Toronto Adjustable Dining Table

Martha Nussbaum, democracy and the need for humanistic education. Health


Giovedì scorso, 16 dicembre 2010, ospitata dalla British Academy a Londra, Martha Nussbaum ha fatto una delle sue rare apparizioni in suolo britannico per spiegare a un pubblico ristretto (circa 100 persone) ma non strettamente accademico (la conferenza era infatti aperta alla cittadinanza, anche se il numero di posti limitato ha fatto sì che bisognasse prenotarsi con molto anticipo) perché la democrazia necessiti le materie umanistiche per ottenere una formazione completa, e giusta, di cittadini che abbiano sviluppato anche una capacità critica autonoma.

In un momento di forti tagli alla cultura, e in particolare, appunto, alle arti, la letteratura, la filosofia, le lingue etc, la Nussbaum ( professoressa di Etica e Legge all'Università di Chicago ) ha invece sottolineato come sia fondamentale che l'educazione dei cittadini, in una democrazia, passi attraverso le materie umanistiche, partendo dalle scuole elementari fino ad arrivare ai corsi universitari.
Martha Nussbaum non ha risparmiato critiche né alla politica statunitense (citando un discorso di Obama del marzo 2009 in cui il Presidente degli Stati Uniti elogiava Cina e Singapore per avere privilegiato ed investito nell'educazione delle "materie che contano" per sviluppare una prospera economia, alludendo a quelle tecniche-scientifiche, a discapito di quelle che "non contano", alludendo a quelle umanistiche) né in the UK, where student protests for the removal of the cap on university fees have covered the front pages of newspapers in recent weeks, and where the humanities seem to be just the first that, literally, will suffer the costs. In particular, Nussbaum has criticized the proposal for a "Research Excellence Framework " (REF), the new system for measuring the quality of university research in the UK, examining the materials mainly based on the impact that these have the country's economic growth. Drawing on John Stuart Mill, Nussbaum called the REF as "the ultimate assault on the humanist values \u200b\u200band an insidious threat to the rich idea of \u200b\u200blearning" put forth by Mill.

For those interested in learning more, here are two options:
1) buy the last book of Nussbaum, which is titled: "Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities" , published by Princeton University Press ;

or 2) listen to the whole action of Nussbaum, preceded by brief introduction by Gilliam Beer, Professor, University of Cambridge, downloadable by clicking here . Unfortunately
"drinks reception" following the intervention of Nussbaum is not included, or can be downloaded in either of two packages ...

Cookware Store Paris Staub

world: a "coffee machine" to quickly diagnose TB


TB, or tuberculosis, is an infectious disease caused by mycobacteria, including Mycobacterium tuberculosis, also known as "Koch's bacteria" because it was isolated and described by Robert Koch in 1882. According to data from the WHO (World Health Organization), a third of the world population is infected.
mortality and morbidity statistics in 2004 showed 14.6 million active cases, 8.9 million new cases and 1.6 million deaths, mostly in developing countries. Many infections remain latent and asymptomatic, but about one in ten
disease becomes active, if untreated, kills more than half of the people.
In 1946, with the development of the antibiotic streptomycin, si cominciò a pensare che l'eradicazione della malattia fosse possibile, ma speranza che la malattia potesse essere definitivamente sconfitta è venuta meno con l'insorgenza di ceppi resistenti agli antibiotici negli anni ottanta.
Attualmente dati dell'OMS mostrano che il trattamento standard non è efficace nel 20 % circa dei casi, mentre il 2 % dei ceppi resistenti agli antibiotici standard è resistente anche ai farmaci di seconda linea.
Nei paesi in via di sviluppo una diagnosi precoce equivale spesso a salvare una vita. Ora una specie di "coffee machine" dà la possibilità di diagnosticare la tubercolosi in circa 100 minuti anziché in 30-90 giorni. Si tratta di un test molecolare inserito in un "piattaforma diagnostica" capable of supporting several types of tests on different diseases.
Diagnosis is achieved in one hour and 45 minutes, starting from the sputum of the patient, and is completely automotizzata. Simply insert a cartridge pre-packaged with a saliva sample of the patient in the door of the machine. The operator only needs to know how to turn on the computer and the test can also be made for one case.
The ease of diagnosis is a big advantage because the machine can also be used in centers without specialized technicians, for example, just in developing countries.
In the future, the platform can also be used for other texts, such as malaria and HIV. The cost of the machine is $ 17,000, while each cartridge, and in the West now costs € 50, will cost for developing countries with low or medium $ 16.86, with plans to reach $ 10 within three years, according to WHO.
The machine is the result of a public-private collaborazone see also Italy among the leaders. In fact it is the product of a U.S. company (Genexpert), the department "Stop TB" WHO, directed by Italian Mario Raviglione, and "find", the "Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics, chaired by the Italian Giorgio Roscigno .

Get Licence Canada Adault Film

How much to save a smoker?

Following a study conducted by the IEO (European Institute of Oncology) in a large sample of heavy smokers, Umberto Veronesi announced today (November 25, 2010) that spiral CT can detect lung cancer in the very early stages and, therefore, operable with excellent prospects in terms of prognosis for the patient (http://www.repubblica.it/ salute/medicina/2010/11/25/news/tumori_polmone_tac_spirale_dimezza_mortalit-9501468 /? ref = HRER2-1)
Along with the scientific result, Veronesi has announced its intention to propose that both the NHS to pay for these (rather expensive) early screening campaigns, as is the case for the PAP test (ovarian cancer) and mammograms (breast cancer).
Beyond the affordability of such an interesting initiative, two ethical issues they pose to our attention.
1) Due to the stakeholders of smokers, would be reasonable that it should be society as a whole to bear the burden for a diagnostic risk factor that the subjects could easily be avoided?
2) The PAP smears and mammograms do not distinguish between those most at risk and those less exposed to the possibility of contracting ovarian cancer and / or breast cancer. The reason that spiral CT should instead be carried out only in inveterate smokers is that this diagnostic test is very expensive. The cost of access to a medical practice, however, is not a good moral argument for excluding non-smokers from the possible benefits of a screening that could save his life. Unless it is proven that the risk of contracting lung cancer for nonsmokers is insignificant, it seems legitimate to non-smokers take up the spiral CT scan itself free (perhaps less frequently than smokers). After all limit the diagnostic service for smokers seems to be rewarding irresponsible behavior and punish (through taxation and spending may be supported in its) citizens who choose to abstain from risky behavior is known.
These two questions arise, as often happens, the encounter between the daily demands of care and the most advanced medical technologies. I hope that readers of this blog will intervene and say their subject.

Ice Arena Hull Opening Times

The European Union and the right to be forgotten


The European Commission has prepared a new draft document to regulate the protection of personal data. Viviane Rein, a member of the EU Commission for Justice, said that "The protection of personal data is a fundamental right" and that it is necessary to develop measures to protect the privacy updated in the light of new information technologies. In particular, the draft specifically mentions a "right to be forgotten" when personal data are no longer needed, or when the person wants to be deleted.

Anders Sandberg Oxford University commented on the news blog "Practical Ethics" (Http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2010/11/retaining-privacy-the-eu-commission-and-the-right-to-be-forgotten.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed% 3A PracticalEthics 28Practical + +% + Ethics% 29) and an ironic note caveaut of the draft EU: The committee wants to implement a right to control personal information, but on the other side has also developed a directive requiring that the information storage personal.


should also be noted that some important domains of privacy protection are likely to be excluded from the EU directive, for example, under the agreement SWIFT (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,, 4952263.00. html) personal financial information can be exported to U.S. demands to the authorities, in order to prevent terrorist attacks. As Sandberg says, so it is very unlikely that the U.S. authorities will respect the EU directive concerning the "right to be forgotten."

I am reminded about a great movie and book, titled "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338013/) by Michel Gondry, 2004, translated in horribly Italian with the title: "If Spotless Mind." In the movie, Clementine (Kate Winslet) and Joel (Jim Carrey), a couple in crisis, decided to enlist the services of a company to cancel each other's memories altrui, e provare a iniziare una nuova vita partendo da una tabula rasa, senza il peso di ricordi malinconici.
Se, come sembra, non sarà così facile implementare il diritto ad essere dimenticati, si possono sempre immaginare vari modi a cui ricorrere per implementare il diritto a dimenticare.

What Is The Possible Resultsof A Dime

The scientific debate in light of the profit ethic


Riflettendo sul disappunto del prelato Ignacio Carrasco De Paula rivolto ai saggi del Karolinska per l’assegnazione del Nobel per la Medicina al padre dell’inseminazione artificiale, Robert Edwards, colpevole di aver introdotto il mercato degli ovociti e causato il congelamento di numerosi embrioni che hanno un’altra probabilità di trovare la morte nell’ecobox, non posso fare a meno di domandarmi quale sia il principio bioetico a cui si riferisce il pensiero cattolico.
Ragionando sulle posizioni della Chiesa in relazione alle tematiche bioetiche mi sono resa conto che non tutti gli interventi artificiali dell’uomo sulla vita sono da essa avversati.
Basti pensare all’espianto d’organi, che è procedura difesa dalla Chiesa in quanto utile a salvare vite. Chi subisce espianto è biologicamente ancora vivo, in quanto, affinchè gli organi possano funzionare nel nuovo corpo non deve essere iniziato nessun processo di necrosi e la fine naturale, in questo caso, sarebbe attendere che la morte cerebrale avanzi fino a comportare l’arresto cardiaco e l’inizio della necrosi cellulare in all organs.
addition, the donor is a person that size, compared to an embryo, has its own meaning as it has for the biographical and with a social role, with his death, you stop and leave a vacuum that is much larger than may result in an embryo's life. However
for Catholic thought no objection: it is acceptable to manipulate human life to give organs to someone else, that God has previously proposed to the disease and possibly death, as we must use all the tools of medicine to prolong life to the bitter end the meaning is not only growing and biographical, but it is not acceptable to use all the tools available to the science give birth to new healthy lives, which are not the result of the death of someone else and fill with joy the life of those who grow.
Moreover, if science were to act in compliance with the natural processes in their totality, could not help but stop to work, because the natural course of any disease progression until the outcome is unfortunate: the nature created by God proceeds this direction and allow the scientific instruments to act only in certain areas certainly not more ethically justifiable than others is nothing more than a philosophical source of contradictions and confusion of public opinion is very confused in relation to these issues.
The result of this attitude ambivalence of Catholic thought leads to situations of ethical utilitarianism, especially among those who declare themselves practicing Catholics and excoriate the father of fertilization in the wake of the statement of the Holy See, but then when infertility threatens them, do not struggle to take flights to Barcelona with a rosary close at hand to deploy a heterologous fertilization, and to return to Italy, they fill their church candles for the miracle attributed to the Lord by the zeal of the scientists.
The issues discussed do not emphasize that they are likely to be misleading in some direct intervention and regulatory contemporary bioethical debate: the role of religious institutions, in my parere, dovrebbe essere proprio di chiarificazione e di agevolazione del dibattito su queste tematiche a micro livello, dove le persone spesso non hanno gli strumenti per comprendere le argomentazioni scientifiche e riflettere su di esse, senza assumere posizioni rigide o criticare secondo un’etica utilitarista, che porta a salvare quello che serve dopo averlo condannato o a sollevare l’intervento utile da ogni condanna.

Sell Bmw Motorcycle R27

The Importance of Being ...


No, non Ernesto, ma "encefalopatia (o encefalomielite) cronica mialgica" (myalgic encephalopathy, CFS-ME) invece di "sindrome da affaticamento cronico (chronic fatique syndrome, CSF).
La settimana scorsa infatti si è riunita all'FDA una Committee to assess whether to change the name of this disease from CSF to CSF-ME, characterized by a variable degree of persistent fatigue and not related to exercise, or relieve by rest, persisting for longer than 6 months. The etiology of the disease is still unknown, although it is believed a cause or concomitant viral infection, the diagnosis itself is difficult and there is no effective cure.
The FDA decision to change the suffix is \u200b\u200bcontroversial, because "ME" denotes inflammation of the brain and spinal cord, whereas in reality there is no strong evidence that links the disease to the nervous system.
However, this decision was dictated in part by the fact that many patients find the nomenclature banal, and partly from the fact that apparently even other bodies, including those responsible for the disbursement of funds for research, share more or less consciously or explicitly that view.
In the words of Susan Levine, a member of the committee responsible for the FDA's decision, "If the name of the disease sounds more scientific, then it is likely that we will receive more money, if that has a name that people think that you only want to take a nap. "
Brutal, but effective, the comment of Levine. The nomenclature matters and how, in science. Counts in applications for grants, counts when it comes to deciding how to allocate financial resources, has therefore also the probability di trovare una cura efficace e ha ripercussioni reali sulla vita delle persone affette.
Questo caso non è unico. Per esempio, mi viene il mente quello delle "cancer stem cells", le cellule staminali del cancro, per cui negli ultimi anni si è assistito letteralmente ad un boom in pubmed del numero di pubblicazioni che riportano dati sulle cancer stem cells in ogni tipo di tumore, anche quando le somiglianza con la loro controparte, le cellule staminali "normali", è a dir poco, lassa.
Per chi fosse interessato, ulteriori informazioni si possono trovano sul blog di Nature intitolato, in onore di Mary Poppins (almeno credo!) "A spoonful of medicine":
http://blogs.nature.com/nm/spoonful/policy/

Share Sales Agreement

Universal access to antiretroviral drugs in Africa? Not yet. New


It 's just released report of the WHO project to ensure universal access to antiretroviral drugs in Africa (Toward Universal Access, http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/2010progressreport/en/index . html). The report shows that the goal of providing universal access to drugs by 2010 has not been achieved, as only one third of HIV positive people in Africa have access to antiretroviral drugs, and only just over 50% of pregnant women HIV positive have access to antiretroviral drugs, which help protect the fetus from the transmission of the virus.
Not all data in the report, however, are negative. In fact, five years ago the number of pregnant women HIV positive che aveva accesso i farmaci era solo del 15 %, per cui c'è stato un salto significativo verso l'obiettivo di eliminare la trasmissione madre-figlio dell'HIV entro il 2015.
Il problema principale mostrato dal report è però il seguente: la maggior parte delle persone sieropositive in Africa in realtà non sa di esserlo. Secondo dati recenti, nell'Africa subsahariana la percentuale di persone che conoscono il proprio status HIV è minore del 40%. Stigma, discriminazione e marginalizzazione sociale continuano ad essere un problema quotidiano per le persone HIV positive, e i programmi di test e counselling non sono spesso adeguati al contesto locale, secondo il report dell'WHO.

Intestinal Blockage And Probiotics

public apology to Clinton for a forerunner of the Tuskegee study


In 1997 it was the then U.S. president, Bill Clinton, having to publicly apologize to the victims of the infamous Tuskegee study, which for over 40 years-from 1932 to about 400 197-2 cotton pickers Alabama infected with syphilis were deliberately left without care then existing, penicillin (dell'apologia The official video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1A-YP24QwA).
With public apology of the President of the United States had arrived too large loans, which had allowed the establishment of the Center for Bioethics of Tuskegee, was officially inaugurated in 1999 (http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/category.asp? C = 35,026).

Now, almost 15 years later, it was for the wife of Bill Clinton and U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton Rhodham, apologize publicly for another trial that looks incredibly to Tuskegee. There is still a name that refers to the study, but they are aware of the injection and repeated the syphilis bacterium in at least 700 people unaware of everything, which took place in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948, when in fact about 700 people, including prisoners, the sick mental and soldiers-those in bioethics today would surely call the categories "vulnerable" - have been infected with syphilis, then to verify the effectiveness of penicillin as a treatment. Unlike the Tuskegee study, in fact, the sick and was given penicillin.

types of modes of infection were: a) infected prostitutes were paid to infect the "clients", b) to other inmates, so obviously the option a) could not be reversed, the bacteria were directly cut played on the genitalia, face or limbs of men, or c) in some cases even a needle puncture.
Apart from the scenario of injection through prostitutes, then it is difficult to think that the poor were being kept without realizing that something strange was happening not!

The experiment was brought to light by Susan M. Reverby, a professor at Wellesley College, che aveva inizialmente presentato le sue ricerche sul caso ad una conferenza lo scorso gennaio, senza però aver ottenuto un'attenzione particolare. Questa è arrivata nel giugno di quest'anno, quando Reverby ha mandato una bozza dell'articolo che stava preparando sul caso per il Journal of Policy History al Dr. David J. Sencer, ex direttore del Centro per il Controllo delle Malattie in US. E' stato quindi il Dr Spencer -apparentemente dotato di più potere politico della professoressa Reverby- a spingere il governo statunitense a iniziare investigazioni più approfondite sul caso.

La professoressa Reverby afferma di essere incappata in alcuni documenti che parlavano del caso in Guatemala all'Università di Pittsburgh già nel 1985. The documents were signed by Dr. Cutler, principal investigator of the study in Guatemala and-feel-feel involved even after the Tuskegee study. The eminent Dr Cutler has continued to defend the scientific value and ethics until his death.

Among the public reactions to Hillary Clinton's apology, it seems interesting to report that Professor Mark Siegler, director of the MacLean Center for Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago, according to the study in Guatemala is much worse than the Tuskegee in the Tuskegee study the men were already infected and he was not given the available treatment, while in the study in Guatemala men were deliberately infected (Remarks of Professor Siegler is located on the New York Times from which I took the information and which can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/health/research/02infect. html? _r = 1 & hp). What is better then
: deliberately infecting men (by various means more or less pleasant, as we saw above) and then treat them (and thus possibly save them), knowingly or not to treat people already infected and socially disadvantaged?

Gastroparesis And Sleeve Gastrectomy

What happened to the polypill? Research on


will first, what is the polypill? As the name implies, concerned more pills in a single pill.
The idea of \u200b\u200bcombining several pills in one is not new. For cardiovascular disease, for example, pills that combine aspirin and atenolol (a beta-blocker) have existed for decades, known as a bit-'-funghesco of "aspololo. In other clinical areas of fixed-dose combinations of multiple drugs are rife, such as combinations of anti-tuberculosis drugs and anti-retroviral HIV / AIDS.
In 2001, two powerful organizations in the field of public health, the Wellcome Trust UK and the World Health Organisation, have been found to discuss the concept of the polypill. This concept, however, did not really foot until 2003, when Wald and Law in the British Medical Journal published an article which coined the term, which has certainly been more successful than its predecessor "aspololo" (Wald NJ, Law MR, A strategy to reduce cardiovascular disease by More Than 80%, BMJ 2003).
In the same article, Wald and Law proposed the term "polypill" to indicate a combination of five pharmacologically active ingredients (aspirin, a statin to lower your cholesterol, three medications to lower blood pressure, more folic acid) that are in use by decades against cardiovascular disease, with the aim of proposing it to all persons over 55 years of age (we're talking about the West, Europe and USA) regardless of the presence of other risk factors. According to Wald and Law, the widespread use of the polypill, alone, independently of changes in lifestyle or other variables, would reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events by 80%.
What happened to the polypill and its great promise in terms of prevention and a substantial redesign of the policy in the field of public health since 2001?
Not much. Or at least, not much until the last couple of years.
In 2009, in fact, an article in the prestigious medical journal Lancet (you can read the informative article that talks about it, published at BBC News online, here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7971456. stm) showed that a clinical trial in India was safe and well tolerated in a large number of subjects. The trial had Indian arruolato infatti 2,053 individui sani, ma accomunati da un fattore di rischio per malattie cardiovascolari, come alta pressione arteriosa o l'essere fumatori di lunga data, e dimostrava che la combinazione dei cinque principi attivi in una sola pillola ha lo stesso effetto di quello esercitato da ogni singolo principio attivo preso separatamente. Tra gli altri effetti dello studio, a parte questa dimostrazione di "proof of principle" (di principio) e della sicurezza della polipillola, sono state determinate anche una riduzione della pressione arteriosa e della colesterolemia.
Un altro studio, sponsorizzato questa volta dall'Imperial College di Londra, sta attualmente reclutando pazienti (non soggetti sani, a differenza del trial indiano). Lo studio clinical phase III, is called "umpire", acrononimo for "Use of a Multidrug Pill In Reducing Cardiovascular Events", and consists of two "arms" (arms): one to deliver to patients the polypill, the other administering the usual drugs taken by adults to decrease cardiovascular risk. Further study details can be found on the blog run by a lovely Susan Boseley on matters of global health in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/sarah-boseley-global-health/2010/may/17/ heart-attack-stroke-prevention) or at the same clinical trial: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01057537?term=umpire&rank=1. Other clinical trials are currently active in Australia and New Zealand.
A breve termine quindi sapremo i risultati di questi studi di fase III, che se positivi come le aspettative fanno credere, potrebbero quindi preludere all'immissione della polipillola sul mercato. Alcune voci restano però scettiche, come per esempio quella di Mike Rich, della Associazione per la Pressione Arteriosa Britannica, secondo cui è meglio mangiare sano e fare esercizio fisico (modi dimostrati per diminuire la pressione arteriosa e non solo, visto che conferiscono anche molti altri benefici per la salute) invece che prendere una semplice pillola, come se fosse una panacea a tutti i nostri mali o a errati stili di vita.
E voi, che ne pensate? se fosse disponibile sul mercato, preferireste prendere una polipillola tutte le mattine a breakfast, or get an hour a day of sweating in the gym, paying attention to diet? Or both? and this argument may be valid in the countries in the developing world?

Having Shingles My Legs Hurt

hES può continuare, per ora: un ulteriore episodo della saga


Thursday, September 9, 2010 the Court of Appeals in Washington DC ruled that the funds for human embryonic stem cells (hES) can continue to be paid for the time being, while the court meets to assess the judge's ruling that Lambert August 23, 2010 had banned the issue of federal funding (NIH then) to fund research on hES.
This latest ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals adds another element to the history of the seemingly endless federal funds research on hES (see previous posts on this very blog). This piece, however, will not be the last to be added, since it is only a temporary decision that gives time for Congress to consider legislation that would ban issued by Lamberth unconstitutional.
In Case of Appeal issued on September 9, the courts have given both parties until September 20 to bring new arguments in support of their case. A
When updating so ...

Sticky Elasticy Discharge A Sign Of Menstruation?

Il veto ai fondi federali US per la ricerca sulle cellule staminali embrionali: la storia infinita?


As you may recall, one of Obama's first moves was to be president-after promise to close Guantanamo, remove the veto provision of federal public funds (the National Institutes of Health, NIH, then) to research on human embryonic stem cells (hES) that had been laid by his predecessor George Bush. That was March 6, 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7929690.stm) and put an end to a veto that had lasted more than eight years, just from that in August 9, 2001 that George Bush had forbidden federal funds-tax dollars of Americans ", as he had placed the former president, went to fund research considered unethical (research on human embryonic stem cells is still possible with private funds in U.S. or on cell lines already exist).

terminating, or should we say, seemed to put an end to the veto?

In fact, the story is not over, because Monday, August 23, 2010 Federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth has opened a new chapter, issuing a verdict that the funding for research on hES violates a federal law that prevents the use of tax money (the same argument used by Bush and then) to conduct experiments that destroy human embryos (http : / / www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/23/AR2010082303448.html?wpisrc=nl_politics). In its decision 15 pages long (which can be read entirely here: https: / / ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov) Judge Lamberth in his opinion cites a law "unambiguous" (unambiguous) enacted by Congress in 1996, and called Amenda Dickey-Wicker, that it is forbidden to bestow federal funds to fund research that will be "destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death embryos."

As you probably already guessed, is not it evident that the implication of this amendment has the veto to research on hES. In fact, as concluded in 1999, the lawyer Harriet S. Rabb, it can be argued that the NIH support research on hES does not violate the amendment, if the funds are used only for experiments on cell lines derived from embryos, and not specifically to create embryos for research. The line of thought
Advocate Rabb is similar to those used in arguments bioetica per cui è lecito (inteso come eticamente giustificabile) fare ricerca sugli embrioni umani sovrannumerari da pratiche di fecondazione assistita, per esempio (perché, detto un po' semplicemente, tali embrioni sarebbero comunque destinati a rimanere in un congelatore senza la possibilità di svilupparsi in un feto), mentre non è lecito creare appositamente embrioni destinati solo alla ricerca scientifica, andando a distruggere quindi consapevolmente la loro potenzialità.

Tale linea di pensiero può essere assimilata anche a quegli argomenti usati da parte di esponenti cristiano protestanti (come la Chiesa valdese in Italia, per fare un esempio vicino a noi), secondo cui è lecito fare ricerca su linee cellulari of existing hES, because evil (the destruction of the embryo) has already been done, and recurrence of evil (to do research on hES) must be balanced against the benefits to human health which could be obtained from the research on hES.
the contrary, the Catholic view is more extreme with regard to the recurrence of evil, and there is no assessment of the benefits that can compensate for such action.

So, in short, the arguments for and against the research on hES vary but always include the same ones that turn and turn over. Judge Lamberth was not particularly original, and its decision can be challenged with their own arguments similar to those used by Rabb in 1999, and with arguments that take into account the risks or benefits, or more.

But the point is another: we want to really think this is still the level of debate on bioethics in hES? We are not yet tired of sharpening always the same, and more and more worn, weapons?

Apparently, the sad answer is no, we did not (or rather, who has, as Judge Lamberth did not) still tired. Expect to see then the next, inevitable chapter in history. For now, the NIH had no immediate comment on the ruling.

(A little side note: if we were in Italy, I suspect that there is some 'bad faith to take Decisions of this kind ever in August-the veto Bush in August 2001, the decision of Judge Lamberth in August 2010 - when everyone is on holiday and the decision more easily pass unnoticed.

But in the U.S. work in August, and I who are nasty! or not?

Property Value Predictions

La povertà infantile può avere effetti dannosi sul cervello?


Studies currently emerging in the U.S. are showing that grow in a low-income family can have a direct impact on the organization and function of the brain. Were in fact observed in children raised in poor families, some difficulties in the formation of memories and attention, hypersensitivity to stress, and problems in the approach to gratification. It seems, however, that education heartfelt affection of parents to counter many of the negative effects of poverty of the family.
In a recent research project, Martha Farah and colleagues from the University of Pennsylvania (http://www.neuroethics.upenn.edu/) found that pupils of a kindergarten from low-income households, as compared to children of middle and upper classes, functions in impoverished parts of the brain involved in reading activities, language and "executive control." Executive control includes skills such as working memory (eg. Remember a number of phone dials properly after some time) and the ability to suppress impulsive behavior (eg. responding to a challenge calmly and verbally, rather than lash out in anger against the other party).
To avoid prejudices of race, the group of Prof. Farah examined only African-American children from poor families and middle class, and one of the conclusions was that some of the major difficulties found in children with economic problems, such example, difficulties in concentration, seem to have a strong environmental component. In the long run, the inability to manage the distraction could cause further and deeper problems. The value of physical and mental health, education ricevuta e della capacità di focalizzare l’attenzione è oggi fondamentale nella nostra società, e la concentrazione e le abilità linguistiche sono necessarie per poter avere successo.
La povertà infantile può anche avere effetti duraturi sul cervello.
In un altro recente studio condotto dal ricercatore Peter Gianaros, dell'Università di Pittsburgh (pmbcii.psy.cmu.edu/) è emerso che gli studenti dei primi due anni di università provenienti da famiglie di basso livello nella scala socio-economica sono più propensi ad avere forti reazioni emotive guardando fotografie di volti minacciosi rispetto a studenti provenienti da famiglie ricche.
Il compito è stato eseguito in concomitanza con l’analisi brain of the subjects, performed with a scanner for functional magnetic resonance imaging, to identify parts of the brain most active during the experiment. Well, students from low socio-economic status showed increased activity in the amygdala, the part of the brain that processes the more negative emotions and stress. In a second study, the team of Dr. Gianaros found that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds have less brain tissue in the anterior cingulate cortex, one of the frontal regions of the brain that controls emotional impulses.
Of course, experience shows that even in very poor families, some children are much more resistant than others (also state that studies conducted by Dr. and Dr. Mezzacappa. John Buckner in Boston): Get better results in school, relate well with their peers and are much less likely to get into trouble.
What researchers now want to prove, however, is that the negative effects of a degraded socio-cultural context may have effects not only on the behavior of children in the short term but also long-term, with important consequences for their brain function. Our brain, in fact, is not fixed, stable, but has enormous plasticity and is constantly evolving, absorbing elements from the environment to a level that always leaves more amazed.

New Jersey,cruisey Parks

Un mondo senza carne?

A note to the article by Louis Bignami Repubblica.it published on July 23, 2010 entitled 'A world without meat: it is said to be "cleaner"'. I apologize for the brevity of my remarks, the result of a more immediate reaction to reading the article that the weighted analysis, which, given its subject matter, would need a much broader articulation of what I can give here.

I was struck by the superficiality of the piece of Bignami on eating meat. In particular, I would like to point out two heavy omissions that seem significant to a certain way of affrontare la questione del vegetarianesimo.

1. L'autore descrive un aspetto molto importante della scelta vegetariana, ossia la sua 'motivazione verde', ignorando completamente l'aspetto morale della scelta vegetariana (esso stesso non facilmente riducibile al solo 'non far soffrire gli animali'). L'autore potrebbe rispondere che l'intento del suo articolo è quello di concentrarsi solo sul primo aspetto ma non sul secondo. Tuttavia uno degli 'argomenti forti' del suo ragionamento pro-carne (o comunque di quello di cui si fa portavoce) è che le popolazioni povere della terra vivono di allevamento di piccole dimensioni e, se tutti diventassimo vegetariani, cosa ne sarebbe di loro? Di cosa vivrebbero, vista la loro già povera diet and their small market? How do you decide who can continue to breed animals (to eat of course, because the idea of \u200b\u200btaking care of animals for any other reason is not even considered), and on what basis? These are moral considerations, that the article is presented as a dilemma, and as such difficult to face, when they should be part of our cultural debate, if not be taught as part of our civic education (and, above all, moral). Not too difficult to make decisions because I do not think a line of argument convincing, especially if these are not decisions taken at the expense of 'simple', namely absolute and absolutist as 'eating the flesh or all or none', which is proving to be rough as short-sighted for the resolution of such sensitive issues. And the author does not save even a vague mention of the so 'all eat less meat', which merely shift the problem if they are not characterized nor 'all' or the 'eat less'. The author seems to me much more interested in the only 'meat' view of the cooking series which launches in the second part of the article.

2. The message is that you can pass a single analysis that shows the permessibilità (moral and social) of a certain choice: the cost-effectiveness. However, this analysis is poor which is part of the environmental problem of eating meat. The considerations the CBA are presented as the only ones to be taken into account, ignoring a very interesting debate about what is necessary, the desirability of such a model of decision making in these areas. Specifically, being a vegetarian can not be reduced to an optional cost-effectiveness, as it is associated with a lifestyle choice, and then wrapped considerations and scruples of a different nature, not easy to reduce nor reducible to mere utilitarian considerations (utilitarian in non-technical sense, since utilitarianism understood as theoretical position about the moral discourse has some internal resources to account certain aspects of personal choices that are not intended directly or indirectly in the quantitative maximization of utility).

final consideration. The reservations that I wanted to express here are logical in nature, even before the ethics seems to me that the article is deficient in terms of argument, more than the moral. I think the kind of 'scientific' that the author Squaderno are so shortsighted as they are harmful, primarily for our democratic coexistence, which draws its lifeblood from the public debate on these issues so delicate, and not the victim of force underestimated when 'science' (be it statistics, chemistry or environmental) it imposes solutions from analysis of data passed off as neutral but implicitly moralizing, thus taking away from the moral discussion of the various actors involved, the only, in my opinion, we should cure ourselves. Since this is a lifestyle, rather than a choice based on raw data, vegetarianism Read more deserves a debate that involves both the experts (scientists with their data and their projections, economists with their studies, geo- politicians) are all the protagonists of these choices with their personal experiences, their readings and their ways of seeing things. In addition, if the issue touches a very sensitive question as thorny as that of the future of the people of third world and Their criticism is vital conditions related to meat consumption directly (their growth) and indirect (the theft of resources that could be allocated to NGOs, which are used to subsidize the food of the rich countries), a satisfactory solution can not be some articulated in terms of a cost / benefit but should be articulated through an imaginative effort to try to imagine situations other than those present in which these persons can meet their needs and develop a lifestyle that requires or less being a vegetarian.

Too often and easily vegetarianism has been accused of elitism, when in fact this has a tremendous impact on the lives of people distant from us, and motivations rooted in the care of his conduct in relation to the other, as well as that of animals and the environment. Being vegetarian is right, among other things, have some scruples to animals, the environment and people affected by our choices about eating meat, and therefore its permissibility can not be reduced to a mere numerical calculation, which can only quantify the pros and cons of a certain status quo, because what we need is to change the way we think, act and live. A change in our way of life must necessarily pass through a more profound and complex than the analysis of some data about the greater efficiency and convenience of the lamb than beef we can offer. An examination of the outcome of which will be not only a decision about whether or not to eat meat, but rather a change in the way of representing the same animal, and morally tolerate the description of living things in terms of efficiency and convenience. The world, or almost entirely, horrified at the thought of speaking in these terms of human beings. Vegetarians are horrified at the thought that this scruple interests and only a part of living beings. And there is no trace of this can be either in the data on the cost-effectiveness with which the author concludes in favor of a so cheap 'Certainty': best chicken and pork. Certainly not for them.

Sarin Marchetti

ps just now read the original article (that is, popular science) referenced in the piece of Bignami. I must say that there is much difference between the two (eg Bignami omit the parts of the original in which they propose some alternatives to harmful practices such as intensive farming that maybe it was worth mentioning, as the most interesting part of ' article). My reservations against the proposed line of argument, common to both the original article that his 'Italian version,' remain, even if the article in the New Scientist is much more serious and objective of what came out on the Republic. If nothing else, notwithstanding the myopia of the principle of the dialectic and adopted, the original article compares the views of pro-and anti-vegetarianism in a more sober and less hurried than the Italian.

You can read the original article by Bob Holmes, you

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727691.200-veggieworld-why-eating-greens-wont-save-the-planet.html

Coach Outlet In Syracuse

Veneto: niente trapianto per i disabili mentali

In March 2009 the junta Galan (PdL) of the Veneto Region has issued guidelines (DGR 851/09) which totally excludes from solid organ transplant patients who have an IQ (IQ) of less than 50
http://www.regione.veneto.it/NR/rdonlyres/59C5DF90-C4D0-49F7-8D1E-5662F8EF2B5B/0/DGR851_09Allegato.pdf.
The case remained in the shadows until in 2010 two nephrologists Catholic University of Rome, N. Panocchia and M. Bossola, published an article in the American Journal of Transplantation (10: 727-730) in which he accused the measure of the Veneto Region to be unconstitutional, contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and unjustifiable from the medical point of view. The reference to Article
. 32, paragraph 1 of the Republican Constitution:
"The Republic protects health as a fundamental right of the individual and collective interest, e garantisce cure gratuite agli indigenti”
è tuttavia scentrato perché, posto che tutti i pazienti abbiano diritto all'organo di cui hanno bisogno, non ci sono abbastanza organi per tutti e quindi occorrerebbe dirimere il conflitto che si apre fra i loro rispettivi diritti. Nei trapianti nessuna spesa pubblica (dato che non esiste un mercato degli organi) può consentire di ridurre le liste di attesa, con la conseguenza che il lessico del diritto alla salute non trova applicazione.
Più appropriato il lessico della non-discriminazione, anch'esso usato dagli autori.
Per quali ragioni un ritardato mentale dovrebbe essere messo in secondo piano nell'allocazione degli organi?
Ceteris paribus, una persona con ritardo and a person without mental retardation have the same legitimate interest to be treated and then it seems that neither of the two patients should have priority over any except those arising from who is writing the first of the waiting list.
However, the international guidelines of the American Society of Transplantation and the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation consider mental retardation a contraindication to transplantation, although only relative and never absolute because it is believed that the mentally ill is not able to follow the complex post-transplant immunosuppressive therapy. Since you do not follow the therapy involves the loss of the organ, transplant patients are unable to follow treatment tantamount to wasting a precious resource. Nevertheless, the guidelines state that must be assessed case by case basis if the patient with mental illness to be able to follow the therapy or not, and not as a criterion generalizing that of IQ. In addition, the authors argue, recent studies have shown that more than IQ, what is important for the success of immunosuppressive therapy is the presence of family members or nurses who take care of the recipient. This refutes the main argument in favor of discrimination of mental retardation in transplantation.
But there are other issues: 1
the mentally retarded, eg. patients with Down syndrome have a lower life expectancy and thus derive a minor beneficio dall'organo rispetto al paziente non-disabile;
2 i ritardati mentali non sono in grado di capire che cosa sia il trapianto;
3 i ritardati mentali non beneficiano del trapianto in termini di qualità della vita, contrariamente alle persone con un normale sviluppo mentale.
Quanto al primo argomento, gli autori replicano che è normale trapiantare persone non-disabili con età superiore ai 65 anni e che i malati di sindrome di Down arrivano a 50-55 anni di vita. Dunque un disabile per trisomia 21 di 30 anni e un non-disabile di 65 anni hanno circa la stessa speranza di vita, con la conseguenza che quest'ultima non può essere usata per differenziare i disabili dai non-disabili.
Quanto al secondo argomento, gli autori argue that it applies to all forms of medical treatment and for all those who are unable to give informed consent, such as children. According to this argument should not transplant the children, which would be contrary to common medical practice. If the injunction barring disabled, informed consent would be granted by a guardian, just as they do for children and their parents.
The third argument, recent evidence suggests that transplantation improves psychological well-being of patients with mental retardation and their families. However, the authors failed to demonstrate that the mentally retarded can come through the transplant at the same level of quality of life to which a patient can get non-retarded. This unfortunately is a crucial point, because the allocation of medical resources based on the QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years) that provides a one-year life of a person with low self worth less than a year of a person's life with full autonomy. So, assuming for example. an organ can be transplanted to 5 years of extra life to a non-disabled completely independently or 5 years of living in a mentally retarded little self QALY under the system we should give the organ to non-disabled person, because both its 5 years of life are worth more QALY of five years of life of disabled people, and secondly because the system is based on maximizing QALYs obtained with the same financial outlay. Rebus sic stantibus, if you accepts the system as ethically acceptable QALY (obviously the point is not discussed and I side in this regard), there is a reason for giving an organ to a patient, preferably non-disabled person rather than a disabled patient, provided that certain circumstances occur (difference in quality of life post-transplant, the same number of years of life gained with surgery, the same cost of the transplant, etc.).
However, the fact remains that the decision of the Veneto Region is ethically indefensible, because it allows an individual assessment and provides an absolute exclusion. Thomas Bruni

Where Does Holly Willoughby Buy Her Clothes

Sperimentazione a pagamento. Che c'e' di male?


survey of La Repubblica Today, edited by Michael Bocci (http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2010/07/16/news/inchiesta_farmaci-5618527/?ref=HREC1-3), reveals that a growing number of Italian citizens subjects to test experimental drug in Switzerland, France and Austria in exchange for money. This is mostly healthy individuals who choose to spend own three or four days in a clinical setting and to take drugs in Phase 1 testing. The purpose of Phase 1 is as well described in the article, to test the toxicity of the molecule contained in the product. In exchange for the willingness to participate in the research, subjects receive a refund of about € 200/250 per day and play a check-up medico completo e gratuito. I rischi connessi alla partecipazione ci sono, ma sono bassissimi, e la struttura clinica si assume l’onere di eventuali cure dovute ad effetti collaterali del farmaco sotto sperimentazione.
Bisogna ricordare che questa attività di ricerca farmacologica segue la ricerca cosiddetta di base condotta in laboratorio e la sperimentazione pre-clinica su animali non umani. I test di cui si occupa l’inchiesta sono dunque il primo, indispensabile passo del lungo iter che porta i ricercatori a verificare l’efficacia farmacologica di una nuova molecola. Senza questo tipo di sperimentazione su soggetti sani, non potremmo sperare di avere nuovi farmaci a disposizione in futuro per combattere più efficacemente la malattia and to intervene on diseases currently untreatable from a pharmacological point of view.
While these considerations are clearly present in the mind of the author of the piece (which in fact talks about it in the article), the title - "The forced medication and the business of human guinea pigs" - and the general tone of the investigation are alarming and derogatory towards the activities described. It is not easy, and is likely to be ungenerous, groped to criticize a text written by its tone. But as is normal for a journalistic text, is the tone to give color to this piece. So I will try to bring out and criticize some considerations that (unfortunately) flutter soltanto nell’articolo, più che essere sostenute da una chiara linea argomentativa.
Innanzi tutto: perché coloro che si sottopongono a sperimentazioni farmacologiche vengono chiamati “forzati del farmaco”? Chi li forza? Chi li costringe? Dall’inchiesta si evince che la motivazione economica è l’unica a sostenere la scelta di soggetti sani di partecipare alle ricerche in questione. Questa ricostruzione è senz’altro plausibile, ma per quale motivo dovrebbe rappresentare una forzatura? Perché una persona non può decidere di accettare denaro e un check-up medico in cambio di una prestazione niente affatto onerosa da un punto di vista psico-fisico e solo moderatamente rischiosa da un punto di vista doctor? I do not see why such activity should be deemed incompatible with the exercise of personal autonomy (hence the name of "forced"). In exchange for money, often little money, people agree to engage in activities far more dangerous and stressful, such as working on a construction site, or driving trucks. But no one would dream of saying that these activities limit the autonomy of the workers who take, although in my opinion, a person is generally more good reasons - both prudential and social - to participate in a clinical trial not to carry vegetables on the highway or build yet another house duplex.
The other part that I would like to say a word, is the aura of mistrust with which they are represented pharmaceutical companies ("the business of human guinea pigs", as the title). Without doubt the market of pharmaceutical research is not without moral hazard of great significance. However, the research, testing and marketing of drugs are strictly regulated, the economic incentive is in fact a regulatory framework rightly severe, the best way to ensure the availability of more effective medications. Evoking scenes of conspiracy against morality of research subjects seems therefore unjustified, given the current legal safeguards to protect these individuals, and distracts the reader's attention from the need, increasingly insistent, a reinvigoration of the public and private sources of funding for biomedical research.
seems that, in the eyes of some commentators, the presence of economic incentive for those who produce drugs and who decides to test them in person, represents an element of degrading moral value of these activities. But it is precisely these activities that you expect a great return to morality in terms of effective treatment and lives saved.
In conclusion I would say that, although altruism does not seem to be the predominant motivation or by whom you test Phase 1 (as is clear from the interviews of the investigation), nor by the pharmaceutical companies, as the activities of each other, providing a valuable moral content, that the economic presence of the incentive does not affect in any way. In reality, the economic incentive seems appropriate recognition to the efforts required to make available an active ingredient and should be encouraged rather than viewed with suspicion.
Moreover, as claimed by the English philosopher John Harris, the enormous importance of scientific research results in a positive moral duty to support it and also to attend in person (see http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/4 / 242.full).

Metallic Taste When Breathing Hard

Xenotrapianto e giustizia globale


In 2008, according to The Wall Street Journal, there were more than 80,000 people on the waiting list for a kidney transplant in the U.S.. Of these, 5000 did not arrive alive at the end of the year (http://tiny.cc/76158, 08/01/2010). These data show that the shortage of transplant organs is a major health problem.
A solution could come from practice, still experimental xenotransplantation, the insertion into the body of a human tissue from non-human animals. However, the non-human tissues used contain microorganisms that could in theory change after transplantation and become pathogenic to humans. This phenomenon would generate a Xenozoonoses, that a new human disease caused by a pathogen of an animal-human. As the most accepted theory today for the origin of HIV whether you want to own a certain Xenozoonoses from ape to man, and that HIV infection has killed 25 million since the early eighties to the present The risk of a Xenozoonoses by xenotransplantation can not be underestimated, even if its a priori probability was estimated as very low.
If this problem has long been known in the scientific and bioethics literature on the subject (so that the bulk of biomedical research done today in the field takes care to limit this risk), an interesting article by R. Sparrow appeared alla fine del 2009 su Developing World Bioethics (9, 3:119-127) associa il rischio di xenozoonosi a problematiche di giustizia globale e di consenso informato.
In primo luogo, dato che il rischio di xenozoonosi riguarderebbe inevitabilmente l'intero pianeta a causa dell'alta mobilità della popolazione, la decisione se compiere o meno il primo xenotrapianto (il che comporterebbe di accettare il rischio di xenozoonosi) dovrebbe essere affidata alla comunità globale, in quanto gli interessi di tutte le nazioni del pianeta sarebbero coinvolti nei potenziali esiti della scelta. Tuttavia non esiste un forum politico globale democraticamente costituito in cui rappresentanti di tutte le nazioni del globo possano dibattere in modo informato l'argomento e deliberare. Do you see then who is entitled to express consent of humanity to this decision.
Secondly, and this is where the most interesting part of Sparrow, the risks and benefits of xenotransplantation would distribute asymmetrically in the general population: poor countries with health systems are inadequate are the main victims of any Xenozoonoses pandemic, while rich countries could defend themselves through drugs and timely public health measures. In contrast the benefits of the new therapy would fall almost entirely on the rich countries, given the enormous costs of xenotransplantation, which would require special breeding sterile donor animals, a continuous monitoring del ricevente dopo la donazione e immunosoppressione farmacologica vita natural durante. Quest'asimmetria renderebbe la pratica dello xenotrapianto ingiusta di per sé, stante l'attuale distribuzione delle risorse sanitarie.
La bioeticista Martine Rothblatt (Your Life or Mine, Ashgate 2004) ha proposto, per risolvere questo problema, che il consenso allo xenotrapianto sia un consenso ipotetico (si potrebbe cioè procedere allo xenotrapianto solo qualora fosse ragionevole credere che la pratica riceva un consenso maggioritario da parte di una comunità globale ben informata) e che il consenso vada dato a un pacchetto di misure sanitarie che comprenda, oltre allo xenotrapianto, servizi sanitari di base per i paesi poveri, necessari a monitorare il Xenozoonoses risk.
Sparrow replica Rothblatt that this consent would be morally null and void, because obtained by blackmail (basic health against xenotransplantation) that exploit the vulnerability of poor countries.
Sparrow concludes that the global consensus to xenotransplantation could be given only after it has been settled, whatever you want to introduce new therapy, the gap in global health resources.
This request is valid all the more so given that rich countries are responsible, as former colonizers, the current condition of the poor and that could remedy the wrongs done by sacrificing a very important portion of their purchasing power per qualche anno.

Xepisodes Iphone Work

Attenzione...a come parli! Un nuovo attacco alla libertà di ricerca scientifica


Un recente articolo del Guardian (Lie detectors: the truth and nothing but? In: www.guardian.co.uk ) ha posto in luce lo scandalo che ha colpito la Nemesysco, una società israeliana che ha immesso sul mercato software che analizzano la voce di soggetti umani con finalità di lie detection. Questi dispositivi sono già stati usati negli aeroporti israeliani e russi da compagnie di assicurazione e da help-lines per l’assistenza sociale in Inghilterra, nonché venduti al pubblico. Le controversie che hanno sollevato queste strumentazioni sono relative alla mancata tutela della privacy dei soggetti analizzati, ma soprattutto all’effettiva scientificità Method: according to Nemesysci, the main software, cd. Layered Voice Analysis, would be able to give information on mental and emotional state of individuals through analysis of the "emotional content" of their answers to specific questions (mostly telephone), identifying the level of stress, cognitive processes and the emotional reactions of the subject.
use in the United Kingdom of this method has raised many doubts related to the failure to subject the experiments carried out to appropriate international peer review and risk reporting of innocent people, but to their misfortune, the nervous way of speaking. A 2006 study by the University of Florida had concluded that LVA did not demonstrate any sensitivity to the presence of stress in person, much less able to declare it a lie. Although further research funded by the National Institute of Justice United States (2008) stated that the method LVA did not have a higher margin than the pretense of finding a random system.
A recent study on the issue, published for the first time in 2007 in the journal "International Journal of Speech Language and the Law" and entitled "Charlatantry in forensic speech science" conducted by two Swedish researchers Francisco Lacerda and Anders Eriksson, condemned the ' Using technologies such as voice analysis lie detection systems. Well, the lawyers of Nemesysco have been filed a lawsuit against the publishers of the journal (Equinox), in order to counter the bad publicity arising from this article and ordered the same Equinox to withdraw without delay the on-line version of the publication. Incredibly, the publisher has agreed, by creating a very serious attack on freedom of scientific research, press and expression, also seen by the Royal Swedish Academy of Science who immediately condemned the incident.
If all the national and international scientific journals are being influenced by (often inane) threats of companies that sell equipment of dubious value, spreading the so-called pseudo-science, or even junk science, which would end the same freedom of research and what would the international peer review, required not only for the accreditation of new technologies but also for their eligibility in the civil and criminal trials around the world through the evaluation of Judges of the "general acceptance of the relevant scientific community"?

Wallpaper Of Griha Pravesh Invitation Format

Quando la scienza diventa il capro espiatorio della politica: il terremoto dell'Aquila e le accuse di omicidio colposo ai sismologi italiani.


On 3 June 2010, the Attorney L'Aquila sent the notices of manslaughter to the President of the National Institute for Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV) Enzo Boschi, the director of the National Center Earthquakes Giulio Selvaggi (the principal deputy to the monitoring center in Italy earthquakes), professors of geophysics Franco Barberi of Rome University and Claudio Eva, University of Genoa, the members of the Commission Major Hazards and leaders of the Civil Protection Department, including Bernardo De Bernardinis.
The base charge is that it was not promulgated a state of alert after the meeting in L'Aquila six days before the earthquake of 6.3 magnitude that struck the same city and surrounding areas, killing 308 people, leaving 1600 others injured and more than 65,000 homeless.
A group of citizens said that after the shock of grade 4.0 on the Richter scale on March 30 warned, many had expressed their intention to leaving home, but following the assurances issued by the Commission Major Hazards-a group of experts that advises the Civil Defence on what to do in case of natural disaster-that had gathered on March 31, had changed his mind. In August 2009 the citizens of L'Aquila requested a formal investigation the public prosecutor on the case, which led to the notices of June 3.
The news of the charge of culpable homicide (manslaughter) scientists appeared on the front page of scientific journals, including "Nature" (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a . html).
the accused has shocked scientists around the world who have rallied to provide their support and solidarity to the Italian seismologists signing an open letter to President Napolitano (the letter and list of more than 5000 signatures are here: http://www.mi.ingv.it/open_letter).
The situation is complicated by the fact that in the weeks before the earthquake of 6 April 2009 were actually spread alarm about the imminence of a major earthquake in that Joachim Giuliani, a laboratory technician convinced to be able to predict earthquakes based on emission of radon from the soil. But Giuliani's theories have never been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, nor are they accepted by the relevant scientific community, the international seismologists, who agree instead that there is no reliable and validated method to predict earthquakes (as they write in their open letter) and that the only measures that can be taken are preventive ones.
If we were in a system of "common law" (as the U.S. or the UK) instead of "Civil Law" like ours, Richard Giuliani could be called to court to make the scientific expert ("expert witness" ). Probably not but its scientific evidence would be admissible in court because it lacks at least two of the four criteria that define a scientific evidence admissible under the Daubert Standard: publication in a scientific journal (where the data is then available to review and fasificabilità by the scientific community) and the acceptance by the relevant scientific community (for instance, that of seismologists, and not that of the card readers or crystal balls to predict the future).
On the other hand, in cases like this where science-in other similar cases, medicine-does not meet the expectations and demands, pseudo-scientific arguments are fertile and easy to hold on people.
Since there is no reliable and validated method to predict a natural disaster, the task of the policy would be to implement all possible measures to prevent a disaster is not predictable. For example: to be united in explaining that the best way to protect the population is not easy and not through an alarm system, but by investing in preventive measures: construction of earthquake resistant houses, zoning which does not allow the construction of houses in high risk areas (or on the slopes of volcanoes), modifications to existing homes , sewage systems, effective and tested with evidence on the population, etc..
Remember that an earthquake of the same scale as that Aquila could cause a much greater number of 308 deaths in underdeveloped countries or developing countries of South-East Asia, for example, while it might not cause virtually no deaths in other countries high seismic risk such as Japan, but more prepared in terms of budget to deal with such disasters.
But, if the policy fails in the tasks required of it, as happened in Italy, you can always find a scapegoat to channel the anger and despair of their own citizens from elsewhere, and encourage them to "burn the scientists", as Ben Goldacre in his post on June 18 (http://www.badscience.net/2010/06/burn-the-scientists/ # more-1699).
What would then the rule of law for a system like ours of "Civil law"?

Pregnant Lactating Nipples

L'NIH deve risparmiare soldi? Basta tagliare i fondi alla "pseudoscienza".


Despite the "Recovery Act" signed by President Obama in February (http://recovery.nih.gov/), which has allocated $ 10 billion dollars to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for 2010-2011, we must already start thinking about making ends meet U.S. public research budget for 2012 and subsequent years.
blogger Steven Salzerg has some advice for the President to help solve the conundro in times like this, the economic crisis. The Board of Salzberg, who runs the blog "Genomics, Evolution, and Pseudoscience" (Genomics, Evolution and pseudoscience, http://genome.fieldofscience.com/) is simple but clear: to make ends meet without losing the NIH in quality of research, just cut all of the NIH funds two centers: the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, NCCAM) and the corresponding office for Alternative and Complementary Medicine Oncology (Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine). According to calculations
Salzberg, cut funds to these two institutes at NIH would save about $ 240 million a year. Money from the taxes of American citizens and who are invested in pseudoscience and are responsible for disseminating "misinformazione" about the effectiveness of unconventional treatments such as homeopathy.
The undersigned had written sympathetically about this blog (the post of May 17, 2019, http://scienzaedemocrazia.blogspot.com/2010/05/uk-niente-soldi-pubblici-allomeopatia.html) concerning the decision of British Medical Association to cut public funding to homeopathy, so I can not claim to be agreed with the advice of Steven Salzberg, especially after having just finished reading the book convinced of another detractor of public funds in pseudo-scientific projects, such as Ben Goldacre . His book "Bad Science (Fourth Estate, 2008) is an excellent collection of the best stories about the disasters that pseudoscience has caused and continues to cause in our society: from homeopathy in fact, the fashion of" nutrition "to the medicalization of mental illness - with the proliferation of pills ready to solve any problem and to create conditions like "Nocturnal Eating Disorder" (sick of eating at night, and how many of us do not are affected?) - the "hoax" of the causal relationship between MMR vaccine and autism, which caused and continues to wreak havoc on a herd immunity ('herd immunity') against the three infectious diseases of measles, mumps and rubella . As far as I know, Goldacre's book has not yet been translated into Italian, but interested parties can read his blog or his column on www.badscience.net on "The Guardian" (http://www.guardian.co .uk / science / series / badscience). One of the most recent posts on (June 5, 2010) talks about the return of another great pseudo-scientific hoax of our time: that the relationship between a diet of fish and the increased ability to concentrate in school children (http:// www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/bad-science-omega3-fish-oil). A conferma che l'utopia di una scorciatoia breve ed economica ai nostri problemi di tutti i giorni rimane sempre allettante. Peccato che, come molte altre scorciatoie, non porti da nessuna parte.

Dvd Player With Hardrive And Digital Tuner

New classifications of mental disorders: what effects on the right?


Il National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) sta definendo una nuova formula per analizzare e comprendere i disordini mentali (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-funding/rdoc.shtml ).
La finalità del progetto Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) è quella di elaborare nuove classificazioni dei disordini mentali, unendo l’osservazione del comportamento allo studio della neurobiologia dei soggetti, grazie al brain imaging, all’analisi molecolare, ai test genetici e behavioral analysis of the same. This would also lead to a change in the criteria for selection of individuals on which to conduct the research: they may in fact be recruited people with different diagnoses but who share a particular dysfunction, such as memory, or individuals who share a genetic risk factor to study its impact on specific brain circuits and functions.

The news inevitably think of an attempt to replace the much criticized, but so far considered irreplaceable, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (which is being drafted sixth version: DSM-V), which classifies cd disorders mental criteria mainly behavioral analysis and statistics. The NIMH researchers respond that there is no contrast between the two methods of investigation and classification, but the RDoc project aims to accelerate clinical research on mental disorders that, in turn, also influence and inform the diagnostic criteria.

This may have important consequences on research methods, which seem increasingly aware of a multidisciplinary approach, careful to genetics and forward the use of new neuroscience techniques. In turn, a better understanding of the interactions between brain, behavior and genetic make-up could lead, albeit in the long term, a greater awareness in the redefinition mental illness and considerable repercussions in the legal proceedings and the assessment of the capacity of understanding and the will of the accused and those involved in criminal proceedings.

at the Italian level, today, the courts are directed primarily towards an "integrated model" of mental illness, such as to embrace any disturbance that may affect the ability of discernment, not too tied to the ratings of medical relevance. What needs to be at issue is in fact the real ability to affect the ability to perceive the negative values \u200b\u200bof the offense was committed and to transpose the meaning of punitive treatment. Unlike the original purposes of Our penal code, based on the needs of social defense and on the assessment of disease according to a medical paradigm-organic, now (thanks to the Constitution) is identified as a primary function of the sentence the rehabilitation of the offender, then paying attention to the perceptibility of the same by the offender. N.9163/2005 The ruling of the Supreme Court has, for the first time, admitted the inclusion of personality disorders in the concept of disability, thus expanding the boundaries of the concept of eligibility.
Thanks to the studies that are being developed, making use of survey no longer framed in rigid schemes, but based on an interdisciplinary approach and with the help brain imaging techniques, it is desirable that the courts can rely in the future, more focused on expertise and a better definition of disability.

How Can You Tell If An Bulldog Has Pneumonia?

UK: no public money homeopathy


At the annual conference of young doctors, members of the British Medical Association (BMA http://www.bma.org.uk/) voted by an overwhelming majority against the use of money British Health Service (NHS) in support of homeopathy, which has no scientific basis. According to Tom
Delphin, vice chairman of the BMA, "witchcraft is Homeopathy (Homeopathy is witchcraft) and is a real shame that in London there is a National [...] Hospital for Homeopathy, paid by the health service. "
The so-called 'drugs' are not actually homeopathic medicines, as they are subject to the same strict rules necessary for market approval by regulatory authorities in the U.S. FDA and EMA in Europe.
homeopathic products are the result of serial dilutions of the original substance, that in formulating the final product is present in a lower concentration of the Avogadro constant (6022 × 1023 mol-1). So, the products Homeopathic contain nothing of the original substance, but only the 'memory', of course, and through that should take effect.
Contrary to what you say supporters of homeopathy, it is not true that these drugs-even if you do not give benefits, but are only means of possible placebo effect, not cause damage to health, as evidenced by the recent case of Zicam, a homeopathic product containing zinc that caused loss of sense of smell (anosmia) in those who used it against the cold. Now the United States Zicam is at the center of a growing number of lawsuits. The quarterly newsletter of the Italian Society of Pharmacology dedicated pharmacovigilance recommends against the use of Zicam: http://www.farmacovigilanza.org/focus/200912/.
In Italy, a petition published on December 6, 2009 "Science on the Net" (http://www.lascienzainrete.it/petizione-ricerca-omeopatici ) And to the Minister of Labour, Health and Welfare Maurizio Sacconi
and the Deputy Minister of Health Ferruccio Fazio was in the same direction of motion of the BMA: no public funding for the regulation of homeopathic medicines. According to the medical community, who had initiated the petition and collect signatures, represented by consultation of the Scientific Society for the reduction of cardiovascular risk, "Evaluating carpet of 30,000 homeopathic products for the safety and the subsequent filing by ' AIFA, besides being a waste of public resources - hundreds of thousands of hours of paperwork thrown to the wind with an economic impact presumably measured in millions of € - runs the risk of being perceived by a significant proportion of the population as a certificate of efficiency, which legitimize the use, with significant risks to the health of patients. "
Unlike Italy , where-in-all I know the petition was not successful, the motion will be made in UK whole association in plenary conference next June and if approved, will become an official guideline.
"It would be better the National Health Service to focus efforts on treatments that bring real benefits - explained in the same conference, the Chairman of the Scottish junior doctors, Gordon Lehany - and not yet on remedies that have no scientific value. Who wants to be cured with homeopathy, free to do so, but paying their own pockets. "
Perhaps because of my background in biotechnology, but I can only agree with Gordon Lehany.

Djs Fired Another One Bites The Dust Atlanta

Prohibition of heterologous fertilization: Council of Europe vs. Italy?


By decision of 1 April 2010 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the prohibition of heterologous in vitro fertilization is a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
Couples applicants in proceedings before the Court are of nationality Austrian and both suffering from infertility. In the first case, only the sperm donation from a third party and in vitro fertilization of the ovum of another woman that can enable them to procreate, in the case of the second pair, however, would require the donation of eggs. The Austrian law, however, prohibiting both the aforementioned possibilities, assuming other forms of assisted reproduction (including the approval). The European Court, jurisdiction over the matter in relation to an alleged breach of Order Number 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and No 14 (in this case for the unequal treatment compared to those who can make use of in vitro fertilization without the need to receive eggs or sperm from donors outside the pair) of the ECHR, respond to arguments made by the national government e riprese dalla pronuncia della Corte costituzionale austriaca che nel 1999 giusitificava l'ingerenza della Legge sul diritto al rispetto della vita privata e familiare delle coppie. Preso atto delle differenti legislazioni degli Stati membri del Consiglio d'Europa in materia di fecondazione assistita, la Corte ribadisce l'insussistenza di un obbligo degli stessi a prevedere l'accesso a tale tecnica. Una volta concessa tale possibilità, però, il contesto giuridico in materia dovrà seguire un criterio di coerenza, tenendo conto dei diversi interessi in gioco. In questo caso vi è effettivamente stato un trattamento discriminatorio rispetto ad altre coppie in condizioni simili: il rischio di sfruttamento della donna o di selezione degli embrioni è infatti a potentially also be used against other forms of assisted reproduction (on the other hand, the Austrian law does not allow any form of compensation for egg donations), the formation of kinship relations different from the traditional "family" is also not is certainly a novelty in the current social (eg adoption). The Court states the violation of the contested provision of law with respect to the combined provisions of Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR.

The question obviously becomes important for Italy: the Case No 348 and n. 349 of 2007, the Constitutional Court has in fact found that the contrast of a national provision with a provision of the ECHR means in violation of Article. 117 paragraph 1 of the Constitution and the national court responsible for enforcing the provisions thereof, in accordance with the interpretation of the Strasbourg Court. In Italy there is now 40/2004 and the Law, art. 4, paragraph 3, to prevent infertile couples the option of using a heterologous fertilization, by providing strong financial penalties for violations of the ban (from 300 thousand to 600 thousand euro). Consider that, to date, almost all states except Western legal tradition-for example, Japan and Turkey and allows the use of genetic material belonging to a foreign donor to the couple. Prior to the L. 40/2004 on the only adjustment came from cd. Circolare Degan (Min. della Sanità, 1985) la quale sanciva che "fondamento essenziale del rapporto di filiazione è quello di derivazione biologica, ragione per cui non può ritenersi consentito dalla legge il trasferimento del patrimonio genetico (...) di un soggetto estraneo alla coppia" e consentiva l'accesso alle tecniche di riproduzione assistita solo a coppie di coniugi non separati.



Ad oggi, purtroppo, il concetto di riproduzione appare ancora basato sulla trasmissione di un patrimonio genetico anzichè una scelta di responsabilità personale e familiare.

Extigy Driver For Win 7

What to expect from the new Commission on Bioethics U.S.


Il 7 aprile 2010 Obama ha nominato i dieci membri per la Commissione Presidenziale Bioethics, thus completing the renewal process itself began in November 2009, when he was named Amy Gutmann and James Wagner as director and deputy director respectively of the Commission (to read about the post of 2 December 2009 on this very blog: http:/ / scienzaedemocrazia.blogspot.com/2009/12/poteri-legislativi-per-la-nuova.html).
Among the ten members of the committee also included Christine Grady, head of the Department of Bioethics at the NIH. The complete list of committee members can be read here: http://www.scienceprogress.org/2010/04/practical-science/. The
'PCSBI' (which stands for "Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues") becomes officially The sixth body established by Congress or the White House to advise the government on ethical or policy related to life sciences.
Obama is expected, as was clear by the appointment of Amy Gutmann (who has a background in political philosophy, and bioethics), the Commission focused its work on policy initiatives and proposing practical solutions, not just topics philosophy. This emphasis, if it were implemented, would be a distinction marked with respect to the work of the previous commission, the Council on Bioethics by President Bush (notice, his name was different: President's Council on Bioethics), whose job was to produce reviews theoretical, without propose how to implement in practice. Eric
Meslim, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Indiana, said a positive trend towards greater pragmatism in his article on 'Science Progress,' which can be read here: http://www.scienceprogress.org / 2010/05/problem-solvers /.

Black And Leopard Skin Inside Pram

Umby company and retire

ad with a little 'regret and sorrow that this blog will no longer be updated for so long, until about the end of July. This is because I do not have more time to devote to the computer world, I take a very heavy three trips to London for 15 days and one in Brussels. For more now I'm part of a political movement that is slowly taking shape (visit www.lacricca.tk , the only blog where I write every day). Thank you - once again - all those who believed in this blog and will continue to support the open-source world. See you in July.

Umberto Williams better known as Pazzoinformatico

Can Running Too Much Affect Your Period

8x1000 to the Catholic Church for everyone.

As every year, approaching the tax return and everyone is ready to tighten their belts for the taxes, but nobody talks about eight per thousand. After the Concordat of 1984 between church and state is in fact possible to donate eight percent of their taxes in a religious institution. The problem that I heard recently about those who do not damage no preference, and then persist in error. The mechanism seems very clear, however, there seems to be a synergy between the State and the Church Catholic, so the second can earn as much as possible. Everything is based on a mathematical concept:

We take data on income for the year 2000 declared in 2001.

As you note, the number of people who have decided not to indicate any preference is very high (60%), while that of those who have expressed is much lower (about 40%). Well, who should this money, I mean the 541,655,363 €?

how you feel, the number of people who have decided not to indicate no preference is very high (60%), while that of those who have expressed is much lower (about 40%). State? No,

, 87, 25% will go to church. How?

capital derived from those who have committed their eight thousand is divided among the seven beneficiaries, resulting in the same percentages of those who expressed their will.

Now let's see how this will:

This table shows clearly that the church has obtained 34.57% of 39.62% of those who have donated their eight thousand. The most important is l'87,25 sul totale e proprio per questa percentuale la chiesa prenderà l'87,25 di quei 541.655.363 euro di coloro che non hanno espresso nessuna scelta. Ecco la tabella più sorprendente:

La Chiesa, quindi, percepisce la maggior parte dei fondi non da chi ha voluto destinarglieli, ma da coloro che non hanno espresso alcuna intenzione in tal senso. Dov'è finita la nostra libertà? Se un contribuente non segna nulla sul frontespizio della dichiarazione dei redditi, molto probabilmente è perché non vuole destinare nulla a queste organizzazioni, ma così facendo si aiutano. Come già detto, circa l'85% di quota di otto per mille sarà comunque destinata alla Catholic Church, according to the redistribution mechanism we have just explained. It would therefore seem a paradox to facilitate all these groups, primarily the church.

Not the Top?