How is Democracy Applied within the EU: Combining Elements of Traditional and Innovative Democratic Practice

The EU represents a new and complex political system which, according to numerous social scholars, suffers from the so-called democratic deficit. The basic argument behind this claim is that citizens lack control of the EU because, within its political system, national parliaments of member states possess only limited powers which have not been adequately compensated through steady empowerment of the European parliament (EP). Starting from this notion, the paper will explore the application of various concepts of democracy within the political system of the EU. First and foremost, it will analyse representative democracy in the EU, which stands as a foundation of all contemporary democratic systems. However, the paper will not stop at representative democracy, but it will also look at participatory, direct and deliberative democracy as applied within the political system of the EU. These concepts of democracy can only be viewed in relation and as an addition to representative democracy, but their application is very important for the EU due to limited possibilities for developing representative democracy at the supranational level. The paper will argue that, with regard to participatory and deliberative democracy, the EU can be viewed in many respects as a showcase for the national level, because it successfully developed various mechanisms related to implementation of these concepts. Particular attention will be paid to the Lisbon Treaty, which clarified many uncertainties that previously burdened the application of democracy within the EU. It will be argued that with the Lisbon Treaty the classic argument about the EU’s democratic deficit lost some of its appeal, because this treaty transformed the EP from secondary to equal participant in the EU’s legislative process

What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Focus group studies are increasingly published in health related journals, but we know little about how researchers use this method, particularly how they determine the number of focus groups to conduct. The methodological literature commonly advises researchers to follow principles of data saturation, although practical advise on how to do this is lacking. Our objectives were firstly, to describe the current status of sample size in focus group studies reported in health journals. Secondly, to assess whether and how researchers explain the number of focus groups they carry out.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched PubMed for studies that had used focus groups and that had been published in open access journals during 2008, and extracted data on the number of focus groups and on any explanation authors gave for this number. We also did a qualitative assessment of the papers with regard to how number of groups was explained and discussed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 220 papers published in 117 journals. In these papers insufficient reporting of sample sizes was common. The number of focus groups conducted varied greatly (mean 8.4, median 5, range 1 to 96). Thirty seven (17%) studies attempted to explain the number of groups. Six studies referred to rules of thumb in the literature, three stated that they were unable to organize more groups for practical reasons, while 28 studies stated that they had reached a point of saturation. Among those stating that they had reached a point of saturation, several appeared not to have followed principles from grounded theory where data collection and analysis is an iterative process until saturation is reached. Studies with high numbers of focus groups did not offer explanations for number of groups. Too much data as a study weakness was not an issue discussed in any of the reviewed papers.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Based on these findings we suggest that journals adopt more stringent requirements for focus group method reporting. The often poor and inconsistent reporting seen in these studies may also reflect the lack of clear, evidence-based guidance about deciding on sample size. More empirical research is needed to develop focus group methodology.</p

Benign mammary epithelial cells enhance the transformed phenotype of human breast cancer cells

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent research has yielded a wealth of data underscoring the key role of the cancer microenvironment, especially immune and stromal cells, in the progression of cancer and the development of metastases. However, the role of adjacent benign epithelial cells, which provide initial cell-cell contacts with cancer cells, in tumor progression has not been thoroughly examined. In this report we addressed the question whether benign MECs alter the transformed phenotype of human breast cancer cells.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used both <it>in vitro </it>and <it>in vivo </it>co-cultivation approaches, whereby we mixed GFP-tagged MCF-10A cells (G2B-10A), as a model of benign mammary epithelial cells (MECs), and RFP-tagged MDA-MB-231-TIAS cells (R2-T1AS), as a model of breast cancer cells.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The <it>in vitro </it>studies showed that G2B-10A cells increase the colony formation of R2-T1AS cells in both soft agar and clonogenicity assays. Conditioned media derived from G2B-10A cells enhanced colony formation of R2-T1AS cells, whereas prior paraformaldehyde (PFA) fixation of G2B-10A cells abrogated this enhancement effect. Moreover, two other models of benign MECs, MCF-12A and HuMECs, also enhanced R2-T1AS colony growth in soft agar and clonogenicity assays. These data reveal that factors secreted by benign MECs are responsible for the observed enhancement of the R2-T1AS transformed phenotype. To determine whether G2B-10A cells enhance the tumorigenic growth of co-injected R2-T1AS cells <it>in vivo</it>, we used the nude mouse xenograft assay. Co-injecting R2-T1AS cells with G2B-10A cells ± PFA-fixation, revealed that G2B-10A cells promoted a ~3-fold increase in tumor growth, irrespective of PFA pre-treatment. These results indicate that soluble factors secreted by G2B-10A cells play a less important role in promoting R2-T1AS tumorigenesis <it>in vivo</it>, and that additional components are operative in the nude mouse xenograft assay. Finally, using array analysis, we found that both live and PFA-fixed G2B-10A cells induced R2-T1AS cells to secrete specific cytokines (IL-6 and GM-CSF), suggesting that cell-cell contact activates R2-T1AS cells.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Taken together, these data shift our understanding of adjacent benign epithelial cells in the cancer process, from passive, noncontributory cells to an active and tumor-promoting vicinal cell population that may have significant effects early, when benign cells outnumber malignant cells.</p

Ex vivo treatment of patient biopsies as a novel method to assess colorectal tumour response to the MEK1/2 inhibitor, Selumetinib

Abstract Although an array of new therapeutics has emerged for the treatment of colorectal cancer, their use is significantly impacted by variability in patient response. Better pre-clinical models could substantially improve efficacy as it may allow stratification of patients into the correct treatment regime. Here we explore acute, ex vivo treatment of fresh, surgically resected human colorectal tumour biopsies as a novel pre-clinical model for identifying patient response to specific therapeutics. The MEK1/2 inhibitor, Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886) was used as a tool compound. Firstly, we established an acute treatment protocol and demonstrated this protocol could differentiate phenotypic and pharmacodynamic responses to Selumetinib (0–3uM). We then used the protocol to evaluate Selumetinib response in tumours from 23 colon cancer patients. These studies revealed that the agent inhibited pERK1/2 phosphorylation in all tumours, caused a significant decrease in proliferation in 5/23 (22%) tumours, and that KRAS/BRAF mutant tumours were particularly sensitive to the anti-proliferative effects of the agent. These data are consistent with data from clinical trials of Selumetinib, suggesting that acute treatment of small tumour biopsies is worthy of further exploration as a pre-clinical model to evaluate colorectal cancer response to novel therapies