The United States Government (USG) public-private partnership “Accelerating COVID-19 Treatment Interventions and Vaccines” (ACTIV) was launched to identify safe, effective therapeutics to treat patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and prevent hospitalization, progression of disease, and death. Eleven original master protocols were developed by ACTIV, and thirty-seven therapeutic agents entered evaluation for treatment benefit. Challenges encountered during trial implementation led to innovations enabling initiation and enrollment of over 26,000 participants in the trials. While only two ACTIV trials continue to enroll, the recommendations here reflect information from all the trials as of May 2023. We review clinical trial implementation challenges and corresponding lessons learned to inform future therapeutic clinical trials implemented in response to a public health emergency and the conduct of complex clinical trials during “peacetime,” as well.

While the increase of women in elected office has received much scholarly attention, less attention has been paid to the dynamics of resisting gender quotas in countries that fail to adopt such measures despite regional and international pressure. We develop a context-sensitive typology of affirmative action measures that includes gender quotas and funding incentives and explore determinants of electoral candidates’ positioning in the context of Zambia. Using a sequential mixed-methods approach and unique data, we examine how candidates of different gender, party affiliation, and level of electoral success position themselves when asked to choose between different options. Intriguingly, electoral success and party allegiance – whether a candidate is affiliated with a current or former government party – are more important than gender. This finding is relevant for the debate on feminist democratic representation by showing that candidates are likely to have their more radical views muted when getting into position.

We examine whether intra-EU migration affects welfare chauvinistic attitudes, i.e. the idea that immigrants’ access to the welfare system should be restricted. According to the in-group/out-group theory, migration can unleash feelings of insecurity and thus trigger welfare chauvinism. According to intergroup contact theory, welfare chauvinism should decrease when immigration is higher, because contact reduces prejudice and softens anti-immigrant stances. We test these theories using data from the European Social Survey 2008/2009, supplemented with country-level data, and analyse these data using a multilevel ordered logit approach. We find a negative relation between intra-EU immigration and welfare chauvinism, supporting the intergroup contact theory: in countries with more intra-EU migration, welfare chauvinism tends to be lower. Furthermore, the higher the percentage of East European immigrants compared to other EU immigrants, the higher the level of welfare chauvinism.