Efficient β-cell regeneration by a combination of neogenesis and replication following β-cell ablation and reversal of pancreatic duct ligation.

Achieving efficient β-cell regeneration is a major goal of diabetes research. Previously, we found that a combination of β-cell ablation and pancreatic duct ligation led to β-cell regeneration by direct conversion from α-cells. Here, we studied the effect of surgical reversal of the duct ligation, finding that there was a wave of β-cell replication following reversal. The combination of β-cell neogenesis prior to reversal of the duct ligation and β-cell replication following reversal resulted in efficient β-cell regeneration and eventual recovery of function. This provides an important proof of principle that efficient β-cell regeneration is possible, even from a starting point of profound β-cell ablation. This has important implications for efforts to promote β-cell regeneration

The Landmark That Wasn\u27t: A First Amendment Play in Five Acts

What follows is an original case study of our First Amendment law of free expression and how it is created by the Supreme Court. Drawing heavily on heretofore unpublished internal papers from the chambers of Justice William Brennan and other Justices, this Article reveals how the 1964 landmark decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was once in serious jeopardy of being overruled. In the course of this discussion, and in their examination of the evolution of the Court’s decision in Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders (1985), the authors describe and analyze: (1) how and to what extent the holdings in Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) came to be reconsidered; (2) how the nature of the expression at issue in Greenmoss Builders factored into the examination of this defamation case and changed the way the First Amendment limits the common law of defamation; (3) how the members of the Burger Court considered the question of the media versus non-media status of a defendant in a defamation case; (4) how the Justices grappled with the question of the legitimacy under the First Amendment of presumed and punitive damages awards in defamation actions; (5) how the issue of the difference between private speech and public speech came to take on constitutional significance; (6) whether the Court should reconsider the balance it struck in Sullivan between the public’s interest in being fully informed about public officials and public affairs and the competing interest of those who have been defamed in vindicating their reputation; and (7) how all of this ultimately influenced and determined the outcome in Greenmoss Builders. In the swirl of this discussion and examination of the historical record, the reader gets a rare glimpse of the inner workings of the Court and its clerks along with a better appreciation of how consensus is built and lost, replete with occasional barbs. Moreover, this Article reveals just how laborious the shaping of First Amendment doctrine can be, given the issues (some never fully discussed in published opinions) raised by the Justices in their consideration of the Greenmoss Builders case. In these respects and others, this Article informs the reader of some of the central (albeit internal) moments in the history of defamation law following Sullivan and thereby sheds new light on how the law in this area might be shaped in the future

The Court and the Cannonball: An Inside Look

As lawsuits over the right of publicity proliferate among athletes and other celebrities, there is renewed interest, by litigants and judges alike, in the one decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that addresses a tort action arising from a publicity related claim, Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. Although the 1977 ruling is often cited as holding that the right of publicity tort survives constitutional scrutiny under the First Amendment, an examination of the case and of the Supreme Court justices\u27 available papers shows that the Court did not view the case as presenting the type of claim that has become prevalent today. The Zacchini case involved a human cannonball act in which a television station filmed and broadcast the entire fifteen-second performance of Hugo Zacchini being shot from a cannon to a landing pad. The Supreme Court rejected the television station\u27s First Amendment defense that it had a right to broadcast the act on a newscast because the performance itself constituted a matter of public interest. For the Supreme Court, the internal papers indicate the case was about the right of a performer/producer to control the display of his entire act. The Court was not focused on the more contemporary claim that athletes, celebrities, and others have a right to control the use by anyone else, especially for commercial purposes, of their name or their visual image. Nor did the Court\u27s ruling address the First Amendment issue raised in contemporary cases when a name or likeness is used in a creative work or other public communication

Interactions of technology and society: Impacts of improved airtransport. A study of airports at the grass roots

The feasibility of applying a particular conception of technology and social change to specific examples of technological development was investigated. The social and economic effects of improved airport capabilities on rural communities were examined. Factors which led to the successful implementation of a plan to construct sixty small airports in Ohio are explored and implications derived for forming public policies, evaluating air transportation development, and assessing technology