The Stanley Foundation Bipolar Network (SFBN) is an international, multisite network investigating the characteristics and course of bipolar disorder. Methods (history, ratings and longitudinal follow-up) are standardized and equally applied in all 7 centres. This article describes demographics and illness characteristics of the first 152 German patients enrolled in the SFBN as well as the results of 2.5 years of follow-up. Patients in Germany were usually enrolled after hospitalisation. More than 72% of the study population suffered from bipolar I disorder and 25% from bipolar II disorder. The mean ± SD age of the study participants was 42.08 ± 13.5 years, and the mean ± SD age of onset 24.44 ± 10.9 years. More than 40% of the sample reported a rapid-cycling course in history, and even more a cycle acceleration over time. 37% attempted suicide at least once. 36% had an additional Axis I disorder, with alcohol abuse being the most common one, followed by anxiety disorders. During the follow-up period, only 27% remained stable, 56% had a recurrence, 12.8% perceived subsyndromal symptoms despite treatment and regular visits. 27% suffered from a rapid-cycling course during the follow-up period. Recurrences were significantly associated with bipolar I disorder, an additional comorbid Axis I disorder, rapid cycling in history, a higher number of mood stabilizers and the long-term use of typical antipsychotics. Rapid cycling during follow-up was only associated with a rapid-cycling course in history, a higher number of mood stabilizers and at least one suicide attempt in history.

Climate engineering (CE) is often said to bring about significant opportunities as well as risks. The pursuit of CE measures can be framed as either responsible or irresponsible, resulting in contentious and ambiguous communication. This article starts out from a notion of responsibility regarding subjects, objects, norms, and authorities. It will identify and analyze discursive patterns of responsibility across six expert arenas and provide a comparative mapping of these patterns. Better understanding controversy may help in finding common ground for designing research and policy strategies around CE. Taking on the challenges of communicating CE-related responsibilities would support CE governance.

Background. At the 2015 Paris Agreement to limit global warming to a maximum of 2 degrees, climate activists and researchers began to look for alternative measures. Climate engineering (CE) - the deliberate manipulation of the planetary environment to decelerate climate change - emerges as a possibly effective, albeit risky and conflictual, option. Aim. This article aims both at simulating a plausible international scenario of negotiation over solar climate engineering deployment, and at utilizing the rules of Model United Nations (MUN) for collaborative learning in a university class. Furthermore, the article intends to provide a framework for simulations about CE that could easily be reproduced. Method. MUN is an established and well-tested foundation for a simulation with students, including preparation leading up to the simulation and feedback rounds afterwards. We repeated the simulation three times, recorded the sessions as well as the debriefings, and gathered interesting insight by comparing the results. Result. For our CE simulations, we discovered: 1. Divergent interests (e.g. global north vs global south). 2. Power struggle (e.g. role of the veto powers). 3. Scientific and political ignorance (e.g. decision-making under uncertainty). 4. Risk politics (e.g. trade-offs between climate change risks vs. CE risks). Conclusion. MUN qualifies well for simulating a CE crisis. However, known lacks in MUN settings (like underrepresentation of non-state actors) must be discussed during the debriefing. These simulations illustrate possible future conflicts over CE without being prescriptive in any way.

The interdisciplinary exchange in climate engineering research offers a unique opportunity to make assumptions more explicit for such research projects. While making assumptions explicit is the standard in all disciplinary sciences, some assumptions in the context of societal challenges can only be usefully unveiled, discussed, and verified from the perspective of other research disciplines. Results from successful interdisciplinary collaborations are then more accessible and more generalizable to actors beyond the confines of the academic community. We aim to illustrate how interdisciplinary exchange helps to unveil assumptions in research endeavors and why this is important for successful interdisciplinary collaborations. We therefore follow different stages of the German Priority Program on Climate Engineering (SPP 1689), which we use as an example case of a successful interdisciplinary project. SPP 1689 focused on risks, challenges, and opportunities of Climate Engineering from the perspectives of numerous disciplines. Major results were that the initial assessments of technologies had to be sobered, the consideration of trade-offs is crucial for the potential assessment, and governance issues appeared larger than previously considered. From the reflections of SPP 1689, we conclude with three lessons learned: (1) The project profited from egalitarian organizational structures and communicative practices, preventing the predominance from single disciplines. (2) Within the project continuous efforts were undertaken to foster interdisciplinary understanding. In addition, the flexible project structure allowed for the accommodation of research needs arising as a result of these exchanges. (3) SPP 1689 offered early career researchers a platform for professional exchange on common challenges and best practices of being a part of an interdisciplinary research project.