Is there still a place for gene patents in Australia? Implications of recent United States and European case law

This article considers the ramifications of recent United States and European litigation relating to patents claiming rights to genes associated with hereditary forms of breast cancer (the so-called BRCA genes) for recently commenced Australian litigation relating to the same subject matter. The article is contextualised with brief summaries of the relevant patent law, the science of genetics, the history of the BRCA genes and an overview of the activities of the patent holder. The analysis of first instance and appeal decisions on the validity of the United States BRCA patents shows the final outcome is still highly uncertain in that jurisdiction, while the European litigation provides little assistance in predicting the outcome of the Australian action. This article concludes that the outcome of the Australian litigation is an issue that cannot be determined with any certainty due to the lack of specific, relevant precedents both in Australia and in other jurisdictions.     

Is there a place for hair analysis in doping controls?

The actual antidoping control rules applied in sports (as established by the International Olympic Committee and the International Sport Federations) state that a positive case is chemically established by the unequivocal detection of a forbidden parent molecule and/or any of its metabolite(s) in urine, no matter the amounts which were administered and when the drug was taken. Screening is accomplished most of the time by using GC-MS procedures. These have been optimized to detect most if not all of the forbidden compounds which are put on a list. Recently, attempts have been made on scalp hair to demonstrate the value of this matrix as a possible means for differentiating between therapeutic use and doping abuse. In particular, GC-mass selective detector and GC-high resolution MS were successfully applied to treated animals and body-builders for anabolic agents (steroids and beta-2-agonists) at high sensitivity detection (low ng/g level). Naturally occurring molecules, like testosterone and its metabolites, could also be differentiated from their synthetic counterparts. Positive cases are more often challenged in courts and retrospectivity in time of the drug(s) intake is becoming an important issue for evaluating the responsibility of the person. This is can be based on hair analyses if the drugs have been taken at regular intervals. Stimulants and narcotics are often used in sports like drug of abuse in the ordinary social contexts. On the other hand, anabolic agents, when taken to improve the physical performances, follow complex regimens with the mixing of various formulas and dosages. Scalp hair references ranges for these as well as for endogenous substances still wait to be established statistically for competing, well-trained athletes. The incorporation rate into blond or gray hair is poorer than that of dark colored hair raising the question of individuals equality against the controls, a very important matter of concern for the sport's governing bodies. The frequency of hair cutting and short hair cuts necessary to gain speed in specific sports like swimming are other critical factors. On the other hands, irregular hair growth, associated with the washout effect through multiple washing and staining processes over expanded time intervals can cause concentrating or diluting effects. So far, a minority of prohibited substances could be detected in scalp hair with the sensitivity and specificity required in the context of the sport's activities. From the above, clear limitations of the usefulness of hair analysis in doping control analysis are obvious until a lot more data relevant to this particular field have been collected.     

Is there a Need for a European Criminology?

Readers were invited in Issue 4, 2000 to give their comments on the subject of European criminology. The Editors also invited some scholars on a personal title. The comments, ranging from 1,200 to 2,000 words are presented in alphabetical order. The comments are written by: Rosemary Barberet, Josine Junger-Tas, Martin Killias, H.-J. Schneider, Alenka élih, Henrik Tham, Bas van Stokkom and Lode Walgrave. Together they offer a view on the ideas and different views on European criminology.     

Considering Destructive Interparental Conflict and Intimate Partner Abuse: Is there a Difference?

Building on existing evidence that destructive interparental conflict and intimate partner abuse (IPA) share research methodology and predict the same adjustment difficulties across numerous areas of child development, this article brings awareness to differences in terminology across disciplines and the impact these nuanced differences may have on families. We begin by identifying two main streams of scholarships followed by a discussion of research methodology similarities and differences. Important implications of differences in naming conventions for practitioners, legal and academic scholars, and victims are then discussed. Finally, we encourage professionals from both scholarships to consider referencing the other's terminology and using comprehensive assessments to better promote the well‐being of families.     

Is there a need to regulate mediation? The English and Welsh case study

The use of mediation in England and Wales is nowadays an accepted and common practice within the alternative dispute resolution industry. Credited professionals have been performing the duties of a mediator in different fields of legal disputes; however, despite the positive perception of mediation, this area remains unregulated. So far, the rules applying to mediation in England and Wales originate from case law and contract between the parties. Such a scenario is not shared by other countries in which mediation has been regulated through an Act covering either private or judicial mediation. This article examines the current mediation scenario in England and Wales to assess whether there is a need to give it a statutory character in a similar manner to other jurisdictions.     

Is there a “common law” of responsibility?

Contrary to common expectations and a good deal of legal folk wisdom, several surveys have failed to find group differences in the way people attribute responsibility and assign punishments. These nonfinding, suggest that there is a considerable degree of consensus about how to judge wrongdoing. The nature of this consensus is examined using survey data collected in two Japanese and one American cities. We examine the extent of group differences in the evaluation of inputs (here a set of hypothetical vignettes), decision rules, and punishments. The paper concludes with a discussion of the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological issues raised by these and similar findings of small group differences. Collectively, these three issues define, an agenda for future research on the nature and extent of a common law of responsibility.This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 1986 meeting of the Law and Society Association. The research was supported by seed funds from the Social Science Research Council and from the University of Michigan and by N.S.F. grant No. SOC 77-242918. Japanese data were gathered and analyzed with support from the Nihon Gakujutsu Shinkokai and Mombusho to the Japanese investigators: Yoko Hosoi, Zensuke Ishimura, Nozomu Matsubara, Haruo Nishimura, Nobuho Tomita, and Kazuhiko Tokoro. They have recently published a book on the project. (Ishimura et al., 1986).     

Malingering and Pain: is this a Major Problem in the Medicolegal Setting?

The term malingering has a negative connotation, in that it is considered to intentionally project exaggerated physical and/or psychosocial symptoms for the purpose of gaining some external rewards/secondary gain. The present article will review a number of misconceptions about malingering, as well as the inherent problem in objectively measuring this construct. It will be suggested that a more comprehensive biopsychosocial approach should be used to evaluate potential barriers to recovery, as well as suboptimal performance that may delay, or prevent, recovery over an expected time period for musculoskeletal pain disorders. Such an approach will eliminate the common misuse and misdiagnosis of the construct of malingering.