5033 research outputs found
Sort by
About Microaggressions
Get PDFProfessor Wheeler discusses the concepts of microaggressions (including micro-assaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations) specifically against LGBT individuals, and proposes some solutions for preventing microaggressions from occurring within one’s organization
The Law of Nations in Global History: An Introduction to the Thought of Charles Henry Alexandrowicz (1902-75)
No full texthttps://scholarship.law.bu.edu/clark_speakers/1011/thumbnail.jp
Money Blinding as a Solution to Industry Influence in Biomedical Science
No full textBlinding is an established method that has become an important tool for reducing bias in biomedical science. It helps to ensure that physicians administering a treatment, patients receiving the treatment, and assessors measuring outcomes do not introduce bias into the study
Foreword
No full textIn common parlance, the “regulatory state” refers to governance through specialized administrative agencies, such as the federal agencies that arose during the progressive era in the United States.1 Lawyering in the regulatory state takes a number of different forms, including the private representation of clients who are either litigating before agencies or facing compliance issues, as well as the public employment of lawyers within the agencies themselves. Both types of regulatory lawyering raise a wide range of unique ethical issues for lawyers and are the subject of the articles in this Fordham colloquium entitled Lawyering in the Regulatory State. These issues arise in the context of federal administrative agencies that we have heard much about, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), lesser-known federal agencies, such as the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR), and the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and a host of state agencies that “affect[] everyday life in countless ways.”2 The authors use a variety of methodologies, including traditional legal analysis, as well as empirical3 and historical4 research. Finally, they focus on such diverse issues as the role of agencies in facilitating access to justice,5 the lawyer’s role as gatekeeper in agency litigation6 and regulatory compliance,7 and the unique role of the in-house lawyer, both private8 and public.9 Taken together, they open a large window on the complex work of many lawyers who are often overlooked in the legal profession’s literature
Markovits on Defining Monopolization: A Comment
Get PDFIn this comment I focus on Richard Markovits’s definition of monopolization in his new book, Economics and the Interpretation and Application of U.S. and E.U. Antitrust Law (Springer 2014), and also his assertion that monopolization is distributively unjust. I agree wholeheartedly with his approach to defining monopolization, though I might alter a few details. However, I think the distributive justice effects of monopolization are ambiguous
Cases and Materials on Discovery Practice in the Federal Courts, 3rd Edition
No full textThis new edition of Cases and Materials on Discovery Practice in the Federal Courts contains detailed analysis of the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as they pertain to discovery. This edition also includes a sampling of the latest cases on proportionality, discovery of social media information, discovery from mobile devices, and the preservation of ESI and the imposition of sanctions under new Rule 37(e). *** Discovery is the voluntary exchange of information between the parties during the course of litigation. It is commonly accepted now, but it is not an ancient practice by any means. Rather, it is only since 1938, with the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that there has been liberal discovery in the federal courts. Prior to that time, discovery in the federal courts was severely limited, and, even as the federal rules were being drafted in the mid-1930s, many members of the bench and bar very much wanted to keep it that way. They feared (perhaps rightly) that any liberalization of discovery would result in the proliferation of the much dreaded fishing expedition, where a party was permitted to poke around willy-nilly in the opposing party\u27s files. Indeed, the fishing expedition bugaboo had haunted the profession for generations, effectively preventing any loosening of the restrictions on discovery. The problem, however, for the anti- fishing expedition crowd at least, was that the structure of the new rules almost mandated liberal discovery. It was a major goal of the rules\u27 drafters to shift the pleadings phase of the litigation away from the establishment of facts and the narrowing of issues (as had been the purposes of the pleadings at common law) toward the simple provision of notice of the parties\u27 claims and defenses. This shift had profound ramifications. As the new rules restricted the pleadings to the narrow role of providing notice, there arose the need for another mechanism to facilitate factual development and narrowing of issues. The mechanism the drafters chose was liberal discovery, and it was to be controlled by Rules 26-37.https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/books/1327/thumbnail.jp
Anonymization and Risk
Get PDFPerfect anonymization of data sets that contain personal information has failed. But the process of protecting data subjects in shared information remains integral to privacy practice and policy. While the deidentification debate has been vigorous and productive, there is no clear direction for policy. As a result, the law has been slow to adapt a holistic approach to protecting data subjects when data sets are released to others. Currently, the law is focused on whether an individual can be identified within a given set. We argue that the best way to move data release policy past the alleged failures of anonymization is to focus on the process of minimizing risk of reidentification and sensitive attribute disclosure, not preventing harm. Process-based data release policy, which resembles the law of data security, will help us move past the limitations of focusing on whether data sets have been “anonymized.” It draws upon different tactics to protect the privacy of data subjects, including accurate deidentification rhetoric, contracts prohibiting reidentification and sensitive attribute disclosure, data enclaves, and query-based strategies to match required protections with the level of risk. By focusing on process, data release policy can better balance privacy and utility where nearly all data exchanges carry some risk
Technological Breakthroughs, Entry, and the Direction of Scientific Progress: Evidence from CRISPR/Cas9
No full textUnderstanding the direction of technical progress is a central issue for the study of innovation. In this paper, I examine how the introduction of a breakthrough research tool affects the trajectory of a scientific field through new entry and project selection. Specifically, I examine the impact of the genome editing system CRISPR/Cas9 (CRISPR), called the biggest game changer to hit biology since PCR (Ledford 2015). Introduced in 2012, CRISPR/Cas9 enables precise DNA editing and carries the potential to develop everything from blight resistant crops to targeted genetic drug therapies. Although biologically CRISPR/Cas9 provides more benefits to researchers working on mammalian organisms than to researchers working on bacterial organisms. I hypothesize that its impact on the direction of genetic engineering research depends on its relative value across animal models. To investigate CRISPR/Cas9\u27s impact, I use two novel datasets on genetic engineering research histories. The first comes from the biological resource center, Addgene, that identifies researcher experimentation with CRISPR/Cas9. The second uses publication histories for academics that eventually adopt CRISPR/Cas9. The Addgene data demonstrate that the introduction of CRISPR/Cas9 corresponded to an immediate increase in experiments with mammalian organisms relative to bacterial organisms. The publication data demonstrate that the shift towards mammalian genetic engineering research results neither (a) from an increase in the productivity of researchers who had previously worked on mammalian models nor (b) from incumbent bacterial authors switching their focus to mammalian research after the discovery. Instead, the data suggest that the shift towards mammalian genetic engineering research results from entry, i.e., from new authors attracted to the field. Given strong qualitative evidence that CRISPR/Cas9 increased mammalian researcher productivity, the lack of empirical support is surprising. Since CRISPR/Cas9 is recent, more data is needed before it is possible to see delayed effects. The paper lays the groundwork for subsequent research on the effect of new innovations on the rate and direction of scientific progress in this new and rapidly changing setting
Africa\u27s New Economic Partnerships and Dispute Settlement
Get PDFThis panel was convened at 11:00 a.m., Thursday, March 31, 2016, by its moderator Uche Ewelukwa of the University of Arkansas School of Law, who introduced the panelists: Victoria Shannon Sahani of Washington and Lee University School of Law; David H. Shinn of George Washington University School of Law; and Thomas R. Snider of Greenberg Traurig LLP