The Prior Authorisation Procedure Adopted for the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms: the Complexities of Balancing Community and National Competences

Abstract: The cornerstone of the Community regulatory framework on this subject is EC Directive 90/220/EEC, as repealed by EC Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMO), which is based on a fundamental premise: that in order to prevent the risks caused by the release of genetically modified organisms, GMOs can only be released subject to the grant of a prior authorisation, following a scientific assessment, which confirms that such organisms do not represent a risk to the environment and human health. Yet it is obvious that Member States are not willing to entirely transfer their sovereignty in relation to issues that are of such fundamental importance to environmental protection and human health; at the same time however, the objective of achieving free movement of GMOs implies the establishment of a genuine Community procedure for this sector. The need to strike a balance between these competing demands therefore requires an enormous collaborative effort from national and Community authorities, which, contrary to expectations, has not produced any concrete results as yet. The authorisation procedure that has been developed was intended to bridge the gap between the divergent interpretations of what actually constitutes a biotechnical risk; conversely, it has reached a stasis, and causing protracted delays in the procedures granting authorisations. Admittedly, some changes to the procedure were implemented in 2001, but they were not intended to restructure the general architecture of the procedure established in 1990. Yet are such remedies going to be effective? Or is it time to make a more radical revision of the existing procedures by redistributing the competences on this delay?     

Donor-conceived people's views and experiences of their genetic origins: a critical analysis of the research evidence

This article reports on a systematic review of English language, peer-reviewed publications from 13 empirical studies with donor-conceived children and adults regarding their experiences and perceptions of donor conception. A total of 19 articles that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed. These were identified by means of a bibliographic search of four electronic databases for the period 1990-2011 and supplemented by the authors' personal knowledge of work in this field. No reports from such studies appeared prior to 2000, and more than half have been published since 2008, demonstrating the relative novelty of research in this field. Much of the reviewed research evidence concerns individuals conceived through sperm donation conducted under a regime promoting both anonymity and nondisclosure. Consequently, there is little research that pertains to individuals conceived through other forms of collaborative reproduction, nor to those conceived under arrangements and regimes in which early parental disclosure is both advocated and practised and the identity of the donor and of other genetic relatives may be accessible to donor-conceived individuals. The studies consistently report that most donor-conceived people have an interest in securing information about their genetic and biographical heritage - more information than most of them have been able to obtain. Although a number of methodological limitations in the research base are identified, the authors conclude that the evidence is sufficiently robust to promote the implementation of policies and practices that promote transparency and openness in collaborative reproduction, thus reflecting the importance of maximising future choices and opportunities for donor-conceived people.     

ECJ clarifies collecting societies' rights in relation to the cable retransmission right, but leaves questions unanswered

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has held that Article 9(2)of Directive 93/83 is to be interpreted as meaning that wherea collecting society is deemed to be mandated to manage therights of a copyright owner or holder of related rights whohas not transferred the management of his rights to a collectingsociety that society has the power to exercise that right holder'sright to grant or refuse authorization to a cable operator forcable retransmission and, consequently, its mandate is not limitedto management of the pecuniary aspects of those rights.     

Blame attribution regarding index offence on admission to secure hospital services

Abstract

Assessment by psychologists is part of the routine multi-disciplinary admission process to secure facilities for those with a diagnosis of severe mental illness and an offending history. Non-engagement with the assessment process is a common clinical phenomenon. Using a survey design, we report on the administration of the Gudjonsson Blame Attribution Inventory, (a questionnaire which elicits causal attributions about offending), where possible, to a cohort of consecutive admissions to a medium secure unit, and a maximum security hospital. Reasons for non-compliance with the assessment process are examined. The responses of those who completed a series of questionnaires are compared using unit, sex, ethnicity, diagnosis and index offence as group variables. With regard to attribution of blame for index offence, contrary to prediction, those with a history of psychosis, rather than personality disorder, obtained higher external attribution scores. The implications of these findings for the assessment of blame and guilt feelings during the early stages of admission to a secure mental health service, and possible treatment implications, are considered.