What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making?

In response to research demonstrating that irrelevant contextual information can bias forensic science analyses, authorities have increasingly urged laboratories to limit analysts' access to irrelevant and potentially biasing information (Dror and Cole (2010) [3]; National Academy of Sciences (2009) [18]; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2016) [22]; UK Forensic Science Regulator (2015) [26]). However, a great challenge in implementing this reform is determining which information is task-relevant and which is task-irrelevant. In the current study, we surveyed 183 forensic analysts to examine what they consider relevant versus irrelevant in their forensic analyses. Results revealed that analysts generally do not regard information regarding the suspect or victim as essential to their analytic tasks. However, there was significant variability among analysts within and between disciplines. Findings suggest that forensic science disciplines need to agree on what they regard as task-relevant before context management procedures can be properly implemented. The lack of consensus about what is relevant information not only leaves room for biasing information, but also reveals foundational gaps in what analysts consider crucial in forensic decision making.     

From discourse to policy: US policy communities’ perceptions of and approaches to climate change and security

ABSTRACT

Increasingly, a diverse set of policy communities, including those with defence, development and environmental mandates, frame climate change as a security threat. Most often this discursive formation labels climate change as a ‘threat multiplier’. This framing, however, is vague, linear and leaves many questions unanswered regarding how institutions can develop and implement policy that addresses the joint challenges of climate change, conflict and security. Utilising a mixed-methods approach, and grounding data collection in US policy communities, this article examines how policy actors and institutions integrate climate-security discourses into policy processes. The objective of this research is to provide direct insight into how the discourses and technical understandings of climate-security transition into policy priorities and implementation realities. This research identified three common approaches to climate-security: (1) A challenge of adaptation and resilience; (2) A potent political argument; and (3) An issue of limited importance and feasibility. These approaches, however, are inconsistent across sectors and within organisations, suggesting a lack of cohesion and considerable challenges in identifying and responding to climate change as a ‘threat multiplier’.     

Supplementary protection certificates: Advocate General's opinion on formulations

The opinion of Advocate General Léger, published on 24November 2005 in C-431/04, opens the way for extending the durationof certain pharmaceutical formulation patents by means of asupplementary protection certificate (SPC).     

The impact of a gasoline tax on auto exhaust emissions

The EPA implements its policy of exhaust emission control by setting standards specified in terms of grams of pollutants per mile traveled. As a result, the tax must first restrain the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) if it is to have an impact on emission at all. EPA's choice of miles traveled as the medium through which its policy of pollution control must run is unfortunate, because travel is an activity that people resist giving up. This is reflected in a low long-run price elasticity of travel demand. Consequently, it takes substantial increases in the gasoline tax to make an impact on long-run travel demand. Simulation results show that under an alternative policy option, where EPA's standards are specified in terms of grams of pollutant per gallon of fuel burned, the same long-run reduction in exhaust emissions achievable today can be achieved (at an even higher level of confidence) with less than one-tenth of the increase in gasoline price required under the existing policy regime.     

Proof of use, continuity of functions in inter partes proceedings, and three-dimensional marks: Europe in review

Legal context: This article reviews the recent CFI and ECJ case law on proofof use and continuity of functions in the context of oppositionproceedings as well as the strict approach to three-dimensionalmarks. Key points: Unlike the situation in many common law jurisdictions, the Communitytrade mark regime is not a use-based system. Nevertheless, oncea mark has been registered for more than five years, the rightsthat it seeks to protect may only be enforceable to the extentthat the sign has been used for the goods and services it covers.In the context of opposition proceedings, applicants may callfor evidence that the opponent has actually used the mark onwhich the opposition is based. The concept of ‘genuineuse’ - which must be demonstrated in order to show thata mark has actually been used - has come before the Court ofJustice for further clarification. Where proof of use is adducedfor the first time before the Board of Appeal, the Court ofFirst Instance believes that, because of the principle of thecontinuity of functions, it is not out of time. That analysishas not been supported by the recent opinion of Advocate GeneralSharpston in the Arcol case and there is now considerable uncertaintypending a final pronouncement on the issue by the Court of Justice.In the meantime, the case law from Luxembourg continues to insiston three dimensional marks being like any other type of mark,whilst taking a very strict approach to the registrability ofsuch signs. Practical significance: The evidence of use to be adduced need not be quantatively significantand the ‘hurdle to be jumped’ is somewhat ‘lower’than was previously the case. Whether negligent representativesmay continue to use the continuity of functions principle tojustify recouping missed deadlines on appeal (particularly,when presenting proof of use), remains to be seen. However,what is certain is that three-dimensional marks will continueto be difficult to register.