Shielding farmers' rights

Legal context: Farmers are integral to the economy of most developing countries.There is currently a broad consensus that farmers, being custodiansof genetic diversity, should be granted rights for their enormouscontributions in identifying and conserving plant genetic resources.Farmers' rights recognize farmers as equivalent to breedersand give a farmer who has bred or developed a new variety aright of registration and protection in similar manner to abreeder. The Indian legislation on plant varieties places thefarmer on a very high footing by entitling him to save, use,sow, re-sow, exchange, share, or sell his farm produce. Key points: Farmers' rights discussed in this article are a collective rightgiven to farmers who conserve biodiversity. Plant varietiesdeveloped by modern biotechnology utilize traditional varietiesand are merely improvements of the breeding carried out by generationsof farmers. Yet little consideration is given to the contributionsof these farmers. Therefore it is essential that both the farmeras well as the breeder is protected where he achieves such geneticimprovements. Practical significance: The farmer's right acts as a countervailing force to the breeder'sright and is a retrospective reward of unlimited duration forthe conservation of plant genetic resources. Though the processof innovation by the farmer may not conform to the strict termsof the distinctness, stability, and uniformity requirement,his products also have definite criteria for the identificationof improved varieties. The pool of genetic diversity now availablewas largely obtained through the efforts of farmers of the pastwho identified, conserved, developed, and bred the now-traditionalvarieties.     

Equity in assessment: discrimination and disability issues from an Australian legal perspective

Assessment equity concerns all educational authorities and practitioners. When educators consider issues of equity, their predominant concern is accommodation of students with special needs, cultural issues, and creating alternative assessment activities that have equivalence to standard activities, so as not to advantage or disadvantage any student in their demonstration of knowledge. This paper examines equity issues in assessment from a legal perspective, drawing on case history from Australia, and based in discrimination and disability law. The paper is intended to assist authorities and practitioners to understand legal implications of educational assessment in order to promote practices that reduce the likelihood of legal claims and the resultant use of financial and human resources away from educational activities. However, the discussion of cases and judgements is also intended to raise issues of whether educational providers and authorities should be more conscionable in their consideration of educational equity and assessment.     

How Do Career Strategies,Gender, and Work Environment Affect Faculty Productivity Levels in University‐Based Science Centers?1

Recent studies have shown that in many science and engineering fields, almost 40% of faculty are affiliated with university‐based research centers ( Corley & Gaughan, 2005 ). As major science funding organizations continue to increase annual levels of funding for interdisciplinary science centers, it is likely that this number will increase significantly over the next decade. Moreover, some scholars have argued that the rise of university‐based science centers has already led to the development of a new institutional form for the execution of university‐based research ( Bozeman & Boardman, 2004 ). Yet, interestingly few researchers have studied the impacts of this new institutional form on the productivity of individual researchers. The purpose of this article is to begin to address how individual career strategies and perceptions of scientific work environments within university‐based science centers relate to the productivity of academic scientists who participate in these centers. In particular, this article investigates the relationships between productivity, individual career strategies, and perceptions of scientific work environment across gender. The results of the study demonstrate that university‐based science centers might serve as an equalizing mechanism for male and female productivity levels. Yet, women scientists affiliated with these centers are significantly more likely to feel discriminated against—and they are less likely to embrace the most promising career strategy for the current structure of these centers.     

On the Role of Process Forensics in the Characterization of Fugitive Gasoline

The need to determine the source(s) of fugitive gasoline in the environment is common when multiple candidate sources co-exist nearby to the discovery or when gasoline is discovered subsequent to a property transfer. Process forensics is the component of environmental forensics that relies upon a detailed understanding of the current and historic refining and engineering practices and how these practices would predictably have affected the chemical composition of the automotive gasoline manufactured at different refineries at different times. Since not all gasoline is ‘created equal’, when the detailed “chemical fingerprint” of a fugitive gasoline in the environment is interpreted in light of process forensics, a more thorough understanding of the production practices used to refine the fugitive gasoline can emerge. In some circumstances this knowledge can help to implicate a particular source(s) of the gasoline.     

Is In-Prison Treatment Enough? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prison-Based Treatment and Aftercare Services for Substance-Abusing Offenders

This study performed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of the Amity in-prison Therapeutic Community (TC) and Vista aftercare programs for criminal offenders in California. For the average treatment participant, the cost of treatment was $4,112, which led to approximately fifty-one fewer days incarcerated (36% less) than the average individual in the control group. This implies that, for the average offender, treatment reduced recidivism at a cost of $80 per incarceration day. For participants who received both in-prison treatment and aftercare services, an additional day of incarceration was avoided at a cost of $51 per day relative to those that received in-prison treatment only.