Both gross and tragic. The 1980 Bank Robbery in Central Nyack that was medically managed at the Nyack Hospital where I responded to the ONLY Code 66 of my career. That "66"indicated for us an external disaster about to unload in our emergency room. The two policemen who were mortally injured and died on our stretchers were personal friends and one the boyfriend of one of the nurses. Their injuries were from machine guns where the flesh is riddled with explosive elements as opposed to a gunshot wounds where there is both an entry and exit site. In our Trauma and Triage Course we never learned about machine gun injuries. Additionally there were the criminals who were also injured and of course we needed to treat them as any other patient regardless of their behavior. The friends of the injured policemen were trying to get to these villains and it was just the most awful evening of my life. To this day I remember feeling nauseous in a way I had never felt before. We had debriefing sessions for weeks and of course were very upset for months. The wounds we had to address, the insertion of chest tubes and everything else all in such a rapid manner was indeed a more than gross situation. There was even open heart massage. Private doctors reported to help; many are not trained or current in emergency medicine; much is left to critical care nurses in a community hospital that is not a teaching institution with residents and interns on staff. Recently one of the women involved in this crime came up for parole. Of course there was great opposition from the community relative to her release. She was young and that was 38 years ago. I believe people deserve a second chance, but of course this is a very controversial matter. Who were those placed on stretchers? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - not enough information - Two policemen who later died - Private doctors - The nurses
Two policemen who later died

There is no hiding from the impact agenda. The impact weighting of the Research Excellence Framework has been increased for 2021, and more recently the UK Government announced a new funding stream for knowledge exchange. But achieving impact isn't easy, especially for researchers early in their careers. If you ever have a spare week, or ten, it's worth reading through some of the 6,637 REF impact case studies on the HEFCE website. There are some brilliant and fascinating examples of how researchers have achieved impact, but what strikes me most is how different impact looks across different subjects. At the risk of being flippant, among many of the medical or technological examples there is a familiar pattern and a clear route to impact: make breakthrough; license drug/technology; save lives/millions. For social and political science (not to mention economics, languages, education, philosophy, etc.) the route to impact is much more fragmented. Among the 97 sociology case studies, for example, impact comes from numerous briefings of government officials and parliamentarians, before the academics join "networks" and "committees" discussing their research and wider issues. Their research is covered by national media, they meet even more people practitioners or third sector campaigning organisations to pass on their knowledge. And, after all that, and often a good deal more, sometimes there is a policy or practice change that can be pointed to as a direct impact, sometimes not. Central to much of the impact is "access". Prominent and experienced academics are more likely to get on the committees, know the right journalists and government officials, and have links into third sector organisations, etc. I worked with Professor Sir John Curtice, of election night fame, for a number of years. He didn't need much support. I advised and facilitated, but after 30 years in the game he knew Whitehall (and Holyrood) inside and out and they knew him. But many researchers, especially at the start of their careers, don't... When did Professor Sir John Curtice know Whitehall? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - after 30 years - after 4 years - not enough information - after 2 years
after 30 years

North Korea's release of three U.S. citizens may help pave the way for talks between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, but questions remain as to whether those talks will succeed. At the White House on Wednesday, Trump continued to speak cautiously about the coming summit, even while praising the North Korean leader for the prisoner release. "Everything can be scuttled," Trump told reporters. "A lot of things can happen a lot of good things can happen, [and] a lot of bad things can happen." North Korea on Wednesday granted amnesty to three Americans of Korean descent. They had been accused of espionage or trying to overthrow the government, charges widely seen as bogus. Pyongyang has detained at least 16 Americans over the past two decades, often attempting to use them as bargaining chips. All were eventually released, although Otto Warmbier, a 22-year-old college student, died shortly after returning to the United States last year. A White House statement Wednesday praised North Korea's latest prisoner release as a "positive gesture of goodwill" ahead of the Trump-Kim summit, which is expected to take place as soon as next month. South Korea's presidential office said Pyongyang's decision was a "very positive" sign for a successful North Korea-U.S. meeting. The freeing of the prisoners coincided with a visit to Pyongyang by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who declined to say whether the release was a U.S. precondition for holding talks with the North. "I don't know the answer to that," Pompeo told reporters on the flight home. "It would have been more difficult [had the prisoners not been released]. ... I'm glad that we don't have to confront that." It's not clear what, if anything, the U.S. gave up in exchange for the prisoners. It's not even clear a concession was needed, since North Korea has for decades sought the presumed legitimacy provided by a summit with a sitting U.S. president. after the story ends does Pyongyang take more prisoners? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - Probably Pyongyang only takes 1 or 2 more prisoners - Probably Pyongyang stops taking prisoners - Probably Pyongyang continues to take many prisoners - not enough information
Probably Pyongyang continues to take many prisoners