Advertisement Highlights of #ReclaimSocial 2019 The second annual #ReclaimSocial campaign took place earlier this month. A viral campaign from charities to “reclaim social media for good”, developed by technology-for-good company Lightful, the 24-hour campaign was amplified by large and small charities from the UK, the US, and around the world.Here in this Twitter moment from Lightful are some of the thousands of positive messages that appeared on Twitter and other social networks as part of #ReclaimSocial. AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis9 Tagged with: lightful social media 115 total views, 1 views today Howard Lake | 20 February 2019 | News 116 total views, 2 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis9 About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving.
For junior faculty members struggling in life’s bottleneck — those sometimes magical, often harried years when the demands of a budding career and a young family contribute to a feeling that sometimes there just isn’t enough of you — help is on the way.The Eleanor and Miles Shore 50th Anniversary Fellowship Program for Scholars in Medicine was created with such junior faculty members in mind. Begun in 1996, the program was established to commemorate the half-century anniversary of the admission of women to Harvard Medical School (HMS). The program recognizes that in today’s society, where both partners in a relationship usually work, the pressures of proving oneself professionally often come at the same time that junior faculty members are juggling the needs of small children.The program’s awards provide support for academic activities and can be used to hire additional laboratory assistance or to create protected time to write grant applications, prepare manuscripts, complete research, or develop a new curriculum. There are 94 fellows this year, 76 of whom are receiving the award for the first time. They were celebrated at a reception at HMS in early December.“We continue to see wonderful projects from faculty representing the quadrangle, the Harvard School of Dental Medicine (HSDM), and so many of our affiliate institutions,” said Carol Bates, HMS assistant dean for faculty affairs. “The Shore Fellowship celebration allows the dean to recognize these promising junior faculty in the presence of family and mentors. We look forward to seeing the outcomes of many of these projects as faculty are promoted in the coming years.”For Xiu-Ping Wang, an assistant professor of developmental biology at HSDM, the fellowship means additional help in her lab, where she’s studying the molecular and genetic basis of embryonic tooth development, with hopes of unlocking the secrets to tooth regeneration.Wang’s research points to a still-far-off day when tooth replacement and repair may be done by self-regenerating. She works with laboratory mice that naturally grow more or fewer teeth than normal. She is examining the genomes of those mice, looking for genes that control the abnormal growth.There’s plenty of room for research in this field, Wang said. It has the potential to serve as a model for other types of organ regeneration research because teeth, the heart, lungs, and other critical organs, can be worked on without endangering patients.“The advantage is that tooth regeneration or replacement is not life-threatening, so it can be a model for other kinds of organ replacement,” Wang said.The Shore Fellowship is providing welcome assistance, Wang said, as she balances the pressures of being both a scientist and a mother to her 5- and 15-year-old sons.“It’s pretty challenging to come to work on weekends or to stay after work. There’s not enough time to stay with your kids. I want to be a good mother and a good wife and still work in this field,” Wang said. “I appreciate the opportunity to get this fellowship.”For Matthew Davids, an instructor in medicine at HMS and Harvard-affiliated Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, the pressure of raising a young family is faced by both partners in his marriage. His wife, Jennifer, is a surgeon completing a fellowship at the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center in Worcester. Together, they are raising their 3-year-old daughter.Davids works on chronic lymphocytic leukemia, the most common type of that disease and a form that tends to strike later in life. It is a slowly progressing disease, and Davids is working, among other things, on an intervention that can delay the need for chemotherapy. The drug used is non-toxic and well-tolerated by patients, but it is expensive. The additional resources provided by the fellowship made the difference between a drug trial happening or not, Davids said.
To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week. Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters
“In a way the Commission is not playing by the rules”Andreas Stepnitzka, senior regulatory policy adviser at EFAMA However, in its draft text the Commission argues that products in the former category “do not necessarily achieve” a certain level of sustainability and should therefore meet additional requirements if they are to be deemed suitable for clients with sustainability preferences.These additional limitations have provoked concerns among stakeholders – the Investment Association said it had “serious” concerns, the PRI said they were “substantial”. Asset managers and their trade bodies, the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), and other organisations have criticised, on multiple grounds, the European Commission’s proposed definition of “sustainability preferences” in draft amendments of MiFID II rules that form part of the implementation of its sustainable finance action package.Interested parties had until 6 July to provide feedback on these and other draft delegated acts aiming to incorporate sustainability issues and considerations into the EU financial services regulatory framework, as formed by the UCITS Directive, the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD), and MiFID II.The proposed amendments to the MiFID delegated acts include requiring investment firms to consider the sustainability preferences of clients in determining the suitability of products.The Commission has proposed these preferences be defined in relation to two types of financial products that are defined by the recently adopted sustainable finance disclosures regulation (SFDR): so-called Article 8 products that promote environmental and social characteristics and Article 9 products that pursue sustainability objectives. EFAMA said it strongly rejected the Commission’s aforementioned portrayal of Article 8 and that it was “essential” the EC change its current proposals to ensure the final delegated acts were fully aligned with the SFDR.Andreas Stepnitzka, senior regulatory policy adviser at the European asset management trade body, told IPE the Commission was giving its own interpretation of Article 8 products.“What we understood was that some people in the Commission didn’t like where Article 8 has ended up after having been discussed with the co-legislators,” he said. “In a way the Commission is not playing by the rules.”At Schroders, deputy head of public policy Elisabeth Ottawa assessed the situation thus: “[T]he suggested additional requirements lack any justification, are in conflict with the co-legislators’ will clearly expressed in SFDR and the taxonomy regulation and limit investor’s ESG product choice.“Also, they will potentially confuse investors when confronted with different categories/definitions of ESG products, depending on the point of communication,” she said. Sustainability boost questionedOthers focussed on the potential real world environmental and social implications of the Commission’s proposed definition.In its feedback, Aviva said it saw incorporating sustainability into suitability assessments as a “a key game-changer in investment behaviour” but that the proposed definition, despite being an improvement on that in earlier drafts, was too narrowly drawn.“[It] may have the unintended consequence of undermining broader policy aims of using financing to help as wide a part of the economy transition into sustainable practices,” the insurer said.“It fails to engage the wider role that financing can play in the transition, through for example, stewardship, integration, or impact investments,” it added. “The failure to engage client demand to finance that wider range of activities overlooks the importance of creating conditions that support investing to support the transition.”The PRI argued that the “gold-plating” of Article 8 funds was misguided, and reflected an inaccurate understanding of how individual investors could influence outcomes in the real economy.“In many cases, exposure to harmful activities is essential to influencing environmental performance of underlying investee (for example, through voting in support of adoption of meaningful climate transition plans),” said the investor association.“Stating that a client can only have a preference for a fund that avoids all exposure to harmful activities would remove fund options that may be better aligned with their preferences.”“We fear that the provisions as they are could lead to the promotion of exclusionary products only and neglect the positive impact component of sustainable investing”ShareActionNGOs echoed some of the aforementioned concerns. ShareAction, for example, writing that “we fear that the provisions as they are could lead to the promotion of exclusionary products only (based on negative screening) and neglect the positive impact component of sustainable investing”.However, its diagnosis was that the problem lay not with the definition of the potential product offering, but with the absence of a more detailed framework for how to assess clients’ sustainability preferences.Think tank 2° Investing Initiative has been carrying out research on retail investors and their sustainability preferences, and said it was “unclear as to the rationale for limiting the pool of financial instruments for a client’s preferences” in the way the Commission was proposing.“More crucially,” it said, “the current definition still fails to identify the financial instruments sought by impact-oriented clients”.The remedies suggested by the various stakeholders varied.Aviva, EFAMA, the Investment Association and Schroders called for the Commission to scrap the additional limitations on Article 8 products, while 2° Investing Initiative suggested that the sustainability preferences definition be amended to include an additional category of financial instrument.It defined this as “a financial instrument that “has as its objective to positively impact the environment and society through a specific and measurable contribution of the investor”.The PRI, meanwhile, suggested scrapping the attempt to define a client’s sustainability preferences in relation to fund categories and to instead adopt a broader definition.It recommended the following: Sustainability preferences means a client’s or potential client’s choice as whether, to what extent and how sustainability-related investment objectives should be reflected into his or her investment strategy.Looking for IPE’s latest magazine? Read the digital edition here.