Suchergebnisse

This report provides an overview of federal legislative history research, the legislative process, and where to find congressional documents. The report also summarizes some of the reasons researchers are interested in legislative history, briefly describes the actions a piece of legislation might undergo during the legislative process, and provides a list of easily accessible print and electronic resources.

This report provides an overview of federal legislative history research, the legislative process, and where to find congressional documents. The report also summarizes some of the reasons researchers are interested in legislative history, briefly describes the actions a piece of legislation might undergo during the legislative process, and provides a list of easily accessible print and electronic resources.

Like most teens, you want to feel good about the way you look. But what happens when the way you look just doesn't feel good enough? Whether it's online, on TV, or in magazines, images of impossibly perfect-and mostly Photoshopped-young women are everywhere. As a result, you may feel an intense pressure to look a certain way. Your friends feel the pressure too, which often creates a secret comparison competition that can make you feel worse about yourself. So how can you start feeling good about who you are, as is? In The Body Image Workbook for Teens, you'll find practical exercises and ti

The Bullying Workbook for Teens is the first practical, skills-based teen self-help workbook that addresses both bullying and cyberbullying, an unfortunately common concern for many of today's teens. The book is designed to help teens learn anti-bullying strategies, build constructive communication skills to help them express their feelings and manage their emotions, and gain confidence in themselves and their interactions with others

This paper provides an empirical analysis of the factors explaining U.S. countervail action. Factors that indicate changes in the political economic environment are incorporated into a logit model to explain the propensity to initiate a countervail suit. These factors, augmented by variables representing foreign subsidy specificity, are used in a logit model to explain the propensity to levy a countervail duty, once a suit is initiated. Evidence indicates that factors that would lead to political lobbying are significant in the initiation of a countervail suit. However, these variables are not significant in explaining the propensity to actually levy a duty; rather, the analysis finds that subsidy specificity criteria are the significant variables.

This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original DOI. ; BACKGROUND In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.