Search results

As the 1960s drew to a close, Congress found itself grappling with an increasing array of complex technological issues that it was ill equipped to analyze and that could be the cause of costly blunders if acted upon incorrectly. To alleviate this situation, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was created in 1972 under Public Law 92–484 in order to advise Congress on issues in science and technology so that relevant information would be available when pertinent legislation was being developed. Under the leadership of its director John Gibbons, OTA has earned the distinction of providing Congress, that most political of bodies, with timely and objective information without becoming mired in political skirmishes. Despite this distinction, OTA is one of the smallest government agencies, with a budget of twenty million dollars and a staff of 140. Its organization is remarkable for its simplicity. A bipartisan congressional Technology Assessment Board governs the agency overall but appoints the director who has full responsibility for running it. The nine agency divisions are organized according to scientific disciplines and report to the director with little or no intervening bureaucracy. Outside expert advice is available from the Technology Assessment Advisory Council. The result is an organization that is equally balanced politically and scientifically, that is streamlined and efficient, and that allows input from its governing members. This structure also allows great flexibility in the research and production of assessment reports. To do an assessment, OTA deploys its experts to go out and gather the information needed on the wide‐ranging topics it has been commissioned to research. The topics are chosen according to the need and interest of both houses and both political parties. Outside experts are sometimes called upon to do research but OTA exercises the final responsibility over their reports. Factual conclusions and options are presented but opinions are never given. The manner in which the information is acted upon is always left to Congress, a major reason for OTA's success.

This study aims to examine how systems for organizing information may present an authorial voice and shows how the mechanism of voice may work to persuasively communicate a point of view on the materials being collected and described by the information system.

The paper synthesizes a conceptual framework from the field of rhetoric and composition and uses that framework to analyze how existing organizational schemes reveal authorial voice.

Through textual analysis, the mechanism of authorial voice is described in three example information systems. In two of the examples, authorial voice is shown to function as a persuasive element by enabling identification, the rhetorical construct defined by the literary critic Kenneth Burke. In one example, voice appears inconsistently and does not work to facilitate persuasion.

This study illustrates the concept of authorial voice in the context of information systems, but it does not claim to comprehensively catalog all potential manifestations of authorial voice.

By analyzing how information systems work as a form of document, we can better understand how information systems communicate to their users, and we can use this understanding to facilitate design.

By creating designs that incorporate an enhanced conceptual grasp of authorial voice and other rhetorical properties of information systems, the construction of information systems that systematically and purposefully communicate original, creative points of view regarding their assembled collections can be facilitated, and so enable learning, discovery, and critical engagement for users.

The authors provide evidence for the effects of social norms on corporate governance risk by studying “sin” stocks publicly traded companies involved in producing alcohol, firearms, biotechnology, gambling, military, nuclear power and tobacco. There is a societal norm against funding operations that promote vice and expropriation by controlling shareholders.

The sample is representative of S&P 500 firms in 2014. The authors use Datastream to obtain a sample of sin stocks. The authors’ descriptive analysis is completed by four variations of the basic ordinary least squares regression model according to dependent variable corporate governance risk score.

The authors find that non-financial incentives alone do not explain corporate governance risk. The authors provide strong empirical support for an alignment of financial and non-financial incentives. The authors show that when sin firm’s current performance is good, suggesting that the market holds a positive belief in firm’s future profitability, managers will likely have more incentive to expropriate shareholders.

Belonging of firm to a sin industry does not reflect the acceptance level of social norms. The evolution of social norms towards sin stocks overcomes the drawback of assuming a constant social norms level over time. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to use the changes in consumption of sin products as a proxy for the evolution of social norms and examine does sin matter in corporate governance issue in other countries.

Well-planned and well-managed philanthropy sin industries to creating education programmes for the disadvantaged to protecting the environment, in the name of corporate social responsibility has become a necessary ingredient in virtually every large corporation’s business plan.

This paper fulfils an identified need to study does sin matter issue in corporate governance issue.

For more than 20 years, genome editing has been one of the numerous technologies developed for the study and manipulation of the genome. However, since the relatively recent appearance of the so-called precision approaches, and especially through the “CRISPR revolution,” the modification of the genome of any living beings on our planet has become possible, despite recent results showing some unexpected and undesirable effects of this technology. The objective of this chapter is to illustrate how a mobilization of the scientific community through the setting-up of an association should allow a responsible and ethical use of these technologies with considerable impacts for our society.

This chapter explores the rise in genetic approaches to health disparities at the turn of the twenty-first century.

Analysis of public health policies, genome project records, ethnography of project leaders and leading genetic epidemiologists, and news coverage of international projects demonstrates how the study of health disparities and genetic causes of health simultaneously took hold just as the new field of genomics and matters of racial inequality became a global priority for biomedical science and public health.

As the U.S. federal government created policies to implement racial inclusion standards, international genome projects seized the study race, and diseases that exhibit disparities by race. Genomic leaders made health disparities research a central feature of their science. However, recent attempts to move toward analysis of gene-environment interactions in health and disease have proven insufficient in addressing sociological contributors to health disparities. In place of in-depth analyses of environmental causes, pharmacogenomics drugs, diagnostics, and inclusion in sequencing projects have become the frontline solutions to health disparities.

The chapter argues that genetic forms of medicalization and racialization have taken hold over science and public health around the world, thereby engendering a divestment from sociological approaches that do not align with the expansion of genomic science. The chapter thus contributes to critical discussions in the social and health sciences about the fundamental processes of medicalization, racialization, and geneticization in contemporary society.

This chapter proposes an optimized innovative information technology as a means for achieving operational functionalities of real-time portable electronic health records, system interoperability, longitudinal health-risks research cohort and surveillance of adverse events infrastructure, and clinical, genome regions – disease and interventional prevention infrastructure. In application to the Dod-VA (Department of Defense and Veteran's Administration) health information systems, the proposed modernization can be carried out as an “add-on” expansion (estimated at $288 million in constant dollars) or as a “stand-alone” innovative information technology system (estimated at $489.7 million), and either solution will prototype an infrastructure for nation-wide health information systems interoperability, portable real-time electronic health records (EHRs), adverse events surveillance, and interventional prevention based on targeted single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) discovery.

The chapter analyses the re-emergence of gene editing as an object of policy attention at the European Union (EU) level. Editing the genome of plants and/or animals has been a rather controversial component of all EU policies on agricultural biotechnology since the late 1980s. The chapter examines in detail the various initiatives that have been assumed for the regulation of gene editing at the EU level. Since the first political and legislative attempts, the field has been revolutionized with the development of the CRISPR-Cas9 system, which is comparatively much easier to design, produce, and use. Beyond the pure, safety-driven scientific questions, gene editing, in its contemporary form, raises a series of ethical and regulatory questions that are discussed in the context of the legal options and competences of the EU legislators. Special attention is paid to questions about the legal status of gene editing in Europe and the adequacy of the current GMO framework to deal with all the challenges associated with the latest scientific developments in the field of gene editing with a special focus on gene drive. Given the ongoing discussions regarding the ethical tenets of gene editing, the chapter investigates the question on whether there is a need to shape an EU-wide “intervention” that will address the complex and dynamic socio-ethical challenges of gene editing and puts forward a series of proposals for the framing of an inclusive framework that will be based on the need to re-enforce public trust in the EU governance of emerging technologies.

Discusses the Human Genome Project, which aims to map the structure and function of approximately 100,000 genes in the human body. Describes some of the ethical and legal problems of genomic research, pointing out that such research presents both promise and problems and that it must be conducted according to well‐defined, rational rules if human rights are to be protected. Calls for a multidisciplinary involvement, both nationally and internationally, in the establishment of the necessary laws; and exhorts Australia and New Zealand, which have hitherto remained largely uninvolved, to make a larger contribution both towards the debate and towards funding for the project.

In February this year the sequence of the human genome was published, opening a new chapter in medicine. Soon genetic testing will be at the heart of diagnosis, epidemiology, drug development and even regenerative medicine. Before we are born there will be new opportunities to remedy genetic defects, and afterwards to make almost lifelong prognoses. The debate will intensify on the use of human embryos in medical research, while the prospect of human cloning will fascinate some scientists and horrify others. Europe needs to be in the vanguard of this new industrial revolution, but a host of ethical concerns must first be addressed – because genomics is as much about privacy as Petri dishes.