Public Law and the Emergence of a Multi-Layered Constitution in Europe

Streaming video requires RealPlayer to view.The University Archives has determined that this item is of continuing value to OSU's history.Nicholas Bamforth is a Fellow in Law at Queen's College, Oxford University. His areas of specialization include constitutional and administrative law, European Community law, human rights, and philosophy of law.Ohio State University. Mershon Center for International Security StudiesEvent webpage, streaming video, photo

Mycoremediation of petroleum contaminated soils: progress, prospects and perspectives

Mycoremediation, an aspect of bioremediation, has been investigated for some decades. However, there seems to be little progress on its commercial application to petroleum-contaminated soils despite some promising outcomes. In this review, mycoremediation is examined to identify development, limitations and perspectives for its optimal utilization on petroleum-contaminated soils. Mycoremediation agents and substrates that have been used for the treatment of petroleum contaminated soils have been identified, application methods discussed, recent advances highlighted and limitations for its applications accentuated. Possible solutions to the challenges in applying mycoremediation to petroleum-contaminated soils have also been discussed. From this review, we conclude that for optimal utilization of mycoremediation of petroleum-contaminated soils, ideal environmental, edaphic and climatic factors of a typical contaminated site must be incorporated into the approach from first principles. Development of application procedures that can easily translate laboratory results to field applications is also required

Effect of repurposed simvastatin on disability progression in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS-STAT2): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background Despite the success of immune modulation in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis, disability progression is a major problem driven by multiple mechanisms. Comorbidities (eg, vascular risk) and ageing are thought to augment these neurodegenerative pathologies. In the phase 2b MS-STAT trial of simvastatin (80 mg) versus placebo in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), the adjusted difference in brain atrophy rate between groups was −0·254% per year: a 43% reduction. In this phase 3 MS-STAT2 trial, we aimed to assess the efficacy of simvastatin versus placebo in slowing the progression of disability in SPMS. Methods This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted at 31 neuroscience centres and district general hospitals in the UK. Participants aged 18–65 years with a diagnosis of SPMS and an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) of between 4·0 and 6·5 were eligible and randomly assigned (1:1) to oral simvastatin (80 mg) or matched placebo for up to 4·5 years, based on a minimisation algorithm within an independent and secure online randomisation service. All participants, site investigators, and the trial coordinating team were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was time to 6-month EDSS confirmed disability progression (an increase of at least 1 point if EDSS score at baseline visit was less than 6·0 or an increase of 0·5 point if EDSS score at baseline visit was 6·0 or more) assessed in all randomly assigned participants (intention-to-treat analysis) without imputation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03387670) and is on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN82598726). The study is completed. Findings Between May 10, 2018, and July 26, 2024, 1079 patients were screened for eligibility and 964 participants were randomly assigned, with 482 (50%) in the placebo group and 482 (50%) in the simvastatin group. Of all 964 participants, 704 (73%) were female and 260 (27%) were male, with a mean age of 54 years (SD 7). 173 (36%) of 482 participants in the placebo group and 192 (40%) of 482 participants in the simvastatin group had 6-month confirmed disability progression (adjusted hazard ratio 1·13 [95% CI 0·91 to 1·39], p=0·26). Although no emergent safety issues were seen, there was one serious adverse reaction (rhabdomyolysis) in the simvastatin group. 12 (2%) of 482 participants in the placebo group and five (1%) of 482 participants in the simvastatin group had a cardiovascular serious adverse event. Interpretation The MS-STAT2 trial did not show a treatment effect of simvastatin in slowing disability progression in SPMS. Simvastatin use in multiple sclerosis should be confined to existing vascular indications. Funding National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme, UK Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the US National Multiple Sclerosis Society

Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination under EU Law and the European Convention on Human Rights: Problems of Contrast and Overlap

Both EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights contain protections against invidious forms of discrimination. EU law has long been concerned to combat discrimination on the grounds of sex and nationality, and has more recently begun to tackle discrimination on the bases of race, sexual orientation, age, religion or belief and disability. Article 14 of the Convention is also concerned with these grounds—some explicitly, some through judicial interpretation—as well as others such as birth status. However, at a level of detail the two bodies of law differ in many ways: for example, in the contexts in which they apply, in their treatment of justifications for prima facie acts of discrimination, and in the extent to which direct and indirect discrimination are prohibited. It is thus a matter for debate how far they in fact overlap, or have the potential to do so. Furthermore, given that it is a shared concern of EU law and the Convention to combat invidious forms of discrimination, their respective anti-discrimination protections might be felt to provide a particularly strong illustration of the extent to which there are similarities and divergences between the two bodies of law. In this sense, anti-discrimination law offers an illuminating case study of the intersections and differences between the two bodies of ‘European’ law, both at European level and within the domestic legal systems of EU Member States.</jats:p