Suchergebnisse

The policy regulation itself is one of the government instruments, tools, or facilities used by the government or state administration officials to carry out government tasks. This policy regulation is a consequence of the welfare law state, which imposes a complete task to achieve people's welfare following the welfare state's goals. However, in its development, the policy regulations that were initially intended and needed to carry out government duties cannot be separated from the conflict with other legal norms and other legal problems.

The regulation of human exposure to chemicals, including exposure to trace elements, is based largely on the results of animal cancer studies. However, the efficacy of animal cancer tests for predicting human cancer has not been rigorously tested. The methodology of animal cancer studies & modern procedures for determining chemical toxicity levels are discussed. It is concluded that the validity & predictive value of animal cancer studies is widely overstated, & that epidemiology is the most accurate method of predicting rates of cancer in humans from different levels of exposure to chemicals. In addition, it is suggested that the categories of carcinogen & noncarcinogen are flawed; many chemicals may be carcinogenic at very high doses but not carcinogenic at low doses. Doses of potentially harmful chemicals should be termed toxic or carcinogenic, rather than labeling the chemicals themselves toxic. Implications for reform of current methods of risk assessment are explored. 1 Table, 46 References. J. Ferrari

AbstractPolicies sometimes exempt particular categories of regulatees for reasons of equity and political feasibility. Will the non‐exempt oppose the policy because they shoulder all of the policy costs? We outline an analytic framework for "stress testing" public support among the non‐exempt when they are provided negative information about exemptions and reduced policy effectiveness. Empirically, we study public support for the odd‐even road space rationing policy in India. Using a survey experiment with 2,182 car owners in Bangalore, we find considerable baseline support for this policy. While support among the non‐exempt erodes when they are told about exemptions, there is no additional erosion when they are told that exemptions reduce policy effectiveness. This suggests that the perception of fairness, not policy efficacy, drives the erosion of support among the non‐exempt. Yet the policy survives the stress test because the majority of respondents continue to support it, in spite of support erosion among the non‐exempt.

Political economy of past US air pollution legislation; some current proposals for control of sulfur dioxide emissions.

International audience ; This article follows the introduction of COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) diagnostic tests in France. It shows how, at the intersection of science, medicine, politics, and policy-making, the test, trace, and isolate (TTI) strategy played out during the first months of the pandemic against a backcloth of multiple shortages. In so doing, the authors move beyond trite explanations (such as 'French public health's backwardness') to highlight how successive policy inflections affected the national response to the pandemic. The piece analyses the shifting French political discourse surrounding (scarce) COVID-19 tests while exploring ad-hoc regulations and guidelines as well as the intense 'bricolage' that they triggered in the field of clinical medicine. The authors contend that the limitations of the testing infrastructure in France during the first half of 2020 shaped the decision to resort to lockdown. The research article sheds light on two coexisting registers of professional uses of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays—a 'public health use' and a 'clinical use'—and highlights the changing political and social relevance of these two registers, with scarcity as a major determinant of these changes. One of the striking aspects of the introduction of COVID-19 tests in France therefore lies in the enduring gap between the dynamics of the epidemic and the dynamics of testing. In this respect, the French situation is neither extreme nor unique, which makes this case study a relevant basis for the international comparison of testing practices in different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.

International audience ; This article follows the introduction of COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) diagnostic tests in France. It shows how, at the intersection of science, medicine, politics, and policy-making, the test, trace, and isolate (TTI) strategy played out during the first months of the pandemic against a backcloth of multiple shortages. In so doing, the authors move beyond trite explanations (such as 'French public health's backwardness') to highlight how successive policy inflections affected the national response to the pandemic. The piece analyses the shifting French political discourse surrounding (scarce) COVID-19 tests while exploring ad-hoc regulations and guidelines as well as the intense 'bricolage' that they triggered in the field of clinical medicine. The authors contend that the limitations of the testing infrastructure in France during the first half of 2020 shaped the decision to resort to lockdown. The research article sheds light on two coexisting registers of professional uses of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays—a 'public health use' and a 'clinical use'—and highlights the changing political and social relevance of these two registers, with scarcity as a major determinant of these changes. One of the striking aspects of the introduction of COVID-19 tests in France therefore lies in the enduring gap between the dynamics of the epidemic and the dynamics of testing. In this respect, the French situation is neither extreme nor unique, which makes this case study a relevant basis for the international comparison of testing practices in different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.

International audience ; This article follows the introduction of COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) diagnostic tests in France. It shows how, at the intersection of science, medicine, politics, and policy-making, the test, trace, and isolate (TTI) strategy played out during the first months of the pandemic against a backcloth of multiple shortages. In so doing, the authors move beyond trite explanations (such as 'French public health's backwardness') to highlight how successive policy inflections affected the national response to the pandemic. The piece analyses the shifting French political discourse surrounding (scarce) COVID-19 tests while exploring ad-hoc regulations and guidelines as well as the intense 'bricolage' that they triggered in the field of clinical medicine. The authors contend that the limitations of the testing infrastructure in France during the first half of 2020 shaped the decision to resort to lockdown. The research article sheds light on two coexisting registers of professional uses of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays—a 'public health use' and a 'clinical use'—and highlights the changing political and social relevance of these two registers, with scarcity as a major determinant of these changes. One of the striking aspects of the introduction of COVID-19 tests in France therefore lies in the enduring gap between the dynamics of the epidemic and the dynamics of testing. In this respect, the French situation is neither extreme nor unique, which makes this case study a relevant basis for the international comparison of testing practices in different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.