Suchergebnisse

THE DISCLOSURE IN 1987 THAT DIOXINS WERE PRESENT IN PULP MILL EFFLUENTS PROMPTED GOVERNMENTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD TO REVISE THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS FOR PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY. THIS ARTICLE USES THE PULP AND PAPER CASE TO EXAMINE THE DYNAMICS OF ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD SETTING WITHIN THE CANADIAN FEDERAL STATE. PROVINCIAL REGULATORY INCENTIVES ARE ANALYZED USING TWO-PLAYER GAMES AS A HEURISTIC. THE ARTICLE THEN CONSIDERS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN ESTABLISHING NATIONAL STANDARDS. MANY AUTHORS HAVE EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT TO OVERCOME PROVINCIAL RELUCTANCE TO REGULATE UNILATERALLY, LEST JOBS BE LOST TO JURISDICTIONS WITH WEAKER ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS. HOWEVER, FEW HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS INCENTIVES TO DO JUST THAT. IT IS ARGUED THAT THOSE INCENTIVES ARE WEAK AT BEST, IN LIGHT OF RESISTANCE FROM BOTH THE REGULATED INDUSTRY AND JURISDICTIONALLY DEFENSIVE PROVINCES. IN ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION OF THE CANADIAN PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY, FEDERAL RELUCTANCE RESULTED IN A TWO-TIER SYSTEM OF ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS WITH STRICT STANDARD FOR THE LARGEST PROVINCES, AND WEAKER ONES FOR SMALLER PROVINCES THAT RELY MORE ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

THIS ARTICLE USES THE CASE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE REGULATION TO EXAMINE THE PROCESS OF GOVERNMENTAL AGENDA-SETTING. TWO KINDS OF COMPARISONS ARE EMPLOYED: A CROSS-NATIONAL COMPARISON OF CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES, AND A COMPARISON OF TWO TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROVERSIES. THE COMPARATIVE CASE ANALYSIS YIELDS FOUR MAJOR CONCLUSIONS, WHICH ARE DISCUSSED IN THE ARTICLE.

<i>Aim:</i> The aim of the study was to assess the perceived value of genetic testing for congenital deafness in families attending a clinical genetic outpatients department at a children's hospital. The major testing objective was to provide information regarding deafness etiology, although families were advised that changes in treatment as a result of the test were unlikely. Using a 'willingness-to-pay' approach in the form of a questionnaire developed by Ryan et al. [J Med Genet 2003;40:1–5], parents were surveyed for their attitudes and willingness to pay for genetic testing. <i>Results:</i> Forty-nine families provided data for analysis, representing 56% of clinic attendances throughout the period. Most of the parents were themselves unaffected by hearing loss (93%) and none were deaf, although almost a quarter (22%) reported a family member born deaf. Parents considered the major benefit gained from testing was to better achieve clarity of understanding arising from discussion and the possible ascertainment of etiology. The average sum parents were willing to pay for genetic testing was 200 Australian dollars (AUD, 2007) or approximately 123 euros (EUR), ranging from 150 to 295 AUD according to ability to pay (as measured by gross income). However, the amount that even the highest income level were willing to pay underestimated the full economic cost of genetic testing. <i>Conclusion:</i> Genetic testing for deafness is highly valued by affected families despite the current limited overall expectation of definitive genetic diagnosis or changes in treatment. Parents considered the major benefits to be a better understanding of congenital deafness and the potential for assignment of causality.

This volume represents part of an unprecedented and still growing effort to advance, coordinate and disseminate the scientific documentation of endangered languages. As the pace of language extinction increases, linguists and native communities are accelerating their efforts to speak, remember, record, analyze and archive as much as possible of our common human heritage that is linguistic diversity. The window of opportunity for documentation is narrower than the actual lifetime of a language, and is now rapidly closing for many languages represented in this volume. The authors of these papers