Policy Considerations for States Supporting Stem Cell Research: Evidence from a Survey of Stem Cell Scientists

Five states now provide funding for stem cell research, and many states are developing or debating stem cell research policies. Despite this interest, little data exist to help policy makers design policies or forecast the impact of new legislation. This article reports novel data from two surveys: one directed at those most affected by these policies—stem cell scientists—and one at a group of biomedical researchers working in less contentious fields. These data identified relatively high mobility among stem cell scientists, particularly in states with restrictive policies, and a strong preference for states with permissive policies. These findings suggest that state-specific policies may prove to be effective recruiting tools. They also suggest specific recruitment strategies and highlight the importance of first-mover advantage as states compete for the same limited pool of mobile scientists. This research aims to provide a factual basis to support ongoing policy formulation in the area.     

知识产权中的盗版问题：中美等国的认知与现实

在分析美国对中国知识产权盗版认知存在差距的基础上，阐述了美国对中国知识产权盗版不符合实际情况的指责。重点从电影盗版给MPA会员公司造成的收入损失及其人均值、电影盗版给MPA会员公司造成的消费者支出损失及其人均值、音乐盗版的零售额及其人均值等讨论各国盗版状况，旨在说明对中国盗版认知存在差距的理由。     

Reducing Crime Through Environmental Design: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment of Street Lighting in New York City

Journal of Quantitative Criminology - This paper offers novel experimental evidence that violent crimes can be successfully reduced by changing the situational environment that potential victims...     

The Distinctive Significance of Systemic Risk

This paper suggests that “systemic risk” (e.g., of financial market collapse, or of ecological calamity) has a distinctive kind of moral significance. Two intuitive data points need to be explained. The first is that the systematic imposition of risk can be wrongful or unjust in and of itself, even if harm never ensues. The second is that, even so, there may be no one in particular to blame. We can explain both ideas in terms of what I call responsibilities of “Collective Due Care.” Collective Due Care arguably precludes purely aggregative cost‐benefit decision‐making and requires one kind of “precautionary” attitude in public choice.