Genome-wide association study identifies six new loci influencing pulse pressure and mean arterial pressure.

Numerous genetic loci have been associated with systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in Europeans. We now report genome-wide association studies of pulse pressure (PP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP). In discovery (N = 74,064) and follow-up studies (N = 48,607), we identified at genome-wide significance (P = 2.7 × 10(-8) to P = 2.3 × 10(-13)) four new PP loci (at 4q12 near CHIC2, 7q22.3 near PIK3CG, 8q24.12 in NOV and 11q24.3 near ADAMTS8), two new MAP loci (3p21.31 in MAP4 and 10q25.3 near ADRB1) and one locus associated with both of these traits (2q24.3 near FIGN) that has also recently been associated with SBP in east Asians. For three of the new PP loci, the estimated effect for SBP was opposite of that for DBP, in contrast to the majority of common SBP- and DBP-associated variants, which show concordant effects on both traits. These findings suggest new genetic pathways underlying blood pressure variation, some of which may differentially influence SBP and DBP

Substance precedes methodology: on cost-benefit analysis and equity

Contains fulltext : 95426.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)While distributive aspects have been a topic of discussion in relation to cost–benefit analysis (CBA), little systematic thought has been given in the CBA literature to the focus of such an equity analysis in evaluating transport projects. The goal of the paper is to provide an overview of the various directions an equity analysis, carried out within the context of a social cost–benefit analysis, could take. The paper starts from the widely-shared definition of distributive justice: the morally proper distribution of goods and bads over members of society. Following this definition, carrying out an equity analysis requires that decisions are made about: (1) the benefits and costs that are distributed through a transport project; (2) the members of society between whom benefits and costs are distributed; and (3) the distributive principle that determines whether a particular distribution is fair. Much of the discussions about cost–benefit analysis and equity do not address these questions in any systematic way. The paper aims to provide a framework. Three sets of benefits and costs are identified as a possible focus of an equity analysis: (1) net benefits; (2) mobility-enhancing benefits; and (3) individual benefits and costs. For each set, a discussion follows regarding the way in which members of societies could be divided into meaningful groups, as well as the possible yardstick for judging whether a certain distribution is fair. While the paper acknowledges that the choice between the three sets is ultimately a political decision, it ends with a set of arguments that suggest that the equity analysis of transport projects should focus first and foremost on the mobility-enhancing benefits generated by such projects.17 september 201116 p

What about non-diffusion? The effect of competitiveness in policy-comparative diffusion research

Many scholars have convincingly shown that policies diffuse between national and sub-national entities for several different reasons. Although diffusion processes are empirically proven, we witness two shortcomings in the discussion: First, there is a lack of comparative research across policy areas. Second, the question of why diffusion might not occur in a certain domain is under-theorized and lacks an empirical test. By comparing the rationale behind diffusion processes in two policy domains—energy policy and locational policy—this paper shows that two aspects matter for diffusion processes: First is the observability of policy measures, that is, how easily things can be observed by others; second is the competitiveness of the policy domain. If policy measures can be hidden easily and the policy domain is highly competitive, policy diffusion is very unlikely to happen. Therefore, we seek the integration of these two aspects in prospective diffusion research