The effect of allowing motorists to opt out of tort law in the United States

Dans le domaine des accidents d'automobile, le droit commun et les législations spéciales font souvent l'objet de critiques aux États-Unis. Une proposition présentement à l'étude permettrait aux automobilistes d'obvier à ces critiques en choisissant le système d'indemnisation qui leur serait applicable. Des projections actuarielles font état d'économies substantielles pour les automobilistes. Ces économies sont cependant en diminution depuis quelques années puisque les montants minimaux obligatoires d'assurance automobile n'ont pas suivi le taux d'inflation. Il en résulte que de plus en plus d'automobilistes, sous le droit commun, se contentent d'une réclamation pour leurs pertes de nature économique.As applied to U.S. traffic accidents, both tort law and no-fault law are often attacked. A proposed solution would allow motorists to choose an option bypassing the inadequacies of both tort law and current U.S. no-fault laws. Actuarial estimates indicate large savings available to motorists so choosing. But as time goes on, the savings are diminished as low required limits of coverage in the U.S. meet inflation, leading not only to admittedly lessened savings but also to the anomaly of more and more motorists in non no-fault states pursuing tort rights for only economic losses

INFOGEST inter-laboratory recommendations for assaying gastric and pancreatic lipases activities prior to in vitro digestion studies

International audienceIn vitro digestion studies often use animal digestive enzyme extracts as substitutes of human gastric and pancreatic secretions. Pancreatin from porcine origin is thus commonly used to provide relevant pancreatic enzymes such as proteases, amylase and lipase. Rabbit gastric extracts (RGE) have been recently introduced to provide gastric lipase in addition to pepsin. Before preparing simulated gastric and pancreatic extracts with targeted enzyme activities as described in in vitro digestion protocols, it is important to determine the activities of enzyme preparations using validated methods. The purpose of this inter-laboratory study within the INFOGEST network was to test the repeatability and reproducibility of lipase assays using the pH-stat technique for measuring the activities of gastric and pancreatic lipases from various sources. Twenty-one laboratories having different pH-stat devices received the same protocol with identical batches of RGE and two pancreatin sources. Lipase assays were performed using tributyrin as a substrate and three different amounts (50, 100 and 200 µg) of each enzyme preparation. The repeatability results within individual laboratories were satisfactory with coefficients of variation (CVs) ranging from 4 to 8% regardless of the enzyme amount tested. However, the inter-laboratory variability was high (CV > 15%) compared to existing standards for bioanalytical assays. We identified and weighted the contributions to inter-laboratory variability of several parameters associated with the various pH-stat equipment used in this study (e.g. reaction vessel volume and shape, stirring mode and rate, burette volume for the automated delivery of sodium hydroxide). Based on this, we established recommendations for improving the reproducibility of lipase assays using the pH-stat technique. Defining accurate and complete recommendations on how to correctly quantify activity levels of enzyme preparations is a gateway to promising comparison of in vitro data obtained from different laboratories following the same in vitro digestion protocol

Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap

Energy-efficient technologies offer considerable promise for reducing the financial costs and environmental damages associated with energy use, but these technologies appear not to be adopted by consumers and businesses to the degree that would apparently be justified, even on a purely financial basis. We present two complementary frameworks for understanding this so-called "energy paradox" or "energy-efficiency gap." First, we build on the previous literature by dividing potential explanations for the energy-efficiency gap into three categories: market failures, behavioral anomalies, and model and measurement errors. Second, we posit that it is useful to think in terms of the fundamental elements of cost-minimizing energy-efficiency decisions. This provides a decomposition that organizes thinking around four questions. First, are product offerings and pricing economically efficient? Second, are energy operating costs inefficiently priced and/or understood? Third, are product choices cost-minimizing in present value terms? Fourth, do other costs inhibit more energy-efficient decisions? We review empirical evidence on these questions, with an emphasis on recent advances, and offer suggestions for future research