmingham for the SC22 Conference Lunch and Lecture. Our Spring Conference (SC22) is a much-welcomed staple of our calendar. We took the difficult decision many months ago that holding SC22 itself in person was probably still not a viable proposition, but the opportunity to have a face to face ‘companion’ event seemed like a good option. We hope that accommodating the needs of everyone is something we can continue to do, whilst adapting to the changing environment. The theme of this issue is ‘Future Foods’. Whilst IFST has a major role to play in ensuring the safety and so much more, of today's food, the opportunities to ‘invent our future’ is what gets many of our members out of bed in the morning! I think it is safe to say, that there will be something for everyone in this edition. In talking to members, we know that this publication is one of most valued benefits of IFST membership. So, as we head into summer I wonder if we might indulge in a little fun! Where do you like to read your Journal? If you would like to share, why not join me in posting on the community pages: community.ifst.org/ IFST has elected Sterling Crew as its new President-Elect. Sterling's election was formally noted during IFST's Annual General Meeting on 31 March 2022. Of his appointment, Sterling said: ‘It is a great pleasure and privilege to be elected to be the next President of the Institute of Food Science and Technology, especially as the selection was by my professional peers. The IFST is a fantastic organisation with a marvellous membership at its very heart. I pledge to play my part in adding further value to membership and promoting the organisation's worthy charitable aims. This is an exciting time for IFST as we approach our 60th Diamond Jubilee and with chartership potentially on the horizon. Food science and technology has a major part to play in our country's future in these very challenging times. The food sector has responded by developing innovative solutions and creative products. The role our members play has never been more important.’ Sterling Crew Honorary Fellow and FIFST is an experienced food sector director who currently holds a portfolio of positions including Chair of the Food Authenticity Network. Find out more about Sterling here: ifst.org/president-elect22 Sterling will serve as President- Elect for one year before being automatically elected as President and Chair of the Board of Trustees in 2023 for a term of three years. Meet our Board of Trustees here: ifst.org/meet-board IFST has reviewed its Code of Professional Conduct and its accompanying Disciplinary Procedures that apply to all its members. The Code of Professional Conduct – which members are bound by – remains unchanged but IFST's Board approved minor changes to the Disciplinary Procedures to clarify the use of electronic communications, confidentiality requirements and ensure any member against whom a complaint was upheld had adequate time to lodge an appeal. The updated procedures which came into force on 7 April 2022 are available on our website: ifst.org/about-ifst/professional-conduct In March 2022, IFST was invited to attend and exhibit at IFE Manufacturing at ExCeL London. We were given a stand in the ‘Ask the expert’ zone. IFE Manufacturing is a gigantic exhibition, it's an international food and drink event, which brought together ingredients, packaging, processing and food technology companies to showcase their solutions to manufacturers from all over the UK. The event was an opportunity for the food and drink manufacturing industry to discover, learn and source the latest products from the best suppliers in the market. At IFST we're always looking at new ways to expand our membership and provide a benefit to the whole of the food sector, no matter how big or small the business. We went to IFE to meet new food businesses and to introduce IFST to a new audience who may have not heard of us before. IFE provided IFST with a great opportunity to reconnect with current members, meet potential new industry-based members and understand some of the challenges facing the food sector through the thought-provoking presentations and seminars provided throughout the show. The geographical coverage, category span and quality of the exhibitors was impressive and provided interesting (and tasty!) insights into where food products are heading next. Each day, three or four members of the IFST executive team represented IFST at our stand, including Deborah Kendale, Andrew Gardner, Delia Mertoiu, Sarah Drumm, Mariam Zaki, Daiane Cazuza, Patricia Florit and Robin Leaper. Despite being at the back of the expo, we received a good number of visitors who all had interesting questions for us and lots of enquiries about IFST membership and what it comprises. We were also approached by a lot of new product developers and new businesses looking for support for their endeavours. It was interesting to see the breadth of producers and the strong focus on sustainability, using waste products, innovation and current trends in the food sector. We were delighted to meet our current members at the expo, who came over to our stand each day. The geographical coverage, category span and quality of the exhibitors was impressive and provided interesting (and tasty!) insights into where food products are heading next. I was delighted to be invited by IFE Manufacturing to chair one of the NPD sessions titled From kitchen table to factory floor. This took place on the Innovation Platform on the opening day. It was the first of two back to back sessions examining the NPD process and how to get products from the idea and concept stage through to a fully manufactured product. This session focused on the early development process and highlighted some of the common roadblocks and key considerations that need to be addressed during the initial stages of a development project. Andrew Gardner and Patricia Florit at the IFST stand We drew a large audience (including more IFST members), with every seat in the auditorium taken. There were some great questions from the audience – and we kept going even when the set behind us collapsed mid-session! The panel gave some sound advice about how to get started and how to protect your ideas. We discussed how to make sure products are legal and safe, how to find partners for co-manufacturing and signposted the audience to other resources available to help at this early stage of development. It was a great pleasure to chair this session, and to work with such an experienced and knowledgeable panel of IFST Fellows. One of the many great benefits of being a member of IFST is having access to a wide network of food industry experts. Thank you to IFE Manufacturing for inviting me to take part and for a great show. It was great to finally meet people face to face after two years! There was certainly a buzz about the place. Three big trends were very evident throughout the show: vegan, environment and health. Without a doubt vegan products and meat alternatives are starting to move into mainstream, with new products using mainstream flavours and targeting everyday eating occasions. Many of the companies were keen to talk about their environmental credentials. I saw a cereal carton made from agricultural waste rather than wood pulp, that had the same look and feel as carton. There were also a number of businesses advertising that they use no plastic bags for their snack products. From a hero ingredient perspective, I noticed that seaweed is entering the savoury snack market, highlighting its health benefits. Also, there were a lot of dried fruit snacks as alternatives to more traditional snack products. The panel discussion on The National Food Strategy between the Food Foundation, Compass Group, Guy's and St Thomas’ Foundation and Mission Ventures was notable. Apart from reiterating the importance of and need to take action, the panellists shared the fact that Tesco and JS have agreed to report on how much of the food they sell is ‘healthier’ products. If you missed the panel discussion From kitchen table to factory floor, there is a recording available on the IFE website to watch on demand: web ifemanufacturing.co.uk/seminar-programme Join IFST ifst.org/membership Prof Robin May delivering the SC22 lecture On 25 April, at University College Birmingham, Professor Robin May, Chief Scientific Advisor to the Food Standards Agency, pictured above, gave his talk to a group of members, speakers and friends of IFST at our preconference lunch and lecture. He opened by stating that eating is one of the few universal human behaviours and that trust in food is critical and is underpinned by science. However, science is becoming more complicated and harder to explain, and becomes increasingly challenging especially around foods that are not yet on the market, but will be, in the future. For context, May indicated that food shopping is habitual and purchasing takes on average six to nine seconds. Reading a product label fully would take many minutes and therefore messaging on labels is often not the best way to communicate information. The challenge is to combine a high level of science and communication about risk with a digestible, easy to compute output. He commented that the FSA has a very strong science and evidence based position. Good science communication is critical and risk must be communicated effectively for people to understand this. He highlighted the FSA has a very high trust rating of 75% of people trusting the FSA and nine out of 10 consumers in the UK are confident in the safety of the food they eat. This is partly due to a strong emphasis on clear communication, such as the food hygiene rating system, which 87% of the population are aware of and over 50% state they have used within the last year. In terms of behaviours, people underestimate long term risks, such as those around smoking and obesity, and act accordingly. Using percentages to communicate risks is effective but even more effective is the use of real-world frequencies e.g. ‘one-in-20 people’. Translating these into graphics is attractive but the danger is that nuance and detail can be lost with the example of using just green and red traffic light symbols. We need to change the food system to cope with sustainability and health impacts, for the planet and a healthy population. Part of this is the need to advise people on new foods that are coming to market. Prof May stated that his passion is being ready to communicate these necessary changes to the public and the implications they will have on peoples’ diets and food choices. Examples of new foods were insects, lab grown meat, novel crops e.g. chia seeds and, finally, genetically modified (GM) and genetically edited (GE) crops that are being, or will be introduced, to tackle challenges in agriculture, such as drought tolerance and vitamin yield. We need to be able to communicate the benefits of these foods if they are to be accepted by the general public. May also mentioned changes to packaging types and systems. Both these developments are innovations which the public welcome. However, innovators are viewed with greater suspicion, as they are often perceived as being driven by commercial gain. In terms of opinions and behaviours – people state they are driven by ethical choices, such as animal welfare and sustainability, but are, in reality, driven by price, when it comes to choices and shopping habits. To be effective communicators, we need to work with human behaviour and develop a balance between ethical choices and real world drivers that determine food choice behaviours. Attendees at the lecture Day 1 on The Gap in Consumer Understanding began with Jon Alexander's presentation on The Power of Citizenship. He poignantly began with some food for thought that overuse of the word ‘consumer’ is fundamentally flawed. To reshape the way in which we collectively interact as humans, we must focus on the concept of ‘citizens’. Next, Tom Sheldon at the Science Media Centre delivered a selection of case studies. He advocates for businesses to support senior scientists in engaging with the press, believing this connection is the way forward to help the public separate fact from fiction. The day ended with a panel discussion exploring how we can build trust in consumers. Michelle Patel (FSA) remarked that as scientists we need a ‘shift in how we communicate’. The emerging themes were consistency, courage, honesty and humility. Day 2 on The Gap in Skills and Professional Development began with another panel discussion on new and future skills, with Jacinta George succinctly explaining, ‘the skills we'll need in 20 years need to be developed now’. The group discussed key future skills crucial to the food industry including AI, robotics and green skills, as well as soft skills like resilience, flexibility and compassion. Attendees saw Andras Sebok present a Digital Skills case study using an EIT Food competency framework on Campden BRI Hungary. He discussed ‘Industry 4.0’, which refers to a new phase in the industrial revolution focusing on interconnectivity, automation, machine learning and real-time data. Finally, speakers from CAFRE and Linden Foods presented the positive impacts that apprenticeship schemes have had in Northern Ireland. We heard a personal account from Lewis Connelly, a NPD Technologist at Linden Foods, who started a High Level Apprenticeship (HLA) with CAFRE. Day 3 began with an inspiring presentation on early stage NPD with Sarah Gaunt. The concept of ‘front-end innovation’ was introduced and the developmental stages in the early-product pipeline covering ideation, identification, application, selection and incubation were explored. Following this, Lucia Capogna spoke about cyber-security. Examples of food industry cyber-attacks in recent years were presented and Lucia closed with the final thought that ‘no system is 100% secure’, but with the right knowledge 90% of cyber-attacks can be prevented (see p46). Next, Tom Hollands presented the digital sandwich, a technology that digitises food production processes and creates a ‘golden thread’ from farm to fork, tracing ingredients back to the source. Tom used a fictional example of grey ham identified in a shop sandwich to track an ingredient's journey. Missed SC22? As a paid attendee, you have access to our Conference platform, Whova, for three months where you can watch all of the conference sessions and the lecture recording. Starting from mid-June, as a member of IFST, you can watch all the recordings in our IFST Webinar hub via ifst.org/webinars Across the world 90% of people are meat eaters and global consumption of meat is rising. Meat production is already contributing to potentially catastrophic climate change and if nothing changes, future demands will require impossible amounts of land and water. The ‘Meat the Future’ exhibition considered some of the key findings of the LEAP (Livestock, Environment and People) project, which studied the health, environmental, social and economic impacts of meat and dairy production and consumption. The was a between the University of the Food Institute, and The it was by the Our Our and between and The exhibition was at the general public and presented in a very and IFST members at the exhibition The – exploring the of the meat production and consumption and its The had of meat in between of and of meat on There were also from and visitors who had been to the Meat best as in a lunch and best in to be if other are available for my health, for the for the The a wide of From highlighting how meat consumption is in our to that the public are to its environmental, and ethical credentials. by this exhibit our group discussed the importance of meat in the as another key meat consumption the world The a – of were used to how meat consumption had in the and between and It was a very way of how meat consumption is to and was the in meat consumption in person day in to in and in to in that the in the with the consumption of meat, of personal Meat consumption in has the same at than in the due to requirements and a population. As for the it remains of the meat consumption at a person day in and in the land – agricultural and how they have over the years This exhibit was presented as a set of with and on of the land is currently to agriculture, to how develop from a traditional to the global industry it is how has science to the increasing for In the people of land from the of the the they kept the and on the the used to their There are in the each to in and or of the are as was to more food when but this came at a to as were and to High – the environmental of meat production now more than to for of are for into the and changing grown for animal require more and – for and other resources for human As food they which is more to the environment than contributing to climate The IFST group noted that there was no of the or of meat animal welfare or animal in the As scientists we were to understand more about current into for food – consumers with on the environmental of their food choices is a strong public for choice in what we but in reality, our is already by what businesses us to and how it is and LEAP on the labels of the being food products to their positive or on and As well as consumers more hope that food producers will by developing new products with environmental to find the most effective have been have much environmental impacts of all to and products as much as than most animal products. There is a strong public for choice in what we but in reality, our is already by what businesses us to and how it is and seeds of a new – some of the around meat consumption and including meat has been the for human the world for of of years. evidence some to eating dairy products years Our on animal products such as meat, or dairy for of vitamin that we require for We have also to much more from meat than from are there any health risks in a if we our or it out what are the best to get all the we health – what would an look Our planet has plenty of to all of the people If we make decisions in the coming year, it can even the population of in the for meat is already the environment to its In the we of meat person day This is more than the global how much meat can the planet The on and to this and came with an of person each day, between red meat and – to the we before and factory have with but all on meat than we in the UK. number of including the health report have eating more than our current of foods and than the of and red This report that if we all this, we our and our on the environment. Meat – how science and technology can help us a planet Our to meat and benefit from the it our diets can to us the we need adding to the climate Science and technology the meat industry we thought we is us see why and how we need to do In the a of are already vegan or can more of us learn to a to a more in the exhibition increasing consumption of and the – final We would need agricultural we would need to This land be used to crops for or to to more and use quality and would need more to be used to and other We would use to and in so would the land to quality and our and We more than the from the food system – about a in all from human We see to due to land to and The number of due to such as and some by this is due to the benefits of a healthy to a healthy the positive of diets as well as in the of and some and some FIFST is a Development and Innovation Food and Chair of the IFST Food Innovation and of IFST FIFST is a and in Development and an Innovation and Development to the food industry to the team at University of for IFST. web about the LEAP project, which is by the can be We are delighted to that IFST has its Honorary on for to the of food science and This was made by IFST the Annual General Meeting on 31 March 2022. This is made to or who have made personal to the and of the Institute and to the food science and technology FIFST in food sustainability, and from farm to is of the Food Find out more about here: On I first IFST in the early of my I had no idea that I would one day be joining IFST's of Honorary I often in and in my To be by people I as and to a is I the IFST for this and will this with Food science is more than a sustainability and food I that any can be using food as the and that food on food science in its one can food, so its future has to be through and communication at all by all of us in the This year the of the UK Our has many products that would be in by companies the great and of those to the future of the food market. the time this issue has been the will have their products to the on 7 and the will be at the event at Tesco where will be able to some and meet other industry and from the industry including and Food Institute of Food Science and and Campden For more and We have a new IFST to and to resources to support small and food and food need to healthy and food, and in an and to cope with the challenges of a population. food and the of food throughout the from farm to the The consumption of or foods is increasingly being as an emerging to and the of This evidence on human and the of processing on and of key these food and human have been to and these on therefore more

Alaa Haddad, Mohamed Hadi Habaebi, Md. Rafiqul Islam, Nurul Fadzlin Hasbullah · 5 authors

Electronic health records (EHRs) are digitally saved health records that provide information about a person’s health. EHRs are generally shared among healthcare stakeholders, and thus are susceptible to power failures, data misuse, a lack of privacy, security, and an audit trail, among other problems. Blockchain, on the other hand, is a groundbreaking technology that provides a distributed and decentralized environment in which nodes in a list of networks can connect to each other without the need for a central authority. It has the potential to overcome the limits of EHR management and create a more secure, decentralized, and safer environment for exchanging EHR data. Further, blockchain is a distributed ledger on which data can be stored and shared in a cryptographically secure, validated, and mutually agreed-upon manner across all mining nodes. The blockchain stores data with a high level of integrity and robustness, and it cannot be altered. When smart contracts are used to make decisions and conduct analytics with machine-learning algorithms, the results may be trusted and unquestioned. However, Blockchain is not always indestructible and suffers from scalability and complexity issues that might render it inefficient. Combining AI and blockchain technology can handled some of the drawbacks of these two technical ecosystems effectively. AI algorithms rely on data or information to learn, analyze, and reach conclusions. The performance of AI algorithms is enhanced through the data obtained from a data repository or a reliable, secure, trustworthy, and credible platform. Researchers have identified three categories of blockchain-based potential solutions for the management of electronic health records: conceptual, prototype, and implemented. The purpose of this research work is to conduct a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) to identify and assess research articles that were either conceptual or implemented to manage EHRs using blockchain technology. The study conducts a comprehensive evaluation of the literature on blockchain technology and enhanced health record management systems utilizing artificial intelligence technologies. The study examined 189 research papers collected from various publication categories. The in-depth analysis focuses on the privacy, security, accessibility, and scalability of publications. The SLR has illustrated that blockchain technology has the potential to deliver decentralization, security, and privacy that are frequently lacking in traditional EHRs. Additionally, the outcomes of the extensive analysis inform future researchers about the type of blockchain to use in their research. Additionally, methods used in healthcare are summarized per application area while their pros and cons are highlighted. Finally, the emphasized taxonomy combines blockchain and artificial intelligence, which enables us to analyze possible blockchain and artificial intelligence applications in health records management systems. The article ends with a discussion on open issues for research and future directions.

Mohammed Baz, Sabita Khatri, Abdullah Baz, Hosam Alhakami · 6 authors

The rapid emergence of novel virus named SARS-CoV2 and unchecked dissemination of this virus around the world ever since its outbreak in 2020, provide critical research criteria to assess the vulnerabilities of our current he... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on Tech Science Press

Jiahui Geng, Neel Kanwal, Martin Gilje Jaatun, Chunming Rong

We have entered the era of big data, and it is considered to be the "fuel" for the flourishing of artificial intelligence applications. The enactment of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) raises concerns about individuals' privacy in big data. Federated learning (FL) emerges as a functional solution that can help build high-performance models shared among multiple parties while still complying with user privacy and data confidentiality requirements. Although FL has been intensively studied and used in real applications, there is still limited research related to its prospects and applications as a FLaaS (Federated Learning as a Service) to interested 3rd parties. In this paper, we present a FLaaS system: DID-eFed, where FL is facilitated by decentralized identities (DID) and a smart contract. DID enables a more flexible and credible decentralized access management in our system, while the smart contract offers a frictionless and less error-prone process. We describe particularly the scenario where our DID-eFed enables the FLaaS among hospitals and research institutions.

Xu, B., Agbele, T., Jiang, R.

Blockchain has been emerging as a promising technology that could totally change the landscape of data security in the coming years, particularly for data access over Internet-of-Things and cloud servers. However, blockchain itself, though secured by its protocol, does not identify who owns the data and who uses the data. Other than simply encrypting data into keys, in this paper, we proposed a protocol called Biometric Blockchain (BBC) that explicitly incorporate the biometric cues of individuals to unambiguously identify the creators and users in a blockchain-based system, particularly to address the increasing needs to secure the food logistics, following the recently widely reported incident on wrongly labelled foods that caused the death of a customer on a flight. The advantage of using BBC in the food logistics is clear: it can not only identify if the data or labels are authentic, but also clearly record who is responsible for the secured data or labels. As a result, such a BBC-based solution can great ease the difficulty to control the risks accompanying the food logistics, such as faked foods or wrong gradient labels.

B. Balamurugan, T. Poongodi, M. R. Manu, S. Karthikeyan · 5 authors

The moving image archive of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) includes a copy of the film The Double Day (1975), cataloged in the series Moving Images Relating to International Development Programs and Activities, 1979–1991, a collection of more than eight hundred titles “created to provide information on assistance programs supported by the Agency for International Development (AID).”1 Yet, The Double Day does not, in fact, directly depict or engage with any specific development or aid initiative. Instead, the film—directed by US-based Brazilian filmmaker Helena Solberg as part of the International Women’s Film Project collective and described as “the first Latin American feminist documentary”—examines the gendered dynamics of paid and unpaid labor through the testimonies of women from Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Mexico.2 Its presence in the USAID archive is likely a consequence of its funding history, having received support from the Inter-American Foundation, a USAID-affiliated entity; the development agencies of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; the United Nations Development Program; and US philanthropist Calvin Cafritz.3These transnational funding structures not only enabled the film’s production but also determined its archival destination, which renders legible its place within the history of international development.4 The Double Day’s institutional trajectory reflects the shifting configurations of aid, gender, and media during a historic moment when women were being repositioned at the center of what Arturo Escobar has described as development’s “regimes of visuality.”5 Especially relevant to The Double Day’s production and exhibition was the international institutional framework of Women in Development (WID). Emerging in the early 1970s and culminating in United Nations’ proclamation of 1975 as International Women’s Year, WID emphasized women’s participation in the global economy as both an index and mechanism of development. Indeed, The Double Day premiered at the World Conference of the International Women’s Year, held in Mexico City.6 Within this context, the film forms part of a broader trajectory of media use by international organizations that intensified during the 1970s—as best exemplified by Media Habitat, a collection of 236 documentary films commissioned by the United Nations to represent urban and rural development initiatives for the 1976 Habitat Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver. As a policy-shaping initiative, Media Habitat primarily featured films from the Global South intended not only to illustrate but also to help codify standardized audiovisual markers of “underdevelopment” that determined access to the emerging global economic order and to international aid.7Framed in relation to these international institutions and their operations, The Double Day could similarly be considered “development media”—exemplifying the type of nonfiction media produced and distributed outside of the commercial film circuits whose aspects and subcategories have been variously described in scholarship as nontheatrical, useful, sponsored, institutional, industrial, educational, or nonprofessional/amateur.8 Scholars working in this area have emphasized the institutional contexts of such media’s production and exhibition infrastructures as shaping its instrumentalized effects. From a feminist perspective, such an approach is crucial to grappling with the broader question of how “gender impacts [these works’] shape, content, and trajectories.”9 Yet we also argue that, taken in isolation, the institutional and infrastructural contexts are insufficient to account for the complex relationship between media and development, potentially not only limiting our understanding of the reach and impact of development but also distorting our interpretive conclusions. For example, to categorize The Double Day as “development media” is to overlook the film’s place within Solberg’s directorial oeuvre, as well as within the histories of both transnational women’s filmmaking and radical Latin American documentary cinema to which it simultaneously belongs. Such exclusive framing is especially limiting given that women globally were disproportionately engaged in nonfiction production throughout the twentieth century—sometimes by political choice but more often due to structural exclusions from fiction filmmaking. Even in nonfiction historiography, however, institutional media has remained particularly marginal, reinforcing hierarchies that separate such works from the aesthetic and authorial frameworks through which film history has been constructed.10 This marginalization not only tends to erase women’s contributions but also presumes a “weak” or derivative authorship, rendering these films unworthy of the interpretive attention needed to apprehend their aesthetic and political complexity.11 The same dynamic is likely to structure assumptions about “development media” as well.Categorizing The Double Day exclusively within this category would further prompt us to assume top-down institutional analyses that have been characteristic of both institutional media methodologies and the scholarship on development at large. This, in turn, would risk obscuring this film’s radical Marxist approach to women’s labor as well as its concrete contribution to activism and its attendant grassroot structures. In Mexico City, The Double Day became a catalyst for feminist solidarity in practice when one of the film’s protagonists, Bolivian activist and trade unionist Domitila Barrios de Chungara, was invited to participate in the Tribune of Non-Governmental Organizations held alongside the official UN conference.12 There, Barrios de Chungara challenged Western feminist priorities by reframing the debate around labor, class, and imperialism, helping to articulate a shared Third World feminist agenda that significantly departed from the developmentalist vision of the United Nations and USAID.13 Seen through the lens of activist media, The Double Day helped forge transnational solidarity networks by enabling information exchange across the diverse voices that shaped its making—from the women featured in the film to the activists who circulated it—revealing a considerably more dynamic interplay between institutional and grassroots or contingent media practices.Moreover, the film’s Latin American context—reflected in Solberg’s formation in Brazil as the only woman in Cinema Novo, its focus on women from across the region, and its premiere and key reception in Mexico City—requires grappling with the regional specificities of the very notion of development in its multiple iterations.14 Far from being an epistemological and political framework imposed solely by the Global North, both the practices of development and the theoretical foundations of developmentalism (understood as a broad and polysemic set of discourses) were shaped through the active participation of Latin American economists.15 Within this iteration, underdevelopment, as a constitutive notion of developmentalism, became central to a distinctly critical strand, which by the late 1960s became known as the dependency theory.16 This same approach is reflected in some of the best-known Latin American radical film manifestos of the time, arising precisely from the same milieus to which Solberg belonged.17These various considerations of the film’s history illustrate the methodological challenges confronting feminist scholars seeking to assess the impact of development on media projects, theories, and practices. To disregard the developmentalist context of such works by emphasizing their political aesthetics and affects risks reproducing a romanticized narrative of heroic resistance (albeit from a feminist perspective). Yet to engage exclusively with their institutional and material infrastructures risks naturalizing developmentalism’s political and epistemological foundations at the expense of the goals and beliefs of the many women who participated in these projects. The contradictions and ambivalences that animate such histories call for feminist frameworks capable of holding both institutional complicity and radical possibility in view.This challenge resonates with ongoing debates about the politics of the archive and what Allyson Field has termed “the practice of informed speculation.”18 As she reminds us, feminist, queer, and decolonial methodologies have long taught us to “press at the limits” of the archive to “inoculate our scholarship against our evidence’s afflictions.”19 The concern that the evidence we draw on in our analysis reproduces the very structures and blind spots of the dominant ideology and therefore shapes and delimits our interpretation becomes particularly urgent when engaging the developmentalist media corpus. Informed speculation offers an alternative by inviting the experimental, creative, and speculative rewriting of history, mobilizing the archive “in a project that runs counter to the original purpose, or the imperative to preserve, or the conditions that led to erasure.”20 Yet, as Field cautions, such speculative gestures must remain grounded in a deep and “intimate familiarity with the archive” that we are working with and against. Building on this imperative, we suggest that the developmentalist archive, in particular, demands expansion and critical reconsideration in ways that unsettle the very disciplinary frameworks through which it has been studied as well as the larger institutional contexts for such knowledge production.Our focus on The Double Day in the opening of this introduction thus foregrounds the entanglements of institutional and grassroots forces, local and international contexts, structural and interpersonal relations, and creative and economic factors that have shaped not only this film but the broader ecosystem of development media projects—and their preservation—over time. Addressing such a constellation involves transgressing methodologically entrenched divisions between political economy and aesthetics, between material infrastructures and affective regimes; reckoning with divergent periodizations across film history and world economics; and situating these within the local specificities of women’s movements and international institutional programs. It also demands attentiveness to the coexistence of multiple, and sometimes competing, understandings of development—each historically, geographically, and ideologically situated.We imagine this special issue as an opening toward a critical dialogue, not only about how such an approach might be enacted in practice but also about the far-reaching ways development paradigms have shaped both our objects of study and the contours of the field itself. The decision to center institutionally sponsored films across all the essays in this issue is deliberate and enables us to highlight institutional critique as a vital methodological imperative within our analytical framework. Created within the frameworks of international organizations, state agencies, or NGOs, these films’ histories make legible the institutional logics that underwrite their production. Yet our critique does not stop at these specific entities. Rather, we argue for a broader interrogation of the political conditions and institutional infrastructures that shape media and knowledge production more generally. This includes contemporary corporations embedded in the digital platform economy, from streaming services to the rapid expansion of AI. Equally critical is a reflexive examination of academia itself, where departments of economics, political science, and centers for development have played a formative role in producing and legitimizing developmentalist theories and policy frameworks. While the humanities and arts have at times offered critical alternatives, they have also frequently mirrored and reinforced many of the same developmentalist assumptions. A feminist analysis of the nexus between development and media must therefore unsettle not only dominant archives but also the institutional and disciplinary foundations of our own scholarly practices.As scholars, we share the complex position of navigating the same tensions between institutional complicity and emancipatory aspiration as many of the media-makers whose work we study. Mirroring our subjects is also the transnational, collective mode of this special issue’s own production as it emerges from an ongoing informal working group we have sustained over several years. While relying on institutional and disciplinary affordances—such as university funding for conferences or access to academic publishing platforms—we have been working toward creating a community that exceeds, and often resists, the prevailing logics of our academic institutions. Our aim has been to create a space for shared inquiry and mutual support that pushes back against disciplinary siloing and technocratic neoliberal assessment modes of both labor and knowledge production—and this certainly extends to our experience collaborating with the journal editors throughout the publication process. Our goal has been to examine both the persistence and variability of developmentalism, understood as what Gustavo Esteva calls a “powerful but fragile semantic constellation,” as a conceptual formation that has historically inspired, legitimized, and mobilized media projects across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.21 And gendered biopolitics, from population control to gender mainstreaming, have remained integral to development policies and media practices, recurring across formats from institutional newsreels to film festivals.We share the conviction that, far beyond the history of nonfiction institutional media, development (as both a broad ideological project and a network of material and institutional practices) and developmentalism (as a set of discourses and theoretical models associated with development) have exerted a far-reaching influence on film and media cultures at large. As such, they must be treated as a major force in shaping global film and media systems and also the many ongoing assumptions behind their critical discourses. The discipline of communication studies was founded on modernization theory governed by Cold War goals of dissemination of Western liberal democracy around the world, while “an area studies framework allowed compartmentalizing Western and non-Western outcomes of technologies that were always claimed to be universal.”22 Despite critique from postcolonial and critical race studies, many of these frameworks have remained foundational for media theory.23 In historical scholarship, as we increasingly move beyond “modernity” as a dominant conceptual anchor, engaging with practices and discourses of development opens more precise analytical pathways. These film and media’s entanglements with the logics of and economic and the associated with as well as their conceptual underdevelopment, and impact in as diverse as and of media aesthetic and paradigms in film and film and funding are developmentalist assumptions to the they to underwrite the narrative and logics of and global media from the structure of the film to the cultures of argue that a examination of the historical entanglements between film and developmentalist aesthetics, modes of as well as infrastructures and critical the and that our contemporary media is a of the historical contours of development as a field of inquiry embedded within a of some of the methodologies by the featured in this special a of this complex history, to the larger at in media, development, and gender all its development a it as an of be with practices as divergent as and in In as we work on this the of the of the USAID the ideological that have the history of international the and of this on the global its a from development as a global practice and as an institutional and which over the has as a with its own media Yet or does not erase the historical impact of these the contradictions they have reflected and over the as the of development several crucial to the economic theories of development initiatives to and through the of the development an international policy framework at from the Global to the of the Global the by the political role of and the of the International the on was challenged by dependency theory and at development as global structural the neoliberal of the the Programs by the and World imposed and as conditions for and forms of assistance became known as the major markers for international development development has moving beyond economic to such as the Human Development and the Development and from international organizations such as the United Nations to a broader network of These frameworks increasingly of and liberal of and with what in many ways to various while the of the to development’s epistemological more scholarship has toward a of its and material the field has to a of and critical by and scholars, which development as a dynamic of conceptual and political to these the studies in this special issue call for sustained analysis in place of In we draw from a of and that in of of gender and to this special issue engage that and from Mexico to contemporary specific local historical of global distinctly feminist methodologies as well as attention to studies that this issue a in the global history of development on and documentary work in Mexico how early women infrastructures as of while US films an early of state and transnational on a outside the Global as the of developmentalist both the and markers of development media, its to the and Latin central grounded in archival also women’s in transnational and the methodological of archives on study of the series to a a digital media not by but by women not as but as subjects and within circuits of neoliberal and the aesthetics and of how development’s has models of to contemporary neoliberal paradigms of and analysis how digital and gender and practices, discourses on and their of these essays the of some of the historical of developmentalist as the question of the role of the state within such on a notion of economic as a and the dominant of development that the state as the for and through infrastructural projects. This understanding of development was shared across both of the as well as in the Third The United and the increasingly mobilized international in the of the modes of international at the postcolonial of policy and ideological These programs were at the expansion of their and of while with the and decolonial of The conceptual between modernization and development that the Cold in of and hierarchies of that long and As an of postcolonial their role as of international aid concern about the of Western development projects. In alternative across the Global South that to structural between and through policies of and In many they were further the global structures. In Latin for example, this approach was through organizations such as the United Nations for Latin and the both developmentalist projects and their have taken many forms historically, and they have and they have been to a of projects, and postcolonial and development has been and in ways and with frequently political While many of these alternative frameworks the embedded in dominant Western they often technocratic and assumptions. gender and gender as for the of to be shaped by This becomes particularly in the media that of development where women frequently a crucial associated with and women were as both the subjects and of their participation in the and labor often as the index of In this study of from the 1970s how women were as of this as these about women’s urban and recurring and of a within the own of and critique that official examination of archives and enables a feminist interrogation of their mobilizing a of the in the of contribution to this issue similarly the of a dynamic within as well as across ideological the of women’s and the media of the and as active in labor and as integral to the technocratic women became of as their labor remained a of and analysis and archival with attention to the specific of and It also transnational that as a and affective a nexus of and practices through which gender, media, and developmentalism one film not as a but as part of the of alongside and work a broader concern of this special media as a of developmentalist projects. The debates the World and which international such as the United Nations and a critical historical for such primarily by postcolonial and of the for the of media and communication infrastructures in as to counter Western The a between and economic how systems of media and reinforced global hierarchies of and in an agenda that supported and alternative media infrastructures across postcolonial contexts, the framework gender as an analytical This “gender in the 1970s by of the Women in Development in relation to The Double its political critique of with its broader to center women in development policy through and This was also in of media, which was shaped by its international reach and audiovisual production and and and Yet, as WID institutional it also to the and of the women’s development programs often by in These were by a of studies, and on and the to of women’s presence and through the of their economic and In this on the filmmaker this history directly by the and of for women by the WID framework during the with and agencies the of and against Women in at the of the neoliberal turn, when institutional media often the only to access and support to projects. The an by this dynamic as of the from the Global South are to engage with the developmentalist assumptions funding models that their similarly the as a in developmentalist media history by the of and centers on the Film a between of and the attention toward the and labor by and work was foundational the of and the of audiovisual aid, as both a of development projects and a critical for their the in this issue argue for a with media, gender, and developmentalism as an field of that is and shaped by feminist and methodologies and that challenge the entanglements between academic knowledge production and and technocratic development And while methodological these dynamics at the structural the of feminist in media and cinema by this the very a

William C. Hsiao, Alan Maynard

On behalf of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, it is my great privilege to introduce these Guidelines for the Management of Acute Cervical Spine and Spinal Cord Injuries. These guidelines represent the initial installment of a more comprehensive guidelines initiative from the Joint Section on behalf of all practicing neurosurgeons and their patients. The Section is grateful to the small working group who devoted considerable time and effort to the generation of this outstanding document. We would like to formally recognize the Joint Section on Trauma for their important collaboration on this project. The Section would also like to acknowledge and thank the parent organizations, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, for their guidance of and support for this project, most notably through the efforts of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/ Congress of Neurological Surgeons Guidelines Committee. The Section is also deeply indebted to Michael Apuzzo and the staff of Neurosurgery for their advice and editorial assistance in preparing this document for publication. The application of Neurosurgery’ s rigorous peer-reviewed editorial process has clearly enhanced the quality, balance, and stature of this document. Perhaps most importantly, Neurosurgery has provided an extraordinary vehicle for the widespread dissemination and ultimate incorporation of these guidelines to improve the care and enhance the outcomes of patients with traumatic cervical spine and spinal cord injuries. One of the truly important functions of organized neurosurgery is the generation of evidenced-based clinical practice guidelines. Properly developed, such guidelines can answer important questions, resolve uncertainty, identify areas of deficient knowledge and opportunities for future scientific investigation, standardize treatment, and improve the quality of care and the outcomes for patients. The now widely disseminated head trauma guidelines, for example, have clearly made a difference in the outcomes of patients with severe head injury. Guidelines development is a highly structured process with rigorous methodological criteria and exacting standards. It is a time-, labor-, and resource-intensive process that has served as a significant obstacle to more widespread guidelines development throughout neurosurgery. In the past, clinical practice guidelines have been developed by publicly supported epidemiologists and methodologists who understood study design, data analysis, and the guidelines process, but not the disease. This absence of context and clinical perspective significantly limited the value and relevance of their results. Alternatively, clinician-generated guidelines often took the form of methodologically flawed consensus panels and expert opinion, also of limited value. The Joint Spine Section recognized the importance of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and the challenges of their development. The appropriate clinical expertise, strict adherence to established methodological standards for guidelines development, and considerable resource investment for the development, dissemination, and maintenance of the guidelines documents were deemed crucial to our guidelines initiative. Cervical spine and spinal cord injury was chosen as the initial guidelines topic because of the personal, social, and economic devastation of these injuries, their complex nature, and the high level of uncertainty, as reflected in wide practice variations, as to the value and indications for many of the aspects of evaluation and treatment. The clinical practice guidelines contained in this supplement to Neurosurgery represent a remarkable effort. They address the key issues related to the evaluation and management of these complex conditions that are relevant to the treating physician. In every chapter, the pertinent issues are succinctly stated, the published data are comprehensively presented in the evidentiary tables, and the evidence is thoroughly discussed and critically evaluated throughout the text. The linkage between the quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations was not a “black box” process but an open, deliberative exercise by skilled experts guided by a rigorous set of standards. Despite the strength and potential value of this document, it is important to acknowledge the inherent limitations of clinical practice guidelines. This, or any other, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines document does not represent the definitive source of knowledge on the stated topic. Rather, it represents recommendations of varying strength and certainty based on an analysis of the best available published data. These data, however, are often conflicting, flawed, or incomplete, and there are unavoidable elements of potential bias from subjectivity, perspective, and experience of the individuals and group involved in the analysis and interpretation of these data. In essence, proof is a relative term based on the interpretation of evidence. Furthermore, it is subject to different standards. A relevant example comes from the field of jurisprudence, where the standard of proof (i.e., guilt) for criminal trials is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” whereas the standard for civil courts must simply reflect “a preponderance of evidence” or “more likely than not.” These different standards evolved because of the perceived different consequences of a wrongful verdict. Moreover, as Stephen Haines likes to note, the verdict “not guilty” does not mean innocent; it merely says not proved. Such are the vagaries associated with the interpretation of even scientific evidence. Principled people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions subject to their own personal perspective, experience, and stake in the result. Nevertheless, the Joint Section and Guidelines Development Group went to great lengths to identify and avoid—or at least minimize—these potential problems. The working group adopted the most widely recognized and rigorous standards for guidelines development. A diverse panel of experts with expertise in spine, trauma, and epidemiology brought relevant clinical, scientific, and methodological competence to enhance both the analytical and the deliberative aspects of this process. Periodic outside reviews were routinely obtained for topics or areas of contention or uncertainty to add additional perspective and balance. Above all, the process was accountable and transparent at every stage. Ultimately, we offer these guidelines as a living document to those professionals who treat patients with traumatic spinal injury. We hope each practitioner will critically evaluate these guidelines and come to his or her own conclusion on how, whether, and when to implement its recommendations. It may be used either as a reference or as a basis for standardized protocols of evaluation and management of the patients with traumatic spinal injury. For clinical and basic science researchers, we hope that it will identify and catalyze scientific investigation in areas of deficient knowledge. As a Section, we stand firmly behind this important document and will continuously update the recommendations as new knowledge and understanding is developed. We sincerely believe that these guidelines can improve the care and enhance the outcomes of patients with traumatic injuries to the cervical spine and spinal cord.