Southern Ocean warming: Increase in basal melting and grounded ice loss

We apply a global finite element sea ice/ice shelf/ocean model (FESOM) to the Antarctic marginal seas to analyze projections of ice shelf basal melting in a warmer climate. The model is forced with the atmospheric output from two climate models: (1) the Hadley Centre Climate Model (HadCM3) and (2) Max Planck Institute’s ECHAM5/MPI-OM. Results from their 20th-century simulations are used to evaluate the modeled present-day ocean state. Sea-ice coverage is largely realistic in both simulations. Modeled ice shelf basal melt rates compare well with observations in both cases, but are consistently smaller for ECHAM5/MPI-OM. Projections for future ice shelf basal melting are computed using atmospheric output for IPCC scenarios E1 and A1B. While trends in sea ice coverage, ocean heat content, and ice shelf basal melting are small in simulations forced with ECHAM5 data, a substantial shift towards a warmer regime is found in experiments forced with HadCM3 output. A strong sensitivity of basal melting to increased ocean temperatures is found for the ice shelves in the Amundsen Sea. For the cold-water ice shelves in the Ross and Weddell Seas,decreasing convection on the continental shelf in the HadCM3 scenarios leads to an erosion of the continental slope front and to warm water of open ocean origin entering the continental shelf. As this water reaches deep into the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf (FRIS) cavity, basal melting increases by a factor of three to six compared to the present value of about 100 Gt/yr. Highest melt rates at the deep FRIS grounding line causes a retreat of > 200km, equivalent to an land ice loss of 110 Gt/yr

Healthy Data Protection

Modern medicine is evolving at a tremendous speed. On a daily basis, we learn about new treatments, drugs, medical devices, and diagnoses. Both established technology companies and start-ups focus on health-related products and services in competition with traditional healthcare businesses. Telemedicine and electronic health records have the potential to improve the effectiveness of treatments significantly. Progress in the medical field depends above all on data, specifically health information. Physicians, researchers, and developers need health information to help patients by improving diagnoses, customizing treatments and finding new cures. Yet law and policymakers are currently more focused on the fact that health information can also be used to harm individuals. Even after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic (which occurred after the manuscript for this article was largely finalized), the California Attorney General Becera made a point of announcing that he will not delay enforcement of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), which his office estimated imposes a $55 billion cost (approximately 1.8% of California Gross State Product) for initial compliance, not including costs of ongoing compliance, responses to data subject requests, and litigation. Risks resulting from health information processing are very real. Contact tracing and quarantines in response to SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 outbreaks curb civil liberties with similar effects to law enforcement investigations, arrests, and imprisonment. Even outside the unusual circumstances of a global pandemic, employers or insurance companies may disfavor individuals with pre-existing health conditions in connections with job offers and promotions as well as coverage and eligibility decisions. Some diseases carry a negative stigma in social circumstances. To reduce the risks of such harms and protect individual dignity, governments around the world regulate the collection, use, and sharing of health information with ever-stricter laws. European countries have generally prohibited the processing of personal data, subject to limited exceptions, for which companies have to identify and then document or apply. The General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) that took effect in 2018 confirms and amplifies a rigid regulatory regime that was first introduced in the German State Hessen in 1970 and demands that organizations minimize the amount of data they collect, use, share, and retain. Healthcare and healthtech organizations have struggled to comply with this regime and have found EU data protection laws fundamentally hostile to data-driven progress in medicine. The United States, on the other hand, has traditionally relied on sector- and harm-specific laws to protect privacy, including data privacy and security rules under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and numerous state laws including the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”) in California, which specifically address the collection and use of health information. So long as organizations observe the specific restrictions and prohibitions in sector-specific privacy laws, they may collect, use, and share health information. As a default rule in the United States, businesses are generally permitted to process personal information, including health information. Yet, recently, extremely broad and complex privacy laws have been proposed or enacted in some states, including the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”), which have a potential to render compliance with data privacy laws impractical for most businesses, including those in the healthcare and healthtech sectors. Meanwhile, the People’s Republic of China is encouraging and incentivizing data-driven research and development by Chinese companies, including in the healthcare sector. Data-related legislation is focused on cybersecurity and securing access to data for Chinese government agencies and much less on individual privacy interests. In Europe and the United States, the political pendulum has swung too far in the direction of ever more rigid data regulation and privacy laws, at the expense of potential benefits through medical progress. This is literally unhealthy. Governments, businesses, and other organizations need to collect, use and share more personal health information, not less. The potential benefits of health data processing far outweigh privacy risks, which can be better tackled by harm-specific laws. If discrimination by employers and insurance companies is a concern, then lawmakers and law enforcement agencies need to focus on anti-discrimination rules for employers and insurance companies - not prohibit or restrict the processing of personal data, which does not per se harm anyone. The notion of only allowing data processing under specific conditions leads to a significant hindrance of medical progress by slowing down treatments, referrals, research, and development. It also prevents the use of medical data as a tool for averting dangers for the public good. Data “anonymization” and requirements for specific consent based on overly detailed privacy notices do not protect patient privacy effectively and unnecessarily complicate the processing of health data for medical purposes. Property rights to personal data offer no solutions. Even if individuals - not companies creating databases - were granted property rights to their own data originally, this would not ultimately benefit individuals. Given that transfer and exclusion rights are at the core of property regimes, data property rights would threaten information freedom and privacy alike: after an individual sells her data, the buyer and new owner could exercise his data property rights to enjoin her and her friends and family from continued use of her personal data. Physicians, researchers, and developers would not benefit either; they would have to deal with property rights in addition to privacy and medical confidentiality requirements. Instead of overregulating data processing or creating new property rights in data, lawmakers should require and incentivize organizations to earn and maintain the trust of patients and other data subjects and penalize organizations that use data in specifically prohibited ways to harm individuals. Electronic health records, improved notice and consent mechanisms, and clear legal frameworks will promote medical progress, reduce risks of human error, lower costs, and make data processing and sharing more reliable. We need fewer laws like the GDPR or the CCPA that discourage organizations from collecting, using, retaining, and sharing personal information. Physicians, researchers, developers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and governments urgently need better and increased access to personal health information. The future of medicine offers enormous opportunities. It depends on trust and healthy data protection. Some degree of data regulation is necessary, but the dose makes the poison. Laws that require or intend to promote the minimization of data collection, use, and sharing may end up killing more patients than hospital germs. In this article, I promote a view that is decidedly different from that supported by the vast majority of privacy scholars, politicians, the media, and the broader zeitgeist in Europe and the United States. I am arguing for a healthier balance between data access and data protection needs in the interest of patients’ health and privacy. I strive to identify ways to protect health data privacy without excessively hindering healthcare and medical progress. After an introduction (I), I examine current approaches to data protection regulation, privacy law, and the protection of patient confidentiality (II), risks associated with the processing of health data (III), needs to protect patient confidence (IV), risks for healthcare and medical progress (V), and possible solutions (VI). I conclude with an outlook and call for healthier approaches to data protection (VII)

No One Owns Data

Businesses, policy makers, and scholars are calling for property rights in data. They currently focus on the vast amounts of data generated by connected cars, industrial machines, artificial intelligence, toys and other devices on the Internet of Things (IoT). This data is personal to numerous parties who are associated with the connected device, and there are many others are also interested in this data. Various parties are actively staking their claims to data, as they are mining the fuel of the digital economy. Stakeholders in digital markets often frame claims, negotiations and controversies regarding data access as one of ownership. Businesses regularly assert and demand that they own data. Individual data subjects also assume that they own data about themselves. Policy makers and scholars focus on how to redistribute ownership rights to data. Yet, upon closer review, it is very questionable whether data is—or should be—subject to any property rights. This Article unambiguously answers the question in the negative, both with respect to existing law and future lawmaking in the United States and the European Union, jurisdictions with notably divergent attitudes to privacy, property and individual freedoms. Data as such, that is, the content of information, exists conceptually separate from works of authorship and databases (which can be subject to intellectual property rights), physical embodiments of information (data on a computer chip, which can be subject to personal property rights) and physical objects or intangible items to which information relates (a dangerous malfunctioning vehicle to which the warnings on road markings or a computer chip relate). Lawmakers have granted property rights to different persons regarding works of authorship, databases, land, and chattels to incentivize investments and improvements in such items. However, this purpose does not exist with respect to data. Individual persons, businesses, governments and the public at large have different interests in data and access restrictions. These interests are protected by an intricate net of existing laws, which deliberately refrain from granting property rights in data. Indeed, new property rights in data are not suited to promote better privacy or more innovation or technological advances, but would more likely suffocate free speech, information freedom, science and technological progress. The rationales for propertizing data are thus not compelling and are outweighed by the rationales for keeping the data “open.” No new property rights need to be created for data

Size-exclusion chromatographic NMR of polymer mixtures

The use of chromatographic stationary phases or solvent modifiers to modulate diffusion properties in NMR experiments is now well established. Their use can be to improve resolution in the diffusion domain or to provide an insight into analyte–modifier interactions and, hence, the chromatography process. Here, we extend previous work using size-exclusion chromatographic sta- tionary phases to the investigation of polymer mixtures. We demonstrate that similar diffusion modulation behaviour is observed with a size-exclusion chromatographic stationary phase that can be understood in terms of size-exclusion behaviour