Angular distributions of γ rays from the 7Li(p,γ) reaction at low energies

Angular distributions of the 14–17 MeV γ rays from the 7Li(p,γ) reaction at Ep=450, 402, and 80 keV were measured at 0°≤θlab≤135°, using a BGO detector and a 28-μg/cm2 LiF target. The angular distributions at Ep=450 and 402 keV agree with the previous results by Mainsbridge; at Ep=80 keV the ground-state transition is anisotropic on the order of 20%, confirming recent results by Chasteler et al

Developing a Framework for Sensible Regulation: Lessons from OSHA's Proposed Ergonomics Rule

Injuries caused by workplace activities that involve repetitive motion, known as musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), increasingly concern workers, employers, and regulators because of their frequency and high treatment costs. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently proposed a national rule designed to reduce the workplace risk of MSDs. OSHA estimates there were about 626,000 MSDs in 1997, representing about one-third of all serious nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses. OSHA estimates the proposed rule will cost $4 billion per year and generate$9 billion per year in benefits. Yet, OSHA does not provide sufficient evidence that private markets are failing to reduce MSD risk without government intervention and does not convincingly demonstrate that the rule will result in more good than harm. Unless OSHA effectively addresses some of the more serious flaws in the proposed rule, OSHA should not proceed with the final regulation. OSHA should more carefully evaluate the nature and extent of MSDs in the workplace than it did in the proposed rule and use improved economic analysis to target serious MSDs that employers can reduce at low cost. Furthermore, OSHA should include new provisions to improve employer access to information about reducing workplace risk of MSDs. The rule's ergonomics program requirements should apply only to those MSDs which employers do not have sufficient incentive to reduce without government intervention.

A New Executive Order for Improving Federal Regulation' Deeper and Wider Cost-Benefit Analysis

An updated version of this article was published in the University of Pennyslvania Law Review .For over two decades, federal agencies have been required to analyze the benefits and costs of significant regulatory actions and to show that the benefits justify the costs. But the regulatory state continues to suffer from significant problems, including poor priority-setting, unintended adverse side-effects, and, on occasion, high costs for low benefits. In many cases, agencies do not offer an adequate account of either costs or benefits, and hence the commitment to cost-benefit balancing is not implemented in practice. A major current task is to ensure a deeper and wider commitment to cost-benefit analysis, properly understood. We explain how this task might be accomplished and offer a proposed executive order that would move regulation in better directions. In the course of the discussion, we explore a number of pertinent issues, including the actual record of the last two decades, the precautionary principle, the value of 'prompt letters', the role of distributional factors, and the need to incorporate independent agencies within the system of cost-benefit balancing.

A Solution to Concerns over Public Access to Scientific Data

To balance the public need for accountability and better policy decision making with concerns regarding burdens on scientists and scientific progress, the authors propose that increased access be limited to data relevant in analyzing regulations that would have an annual economic impact of at least $100 million. They also recommend establishing an agency to replicate key findings used to support regulations before they are finalized.Regulatory Reform

Should Researchers Be Required to Share Data Used in Supporting Regulatory Decisions?

The scientific establishment is deeply concerned over a proposed regulation that would require data to be shared on projects that are federally funded. Specifically, the proposed amendment to OMB Circular A-110 would require data collected by researchers at universities, hospitals, and non-profit institutions to be shared with interested parties if (1) the data are produced as part of a grant or agreement funded by the federal government; (2) the data are used in a published study; and (3) the data or study is used in formulating a policy or rule. Parties could request the data under the Freedom of Information Act. The proposed rule responds to a provision by Senator Richard Shelby in the 1999 Omnibus Spending Bill that requires data generated under federal awards at universities and non-profit institutions to be available to the public. This regulatory analysis develops an economic framework for evaluating proposals to provide greater access to research data. Our analysis also offers specific recommendations for improving OMB Circular A-110 as well as the broader regulatory process. We argue that the economic analysis of sharing research findings can be separated into three parts: the impact of requiring public access on incentives to produce data, research, and innovation; the impact of that requirement on the quality of research; and the impact of required access on the efficiency and transparency of policy. The economic analysis demonstrates that the standard property-rights framework used to justify time-limited property rights for the use of data is not sufficient for addressing broader problems in which research and data could be used to help inform public policy decisions. The value of sharing data for public policy must also be considered. A second conclusion is that traditional peer review done by scientific journals is not adequate for purposes of relying on research for major public policy decisions. A third conclusion is that scientists who are reluctant to share their findings are more likely to have errors in their analysis than the average researcher. A fourth conclusion is that requiring the release of data could slow the development of data and delay the publication of results. Although substantial costs and uncertainty may be associated with greater public access to data, our analysis suggests that academic norms alone provide very limited access to scientific data. We recommend improving Circular A-110 by narrowing and clarifying the scope of the proposed regulation. The proposed regulation should apply to economically significant regulations that have an annual economic impact of at least $100 million. In addition, we recommend that Congress create an agency that would be charged with replicating the findings of regulatory agencies before such regulations could be implemented. The recommendations concerning replication would require additional legal authority. Taken together, our recommendations would help lay the foundation for a regulatory system that is more accountable and has more scientific integrity.

Does the social Cost of Carbon Matter?: An Assessment of U.S. Policy

we evaluate a recent u.s. initiative to include the social cost of carbon (sCc) in regulatory decisions. To our knowledge, this paper provides the first systematic test of the extent to which applying the SCC has affected national policy. we examine all economically significant federal regulations since 2008, and obtain a surprising result: Putting a value on changes in carbon dioxide emissions does not generally affect the ranking of the preferred policy compared with the status quo. overall, we find little evidence that use of the SCC has affected u.s. policy choices to date. we offer an explanation related to the political economy of regulation

A New Executive Order for Improving Federal Regulation - Deeper and Wider Cost-Benefit Analysis

For over two decades, federal agencies have been required to analyze the benefits and costs of significant regulatory actions and to show that the benefits justify the costs. But the regulatory state continues to suffer from significant problems, including poor priority-setting, unintended adverse side-effects, and, on occasion, high costs for low benefits. In many cases, agencies do not offer an adequate account of either costs or benefits, and hence the commitment to cost-benefit balancing is not implemented in practice. A major current task is to ensure a deeper and wider commitment to cost-benefit analysis, properly understood. We explain how this task might be accomplished and offer a proposed executive order that would move regulation in better directions. In the course of the discussion, we explore a number of pertinent issues, including the actual record of the last two decades, the precautionary principle, the value of prompt letters, the role of distributional factors, and the need to incorporate independent agencies within the system of cost-benefit balancing

Two-loop SUSY QCD corrections to the chargino masses in the MSSM

We have calculated the two-loop strong interaction corrections to the chargino pole masses in the DRbar'-scheme in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) with complex parameters. We have performed a detailed numerical analysis for a particular point in the parameter space and found corrections of a few tenths of a percent. We provide a computer program which calculates chargino and neutralino masses with complex parameters including the one-loop corrections and all two-loop SQCD effects.Comment: 12 pages, 11 figures, references modified, clarifications adde