What is the Economic Cost of Overweight Children?

Childhood overweight is now considered the most common health problem for children in the U.S. An important question is whether parents and policymakers will see rising medical expenditures for these children while they are still young. We estimate the overweight attributable fraction (OAF) of children’s medical expenditures, controlling for other factors that may cause expenditures to differ. We find that medical expenditures for overweight children are on average $12.09 higher per year (OAF = 0.5 percent), but confidence intervals are large and include zero. We also find little difference in the types of principal diagnoses per visit reported by weight status.

Stem Cell Research: Federal Research Funding and Oversight

Embryonic stem cells have the ability to develop into virtually any cell in the body, and they may have the potential to treat medical conditions such as diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. In August 2001, President Bush announced that for the first time, federal funds would be used to support research on human embryonic stem cells, but funding would be limited to “existing stem cell lines.” NIH has established a registry of 78 human embryonic stem cell lines that are eligible for use in federally funded research, but only 21 cell lines are currently available. Scientists are concerned about the quality and longevity of these 21 stem cell lines. NIH Director Elias Zerhouni stated before a Senate subcommittee in March 2007 that research advancement requires access to new human embryonic stem cell lines. Some have argued that adult stem cells (from bone marrow or umbilical cord blood) should be pursued instead of embryonic stem cells because they believe the derivation of stem cells from embryos is ethically unacceptable. The NIH Director and many other scientists believe adult stem cells should not be the sole target of research because of important scientific and technical limitations. Reports issued by NIH and the Institute of Medicine state that both embryonic and adult stem cell research should be pursued. Some scientists are exploring the possibility of obtaining human embryonic stem cells that bypass the destruction of living human embryos. The President’s Council on Bioethics cited four potential alternative sources of human embryonic stem cells in a May 2005 paper. A number of pro-life advocates support stem cell research; those opposed are concerned that stem cell isolation requires embryo destruction. On January 11, 2007, the House passed H.R. 3 (DeGette) on a vote of 253 to 174. H.R. 3 would allow federal support of research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, and thus negate the August 2001 Bush stem cell policy limitation. On April 11, 2007, the Senate passed S. 5 (Reid), which has the same text as H.R. 3 and an additional section supporting research on alternative human pluripotent stem cells. The Senate also passed S. 30 (Coleman) on April 11, 2007. Unlike H.R. 3 and S. 5, S. 30 provides support only for research on alternative human pluripotent stem cells. (The 109th Congress passed legislation identical to H.R. 3, H.R. 810 (Castle), but President Bush vetoed it, the first veto of his presidency. An attempt in the House to override the veto was unsuccessful.) On the related issue of human cloning, S. 812 (Hatch) would ban human reproductive cloning but allow for the therapeutic uses of the technique provided that a number of ethical requirements are observed. In contrast, the Weldon bill (which passed the House in the 107th and 108th Congresses) and S. 1036 (Brownback) would ban not only reproductive applications, but also research on therapeutic uses, which has implications for stem cell research. Advocates of the legislative ban say that allowing any form of human cloning research to proceed raises serious ethical issues, and will inevitably lead to the birth of a baby who is a human clone. Critics argue that the measure would curtail medical research and prevent Americans from receiving life-saving treatments created overseas. This report will be updated as needed

Human Cloning

In December 2005, an investigation by Seoul National University, South Korea, found that scientist Hwang Woo Suk had fabricated results on deriving patientmatched stem cells from cloned embryos — a major setback for the field. In May 2005 Hwang had announced a significant advance in creating human embryos using cloning methods and in isolating human stem cells from cloned embryos. These developments have contributed to the debate in the 109th Congress on the moral and ethical implications of human cloning. Scientists in other labs, including Harvard University and the University of California at San Francisco, intend to produce cloned human embryos in order to derive stem cells for medical research on diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and other diseases. President Bush announced in August 2001 that for the first time federal funds would be used to support research on human embryonic stem cells, but funding would be limited to “existing stem cell lines.” Federal funds can not be used for the cloning of human embryos for any purpose, including stem cell research. In July 2002 the President’s Council on Bioethics released its report on human cloning which unanimously recommended a ban on reproductive cloning and, by a vote of 10 to 7, a four-year moratorium on cloning for medical research purposes. The ethical issues surrounding reproductive cloning (commodification, safety, identity ), and therapeutic cloning (embryos’ moral status, relief of suffering), impact various proposals for regulation, restrictions, bans, and uses of federal funding. In January 2002, the National Academies released Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning. It recommended that the U.S. ban human reproductive cloning aimed at creating a child. It suggested the ban be enforceable and carry substantial penalties. The panel noted that the ban should be reconsidered within five years. However, the panel concluded that cloning to produce stem cells should be permitted because of the potential for developing new therapies and advancing biomedical knowledge. On May 24, 2005, the House passed H.R. 810 (Castle), which would allow federal support of research that uses human embryonic stem cells regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, thus negating the Bush stem cell policy limitation on “existing stem cell lines.” In July of 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 810 and President Bush vetoed it, the first veto of his presidency. An attempt in the House to override the veto was unsuccessful. Action on the Weldon bill (which passed the House in the 108th Congress and stalled in the Senate) is also possible; it was reintroduced in the 109th Congress as H.R. 1357 and S. 658 (Brownback). The bill bans the process of cloning as well as the importation of any product derived from an embryo created via cloning. It bans not only reproductive applications, but also research on therapeutic uses, which has implications for stem cell research. Advocates of the legislative ban say that allowing any form of human cloning research to proceed raises serious ethical issues and will inevitably lead to the birth of a baby that is a human clone. Critics of the ban argue that the measure would curtail medical research and prevent Americans from receiving life-saving treatments created overseas. This report will be updated as needed

Coexistence and competitive exclusion in mutualism

The competitive exclusion principle is fundamental to understanding coexistence. Well-established theories predict the conditions for coexistence in consumer-resource interactions. Given that species often compete for commodities offered by mutualists, competitive exclusion theory should also be critical to understanding how mutualisms function. We explicitly apply the competitive exclusion principle to mutualism and derive a rule analogous to Tilman's R* rule for exploitative competition. Coexistence is impossible when competitors compete solely for a shared partner-provided commodity because superior competitors deplete that commodity sufficiently to exclude inferior competitors. We then investigate how competition between two guild members for a partner-provided commodity and a resource external to the mutualism affects competitor coexistence. There are three key results. First, coexistence is possible via partitioning of a partner-provided commodity and another resource. Second, unlike in classic R* Theory, competitive outcomes are influenced both by species' abilities to obtain commodities and their mutualisms with the shared commodity-providing partner, which can indirectly alleviate competitors' commodity limitation. Third, the outcome of competition has important consequences for the commodity-providing partner, which depend on the type of mutualism and the competitive abilities of competing mutualists. This theory provides a novel framework for investigating how competitors for mutualistic commodities coexist in nature.Science Foundation Arizona Grant [BSP0528-13]; ETH Zurich Center for Adaptation to a Changing EnvironmentThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Farm Management in Australia: The Way Forward

This paper summarises the outcomes of a National Workshop in Farm Management, 5-6 December 2002, organised by the University of Sydney, Faculty of Rural Management, Orange. At this Workshop leading farmers, industry leaders, corporate representatives, academics, researchers and extension officers explored the future of farm management (education, research and consultancy) in Australia. Major outcomes were that farm management practice is proceeding informally to undertake decisions supporting socially and ecologically friendly, sustainable commercial production agriculture. However the risks of lack of integration, a reductionist approach to only on-farm practice, stagnation of academic programs to respond to leading edge industry initiatives, as well as ill-defined boundaries for farm management research were identified. The analysis indicated that formal educational models, research and extension-consultancy frameworks of an holistic nature, and a multiple bottom line perspective, were appropriate avenues for the future development of farm management practice and research. Workshop participants perceived that a farm management strand emphasising business management rather than technology could be a better educational model. Also there was an emphasis in highlighting the importance of linked development and partnership amongst the different players. The Workshop created the conditions for development of networks among industry, education and consultative research.Farm Management,

The Australian Farm Business Management Network: Industry, Education, Consultancy and Research Coming Together

Under the sponsorship of the University of Sydney, on 5-6th December 2002 the future of farm management in Australia was discussed. The fundamental conclusion achieved by key primary industry representatives, corporate executives, academics, consultants and researchers is that farm management will have a more significant role to play in the future than previously in servicing the primary sector. The idea of farm management as a profession was proposed. Its basis would be business management supported by farming systems and technology, and using an holistic approach to action (i.e. finance, people and environment). The new profession of Farm Business Management would seek to influence education, research, consultancy and extension in Australia. Interested parties participating of the 2002 National Farm Management Workshop came away with the idea of championing a consultative network, constituted by interested institutions and interested individuals, as a first step in the process of nurturing the future development of farm business management. By integrating farmers and academics with corporate executives, consultants and researchers the objective is to behave as a consultative group. This group will influence educational models, implement consultancy and research strategies, and network in social and professional terms. Moreover, this network will provide a systematic opportunity for the channelling of farm business management and farming systems related information at different levels for education, extension and scientific purposes. This network is called the Australian Farm Business Management Network (AFBMnetwork).Institutional and Behavioral Economics,