Examination of the mass-dependent Li depletion hypothesis by the Li abundances of the very metal-poor double-lined spectroscopic binary G166-45

The Li abundances of the two components of the very metal-poor ([Fe/H]=-2.5) double-lined spectroscopic binary G166-45 (BD+26 2606) are determined separately based on high resolution spectra obtained with the Subaru Telescope High Dispersion Spectrograph and its image slicer. From the photometric colors and the mass ratio the effective temperatures of the primary and secondary components are estimated to be 6350+/-100K and 5830+/-170K, respectively. The Li abundance of the primary (A(Li)=2.23) agrees well with the Spite plateau value, while that of the secondary is slightly lower (A(Li)=2.11). Such a discrepancy of the Li abundances between the two components is previously found in the extremely metal-poor, double-lined spectroscopic binary CS22876-032, however, the discrepancy in G166-45 is much smaller. The results agree with the trends found for Li abundance as a function of effective temperature (and of stellar mass) of main-sequence stars with -3.0<[Fe/H]<-2.0, suggesting that the depletion of Li at Teff ~ 5800K is not particularly large in this metallicity range. The significant Li depletion found in CS22876-032B is a phenomenon only found in the lowest metallicity range ([Fe/H]<-3).Comment: 3 figures, 1 table, to appear in ApJ

Epidemiological Uncertainty, Causation and Drug Product Liability

Epidemiological evidence is regularly presented to courts in determining proof of causation in medicinal product liability litigation. Building on the foundations of the author’s previous monograph, which supported the use of epidemiological evidence in dealing with problems of proof of causation in alleged cases of adverse drug reactions, this paper revisits this perennial problem of the role of epidemiological evidence in assessing causation in product liability cases in a twenty-first century context, examining recent cases in the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, and Canada. It seeks to determine the extent to which the courts in the highlighted cases have been pragmatic and fair in their interpretation and utilization of epidemiological evidence, from the perspective of both consumers and pharmaceutical manufacturers. The paper examines the apparent tension between the levels of proof required in law and science, including the relationship between levels of statistical significance and the claimant’s burden of proof; and it assesses the wisdom of using a doubling of the risk rule as a threshold to any recovery. It explores the ways in which probabilistic methods, including statistical refining with individual risk factors, can be used in conjunction with epidemiological evidence to determine specific causation. The paper supports the view that logistic regression techniques and other forms of statistical refining mechanisms using specific risk factors can and do help in the process of giving quantitative or quasi-quantitative expression to conclusions about the cause of disease in an individual drug product liability claim that is based on epidemiological evidence.La preuve épidémiologique est régulièrement présentée pour démontrer la causalité dans les litiges en matière de responsabilité pour les produits thérapeutiques.En se fondant sur l’une des monographies précédentes de l’auteur, qui appuie le recours à la preuve épidémiologique pour traiter des difficultés à prouver la causalité dans des affaires portant sur les effets indésirables de médicaments, cet article réexamine, dans le contexte du XXIe siècle, le problème constant du rôle de la preuve épidémiologique dans les questions de causalité en matière de responsabilité du fabricant. Il analyse à cette fin la jurisprudence du Royaume-Uni, des États-Unis, de l’Australie et du Canada. Cet article cherche à cerner jusqu’à quel point les tribunaux ont adopté, dans les affaires étudiées, une approche pragmatique et juste en interprétant et en utilisant la preuve épidémiologique, tant du point de vue des consommateurs que de celui des fabricants de produits pharmaceutiques. Il examine la tension entre les niveaux de preuve nécessaire dans les domaines scientifique et juridique, y compris la relation entre les niveaux de signification statistique et le fardeau de la preuve du demandeur, et évalue la possibilité d’utiliser la règle de doublement du risque comme seuil pour un recouvrement judiciaire. Il explore les façons dont les méthodes probabilistes, telles que l’affinage des statistiques avec des facteurs de risque, peuvent être utilisées en conjonction avec la preuve épidémiologique afin de déterminer la causalité spécifique. Cet article avance que les techniques de régression logistique, ainsi que d’autres mécanismes de raffinement statistique se servant de facteurs de risque spécifiques, peuvent aider à donner une expression quantitative ou quasi-quantitative aux conclusions portant sur la causalité dans une réclamation en responsabilité pour un produit thérapeutique basé sur la preuve épidémiologique

Medical Malpractice and Compensation in the UK

In the first part of this paper, Dr. Goldberg examines the context in which medical malpractice liability is operating in the UK. The fact that the state-run National Health Service (NHS) is the major healthcare provider in the UK has several implications, since funding for medical malpractice compensation in the NHS comes from the taxpayer. The most recent empirical evidence on the incidence and funding of claims in England and Scotland is assessed, to show a trend of expenditure on clinical negligence increasing, particularly in England. This is followed by an examination of the statutory framework for the empowerment of some of the Chief Medical Officer\u27s recommendations in his report, Making Amends in the NHS Redress Act 2006. In Scotland, while medical negligence remains the primary route to bringing a claim for compensation for medical injury, no-fault compensation is now the favoured way forward of the Scottish Government for the NHS. A No Fault Compensation Review Group has recently been reported and Dr. Goldberg explores its recommendations, which provide a radical development in the field of compensation for medical malpractice. The heart of the paper examines the existing basis of medical liability, with particular emphasis on the problems in establishing negligence and factual causation. The paper concludes with a review, in the context of clinical negligence claims, of both the recommendations for reforming the costs of civil litigation in England and Wales and the dramatic changes being introduced to the Legal Aid system, in particular the abolition of legal aid for clinical negligence cases

Medical Malpractice and Compensation in the UK

In the first part of this paper, Dr. Goldberg examines the context in which medical malpractice liability is operating in the UK. The fact that the state-run National Health Service (NHS) is the major healthcare provider in the UK has several implications, since funding for medical malpractice compensation in the NHS comes from the taxpayer. The most recent empirical evidence on the incidence and funding of claims in England and Scotland is assessed, to show a trend of expenditure on clinical negligence increasing, particularly in England. This is followed by an examination of the statutory framework for the empowerment of some of the Chief Medical Officer\u27s recommendations in his report, Making Amends in the NHS Redress Act 2006. In Scotland, while medical negligence remains the primary route to bringing a claim for compensation for medical injury, no-fault compensation is now the favoured way forward of the Scottish Government for the NHS. A No Fault Compensation Review Group has recently been reported and Dr. Goldberg explores its recommendations, which provide a radical development in the field of compensation for medical malpractice. The heart of the paper examines the existing basis of medical liability, with particular emphasis on the problems in establishing negligence and factual causation. The paper concludes with a review, in the context of clinical negligence claims, of both the recommendations for reforming the costs of civil litigation in England and Wales and the dramatic changes being introduced to the Legal Aid system, in particular the abolition of legal aid for clinical negligence cases

Vaccine Liability in the Light of Covid-19: A defence of risk-benefit

Vaccines have played an essential role in advancing medical treatment in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. However, no medical intervention is risk free, and vaccines are no exception to that rule. This article considers how lawyers have confronted or eschewed risk–benefit in the context of determining defectiveness in vaccine liability, with emphasis on the UK, European Union, and US experiences. It explores the potential role that risk–benefit may play in assessing liability for vaccines against the COVID-19 pandemic. It argues that a holistic, flexible approach to determining defectiveness embracing risk–benefit allows consideration of the overwhelming public interest derived from the continued availability and supply of vaccines, as well as immunity conferring benefits on both the individual and the community. If cases do emerge concerning the liability of a COVID-19 vaccine, immunity conferring benefits on both the individual and the community of the COVID-19 vaccines should be relevant in any determination of defectiveness. Such a holistic, flexible approach to defectiveness embracing risk–benefit can be used effectively to determine the entitled safety of a vaccine and may help to mitigate against the dangers of weakening confidence in the public’s vaccine uptake

Freehand Sketching for Engineers: A Pilot Study

This paper describes a pilot study to evaluate Freehand Sketching for Engineers, a one credit, five week course taught to undergraduate engineering students. The short-term goal of this course was to improve engineering students’ freehand sketching ability and to assess their progress with metrics. The long-term objective (desired learning outcome) of this course is to improve the creativity and innovation of student design projects by enhancing students’ ability to visualize their ideas with freehand sketches. The class met two days a week for 75 min per day. Students were taught to draw simple objects such as electrical boxes, with orthographic, isometric, and oblique views on 8 ½ x 11 in. sheets of blank paper (no grid lines) and wooden #2 pencils. No instruments, such as rulers and compasses, were allowed. The course required students to apply what they learned in the classroom and included many examples of hands-on, active and student-centered learning activities. Two assessments were performed to measure whether students improved their ability to freehand sketch. The first involved two outside reviewers (industrial designers) who evaluated each student’s sketch of a pipe fitting that was drawn in the first class (pre-test) and a sketch of the same pipe fitting in the eighth class (after 7 hours of instruction - post-test). Sketches were evaluated using a 1 (poor) to 7 (excellent) Likert scale. The second assessment consisted of an evaluation of the final projects, which were a collection of five sketches with different views of an engineered product. Evaluations of the pre- and post-test drawings and the final projects by outside reviewers and positive observations by engineering faculty suggest that this course has the potential to improve students’ ability to sketch objects. This paper discusses details of the course, provides examples of student sketches, and presents results of outside reviewer assessments. It includes suggestions for a more rigorous assessment of the course to determine its potential to improve students’ ability to sketch objects