Where’s Morningside? Locating bro’Town in the ethnic genealogy of New Zealand/Aotearoa

This article uses discourse analysis to locate animated primetime cartoon comedy bro'Town in terms of ethnicity and identification in both a local New Zealand/Aotearoa (NZ) and a global, postmodern, postcolonial media environment. It analyses and problematises the polarisation of local ethnic discourse between conservative assimilationist and bicultural "politically correct" viewpoints by situating the text in global postmodern media environment and demonstrating the discursive interdependence of such binary oppositions. Finally it looks at the degree to which bro'Town's self-proclaimed status as "hilariously anti-PC" comedy works to both exploit and undermine polarities of ethnic representation through employing "reverse discourse". The overall aim of the paper is not to present a close reading or textual analysis, but to situate the text in larger discursive frameworks and thus offer a number of possible theoretical approaches

Sociology

Sociology emerged in response to the problem of social order in modern society in the wake of the American and French Revolutions and the rise of industrialism and market capitalism. Sociology had its roots in the theories of August Comte and Herbert Spencer and in empirical work previously conducted by census bureaus, state labor boards, and reform organizations. By the 1880s, sociologists had perceived a threat in the alliance with biology: It undercut the need for a separate discipline and, in Spencer\u27s laissez-faire version, tainted the discipline among social reformers and other constituencies crucial to its success. In Dynamic Sociology, the American Lester Frank Ward addressed both issues. On the surface, American and European sociology during the interwar decades was a study in contrasts. The 1960s spelled the end of \u27modern\u27 sociology. In the United States, Parsons\u27s hegemony and Merton\u27s \u27middle range\u27 compromise gave way to a politically charged humanist/positivist divide

Regulating Rare Disease: Safely Facilitating Access to Orphan Drugs

While approximately one in ten Americans suffers from a rare disease, only 5 percent of rare diseases have a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved treatment. Congressional and regulatory efforts to stimulate the development of rare-disease treatments, while laudable, have not resolved the fundamental issues surrounding rare-disease treatment development. Indeed, small patient populations, incomplete scientific understanding of rare diseases, and high development costs continually limit the availability of rare-disease treatments. To illustrate the struggle of developing and approving safe rare-disease treatments, this Note begins by discussing the approval of Eteplirsen, the first drug approved for treating a rare disease called Duchenne muscular dystrophy. After exploring the current drug regulation system and how this impacts the availability of rare-disease treatments, this Note examines the 21st Century Cures Act’s patient experience data provisions and the currently pending Trickett Wendler Right to Try Act. Ultimately, the unmet therapeutic needs of rare-disease patients can be met while protecting patient safety, this Note reasons that, if carefully implemented, the 21st Century Cures Act and the Trickett Wendler Right to Try Act could work in tandem to safely facilitate patient access to rare-disease treatments