The Public Interest Standard: The Search for the Holy Grail

During the last eighty years, there is likely no single area of communications policy that has generated as much scholarly discourse, judicial analysis, and political debate as has the simple directive to regulate in the public interest. While remaining at the heart of current communications regulatory policy debate, the public interest standard has been subject to evolving, and often elusive definitions that reflect the change in American culture from generation to generation. As broadcasters begin the transition to a more flexible digital technology, there have been calls for a reexamination of the public interest standard. But the genius of the public interest standard is its breadth and flexibility, and the advent of digital television should not be an occasion for increasing public interest requirements. If anything, the development of new technologies justifies greater reliance on broadcasters and the market to ensure service to the public

The Public Interest Standard: The Search for the Holy Grail

During the last eighty years, there is likely no single area of communications policy that has generated as much scholarly discourse, judicial analysis, and political debate as has the simple directive to regulate in the public interest. While remaining at the heart of current communications regulatory policy debate, the public interest standard has been subject to evolving, and often elusive definitions that reflect the change in American culture from generation to generation. As broadcasters begin the transition to a more flexible digital technology, there have been calls for a reexamination of the public interest standard. But the genius of the public interest standard is its breadth and flexibility, and the advent of digital television should not be an occasion for increasing public interest requirements. If anything, the development of new technologies justifies greater reliance on broadcasters and the market to ensure service to the public

The worldwide clinical trial research response to the COVID-19 pandemic - the first 100 days

Background: Never before have clinical trials drawn as much public attention as those testing interventions for COVID-19. We aimed to describe the worldwide COVID-19 clinical research response and its evolution over the first 100 days of the pandemic. Methods: Descriptive analysis of planned, ongoing or completed trials by April 9, 2020 testing any intervention to treat or prevent COVID-19, systematically identified in trial registries, preprint servers, and literature databases. A survey was conducted of all trials to assess their recruitment status up to July 6, 2020. Results: Most of the 689 trials (overall target sample size 396,366) were small (median sample size 120; interquartile range [IQR] 60-300) but randomized (75.8%; n=522) and were often conducted in China (51.1%; n=352) or the USA (11%; n=76). 525 trials (76.2%) planned to include 155,571 hospitalized patients, and 25 (3.6%) planned to include 96,821 health-care workers. Treatments were evaluated in 607 trials (88.1%), frequently antivirals (n=144) or antimalarials (n=112); 78 trials (11.3%) focused on prevention, including 14 vaccine trials. No trial investigated social distancing. Interventions tested in 11 trials with >5,000 participants were also tested in 169 smaller trials (median sample size 273; IQR 90-700). Hydroxychloroquine alone was investigated in 110 trials. While 414 trials (60.0%) expected completion in 2020, only 35 trials (4.1%; 3,071 participants) were completed by July 6. Of 112 trials with detailed recruitment information, 55 had recruited <20% of the targeted sample; 27 between 20-50%; and 30 over 50% (median 14.8% [IQR 2.0-62.0%]). Conclusions: The size and speed of the COVID-19 clinical trials agenda is unprecedented. However, most trials were small investigating a small fraction of treatment options. The feasibility of this research agenda is questionable, and many trials may end in futility, wasting research resources. Much better coordination is needed to respond to global health threats

The daily association between affect and alcohol use: a meta-analysis of individual participant data

Influential psychological theories hypothesize that people consume alcohol in response to the experience of both negative and positive emotions. Despite two decades of daily diary and ecological momentary assessment research, it remains unclear whether people consume more alcohol on days they experience higher negative and positive affect in everyday life. In this preregistered meta-analysis, we synthesized the evidence for these daily associations between affect and alcohol use. We included individual participant data from 69 studies (N = 12,394), which used daily and momentary surveys to assess affect and the number of alcoholic drinks consumed. Results indicate that people are not more likely to drink on days they experience high negative affect, but are more likely to drink and drink heavily on days high in positive affect. People self-reporting a motivational tendency to drink-to-cope and drink-to-enhance consumed more alcohol, but not on days they experienced higher negative and positive affect. Results were robust across different operationalizations of affect, study designs, study populations, and individual characteristics. These findings challenge the long-held belief that people drink more alcohol following increases in negative affect. Integrating these findings under different theoretical models and limitations of this field of research, we collectively propose an agenda for future research to explore open questions surrounding affect and alcohol use.The present study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Grant MOP-115104 (Roisin M. O’Connor), Canadian Institutes of Health Research Grant MSH-122803 (Roisin M. O’Connor), John A. Hartford Foundation Grant (Paul Sacco), Loyola University Chicago Research Support Grant (Tracy De Hart), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Grant T03OH008435 (Cynthia Mohr), National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant F31AA023447 (Ryan W. Carpenter), NIH Grant R01AA025936 (Kasey G. Creswell), NIH Grant R01AA025969 (Catharine E. Fairbairn), NIH Grant R21AA024156 (Anne M. Fairlie), NIH Grant F31AA024372 (Fallon Goodman), NIH Grant R01DA047247 (Kevin M. King), NIH Grant K01AA026854 (Ashley N. Linden-Carmichael), NIH Grant K01AA022938 (Jennifer E. Merrill), NIH Grant K23AA024808 (Hayley Treloar Padovano), NIH Grant P60AA11998 (Timothy Trull), NIH Grant MH69472 (Timothy Trull), NIH Grant K01DA035153 (Nisha Gottfredson), NIH Grant P50DA039838 (Ashley N. Linden-Carmichael), NIH Grant K01DA047417 (David M. Lydon-Staley), NIH Grant T32DA037183 (M. Kushner), NIH Grant R21DA038163 (A. Moore), NIH Grant K12DA000167 (M. Potenza, Stephanie S. O’Malley), NIH Grant R01AA025451 (Bruce Bartholow, Thomas M. Piasecki), NIH Grant P50AA03510 (V. Hesselbrock), NIH Grant K01AA13938 (Kristina M. Jackson), NIH Grant K02AA028832 (Kevin M. King), NIH Grant T32AA007455 (M. Larimer), NIH Grant R01AA025037 (Christine M. Lee, M. Patrick), NIH Grant R01AA025611 (Melissa Lewis), NIH Grant R01AA007850 (Robert Miranda), NIH Grant R21AA017273 (Robert Miranda), NIH Grant R03AA014598 (Cynthia Mohr), NIH Grant R29AA09917 (Cynthia Mohr), NIH Grant T32AA07290 (Cynthia Mohr), NIH Grant P01AA019072 (P. Monti), NIH Grant R01AA015553 (J. Morgenstern), NIH Grant R01AA020077 (J. Morgenstern), NIH Grant R21AA017135 (J. Morgenstern), NIH Grant R01AA016621 (Stephanie S. O’Malley), NIH Grant K99AA029459 (Marilyn Piccirillo), NIH Grant F31AA022227 (Nichole Scaglione), NIH Grant R21AA018336 (Katie Witkiewitz), Portuguese State Budget Foundation for Science and Technology Grant UIDB/PSI/01662/2020 (Teresa Freire), University of Washington Population Health COVID-19 Rapid Response Grant (J. Kanter, Adam M. Kuczynski), U.S. Department of Defense Grant W81XWH-13-2-0020 (Cynthia Mohr), SANPSY Laboratory Core Support Grant CNRS USR 3413 (Marc Auriacombe), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Grant (N. Galambos), and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Grant (Andrea L. Howard)

Shared heritability and functional enrichment across six solid cancers

Correction: Nature Communications 10 (2019): art. 4386 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-12095-8Quantifying the genetic correlation between cancers can provide important insights into the mechanisms driving cancer etiology. Using genome-wide association study summary statistics across six cancer types based on a total of 296,215 cases and 301,319 controls of European ancestry, here we estimate the pair-wise genetic correlations between breast, colorectal, head/neck, lung, ovary and prostate cancer, and between cancers and 38 other diseases. We observed statistically significant genetic correlations between lung and head/neck cancer (r(g) = 0.57, p = 4.6 x 10(-8)), breast and ovarian cancer (r(g) = 0.24, p = 7 x 10(-5)), breast and lung cancer (r(g) = 0.18, p = 1.5 x 10(-6)) and breast and colorectal cancer (r(g) = 0.15, p = 1.1 x 10(-4)). We also found that multiple cancers are genetically correlated with non-cancer traits including smoking, psychiatric diseases and metabolic characteristics. Functional enrichment analysis revealed a significant excess contribution of conserved and regulatory regions to cancer heritability. Our comprehensive analysis of cross-cancer heritability suggests that solid tumors arising across tissues share in part a common germline genetic basis.Peer reviewe

Trans-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of prostate cancer identifies new susceptibility loci and informs genetic risk prediction.

Prostate cancer is a highly heritable disease with large disparities in incidence rates across ancestry populations. We conducted a multiancestry meta-analysis of prostate cancer genome-wide association studies (107,247 cases and 127,006 controls) and identified 86 new genetic risk variants independently associated with prostate cancer risk, bringing the total to 269 known risk variants. The top genetic risk score (GRS) decile was associated with odds ratios that ranged from 5.06 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.84-5.29) for men of European ancestry to 3.74 (95% CI, 3.36-4.17) for men of African ancestry. Men of African ancestry were estimated to have a mean GRS that was 2.18-times higher (95% CI, 2.14-2.22), and men of East Asian ancestry 0.73-times lower (95% CI, 0.71-0.76), than men of European ancestry. These findings support the role of germline variation contributing to population differences in prostate cancer risk, with the GRS offering an approach for personalized risk prediction