Innovation, Regulation and the Selection Environment

This article focuses on the question of how regulation can be best designed to encourage technological innovation. Most scholarship in this area applies standard economic analysis to evaluate the impact of various forms of regulation on technological innovation. We reject that approach as too narrow, drawing instead upon principles of evolutionary economics. The basic premise of the article is that a firm’s technology choices—and its response to regulation intended to shape those choices—are influenced by other actors (such as suppliers and competitors), by external social and legal institutions (e.g., industry standards and norms) and by the firms\u27 internal structure (such as communication channels.) Regulators seeking to encourage innovation must first understand the industry sector\u27s selection environment; that is, the socio-economic environment created by that network of actors, institutions, and routines. We demonstrate the selection environment approach in a case study of the dry cleaning sector, a leading source of toxic emissions in Southern California. Professional drycleaners have been slow to adopt alternative non-polluting cleaning technologies. Relying upon surveys and interviews we conducted of cleaners, equipment vendors, and regulators, we construct a conceptual model of the sector\u27s selection environment. We then use that model to identify barriers to innovation, and to evaluate several policy tools intended to overcome those barriers. Our analysis is a cautionary tale for those who support broad use of market-based regulation such as economic incentives and information strategies. In the selection environment we studied, traditional command and control regulation is likely to lead to broader diffusion of the new environmentally-beneficial cleaning technologies than market-based approaches, and at less social cost

Has Toxicity Testing Moved into the 21st Century? A Survey and Analysis of Perceptions in the Field of Toxicology.

BackgroundTen years ago, leaders in the field of toxicology called for a transformation of the discipline and a shift from primarily relying on traditional animal testing to incorporating advances in biotechnology and predictive methodologies into alternative testing strategies (ATS). Governmental agencies and academic and industry partners initiated programs to support such a transformation, but a decade later, the outcomes of these efforts are not well understood.ObjectivesWe aimed to assess the use of ATS and the perceived barriers and drivers to their adoption by toxicologists and by others working in, or closely linked with, the field of toxicology.MethodsWe surveyed 1,381 toxicologists and experts in associated fields regarding the viability and use of ATS and the perceived barriers and drivers of ATS for a range of applications. We performed ranking, hierarchical clustering, and correlation analyses of the survey data.ResultsMany respondents indicated that they were already using ATS, or believed that ATS were already viable approaches, for toxicological assessment of one or more end points in their primary area of interest or concern (26-86%, depending on the specific ATS/application pair). However, the proportions of respondents reporting use of ATS in the previous 12 mo were smaller (4.5-41%). Concern about regulatory acceptance was the most commonly cited factor inhibiting the adoption of ATS, and a variety of technical concerns were also cited as significant barriers to ATS viability. The factors most often cited as playing a significant role (currently or in the future) in driving the adoption of ATS were the need for expedited toxicology information, the need for reduced toxicity testing costs, demand by regulatory agencies, and ethical or moral concerns.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that the transformation of the field of toxicology is partly implemented, but significant barriers to acceptance and adoption remain. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1435

Mechanical Demands of the Hang Power Clean and Jump Shrug: A Joint-level Perspective

The purpose of this study was to investigate the joint- and load-dependent changes in the mechanical demands of the lower extremity joints during the hang power clean (HPC) and the jump shrug (JS). Fifteen male lacrosse players were recruited from an NCAA DI team, and completed three sets of the HPC and JS at 30%, 50%, and 70% of their HPC 1-Repetition Maximum (1-RM HPC) in a counterbalanced and randomized order. Motion analysis and force plate technology were used to calculate the positive work, propulsive phase duration, and peak concentric power at the hip, knee, and ankle joints. Separate three-way analysis of variances were used to determine the interaction and main effects of joint, load, and lift type on the three dependent variables. The results indicated that the mechanics during the HPC and JS exhibit joint-, load-, and lift-dependent behavior. When averaged across joints, the positive work during both lifts increased progressively with external load, but was greater during the JS at 30% and 50% of 1-RM HPC than during the HPC. The JS was also characterized by greater hip and knee work when averaged across loads. The joint-averaged propulsive phase duration was lower at 30% than at 50% and 70% of 1-RM HPC for both lifts. Furthermore, the load-averaged propulsive phase duration was greater for the hip than the knee and ankle joint. The jointaveraged peak concentric power was the greatest at 70% of 1-RM for the HPC and at 30% to 50% of 1-RM for the JS. In addition, the joint-averaged peak concentric power of the JS was greater than that of the HPC. Furthermore, the load-averaged peak knee and ankle concentric joint powers were greater during the execution of the JS than the HPC. However, the loadaveraged power of all joints differed only during the HPC, but was similar between the hip and knee joints for the JS. Collectively, these results indicate that compared to the HPC the JS is characterized by greater hip and knee positive joint work, and greater knee and ankle peak concentric joint power, especially if performed at 30 and 50% of 1-RM HPC. This study provides important novel information about the mechanical demands of two commonly used exercises and should be considered in the design of resistance training programs that aim to improve the explosiveness of the lower extremity joints