How is Democracy Applied within the EU: Combining Elements of Traditional and Innovative Democratic Practice

The EU represents a new and complex political system which, according to numerous social scholars, suffers from the so-called democratic deficit. The basic argument behind this claim is that citizens lack control of the EU because, within its political system, national parliaments of member states possess only limited powers which have not been adequately compensated through steady empowerment of the European parliament (EP). Starting from this notion, the paper will explore the application of various concepts of democracy within the political system of the EU. First and foremost, it will analyse representative democracy in the EU, which stands as a foundation of all contemporary democratic systems. However, the paper will not stop at representative democracy, but it will also look at participatory, direct and deliberative democracy as applied within the political system of the EU. These concepts of democracy can only be viewed in relation and as an addition to representative democracy, but their application is very important for the EU due to limited possibilities for developing representative democracy at the supranational level. The paper will argue that, with regard to participatory and deliberative democracy, the EU can be viewed in many respects as a showcase for the national level, because it successfully developed various mechanisms related to implementation of these concepts. Particular attention will be paid to the Lisbon Treaty, which clarified many uncertainties that previously burdened the application of democracy within the EU. It will be argued that with the Lisbon Treaty the classic argument about the EU’s democratic deficit lost some of its appeal, because this treaty transformed the EP from secondary to equal participant in the EU’s legislative process

Spontaneous development of Epstein-Barr Virus associated human lymphomas in a prostate cancer xenograft program

Prostate cancer research is hampered by the lack of in vivo preclinical models that accurately reflect patient tumour biology and the clinical heterogeneity of human prostate cancer. To overcome these limitations we propagated and characterised a new collection of patient-derived prostate cancer xenografts. Tumour fragments from 147 unsupervised, surgical prostate samples were implanted subcutaneously into immunodeficient Rag2-/-γC-/- mice within 24 hours of surgery. Histologic and molecular characterisation of xenografts was compared with patient characteristics, including androgen-deprivation therapy, and exome sequencing. Xenografts were established from 47 of 147 (32%) implanted primary prostate cancers. Only 14% passaged successfully resulting in 20 stable lines; derived from 20 independent patient samples. Surprisingly, only three of the 20 lines (15%) were confirmed as prostate cancer; one line comprised of mouse stroma, and 16 were verified as human donor-derived lymphoid neoplasms. PCR for Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) nuclear antigen, together with exome sequencing revealed that the lymphomas were exclusively EBV-associated. Genomic analysis determined that 14 of the 16 EBV+ lines had unique monoclonal or oligoclonal immunoglobulin heavy chain gene rearrangements, confirming their B-cell origin. We conclude that the generation of xenografts from tumour fragments can commonly result in B-cell lymphoma from patients carrying latent EBV. We recommend routine screening, of primary outgrowths, for latent EBV to avoid this phenomenon

What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Focus group studies are increasingly published in health related journals, but we know little about how researchers use this method, particularly how they determine the number of focus groups to conduct. The methodological literature commonly advises researchers to follow principles of data saturation, although practical advise on how to do this is lacking. Our objectives were firstly, to describe the current status of sample size in focus group studies reported in health journals. Secondly, to assess whether and how researchers explain the number of focus groups they carry out.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched PubMed for studies that had used focus groups and that had been published in open access journals during 2008, and extracted data on the number of focus groups and on any explanation authors gave for this number. We also did a qualitative assessment of the papers with regard to how number of groups was explained and discussed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 220 papers published in 117 journals. In these papers insufficient reporting of sample sizes was common. The number of focus groups conducted varied greatly (mean 8.4, median 5, range 1 to 96). Thirty seven (17%) studies attempted to explain the number of groups. Six studies referred to rules of thumb in the literature, three stated that they were unable to organize more groups for practical reasons, while 28 studies stated that they had reached a point of saturation. Among those stating that they had reached a point of saturation, several appeared not to have followed principles from grounded theory where data collection and analysis is an iterative process until saturation is reached. Studies with high numbers of focus groups did not offer explanations for number of groups. Too much data as a study weakness was not an issue discussed in any of the reviewed papers.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Based on these findings we suggest that journals adopt more stringent requirements for focus group method reporting. The often poor and inconsistent reporting seen in these studies may also reflect the lack of clear, evidence-based guidance about deciding on sample size. More empirical research is needed to develop focus group methodology.</p