Proposition 13: Unintended Effects and Feasible Reforms

1999 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terri A. Sexton ◽  
Steven M. Sheffrin ◽  
Arthur O'Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Unintended Effects ◽  
Proposition 13

Impact of climate discourse on national scientific networks in energy technologies: the case of Estonian science and industry linkages

2019 ◽  
pp. 20-45
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Climate Change ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
National Level ◽  
Incremental Innovation ◽  
Unintended Effects ◽  
Research Strategies ◽  
Energy Technologies ◽  
Global Discourse ◽  
Research Agendas

This article examines how the global climate change discourse influences the implementation of national science policy in the area of energy technology, with a focus on industry and science collaborations and networks. We develop a set of theoretical propositions about how the issues in the global discourse are likely to influence research agendas and networks, the nature of industry-science linkages and the direction of innovation. The plausibility of these propositions is examined, using Estonia as a case study. We find that the global climate discourse has indeed led to the diversification of research agendas and networks, but the shifts in research strategies often tend to be rhetorical and opportunistic. The ambiguity of the global climate change discourse has also facilitated incremental innovation towards energy efficiency and the potentially sub-optimal lock-in of technologies. In sum, the Estonian case illustrates how the introduction of policy narratives from the global climate change discourse to the national level can shape the actual policy practices and also networks of actors in a complex and non-linear fashion, with unintended effects.

A FRAMEWORK FOR INVESTIGATING THE TAX INCIDENCE EFFECTS OF PROPOSITION 13

1979 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-324
Author(s):  
LARRY J. KIMBELL ◽  
ANDRE SHIH ◽  
DAVID SHULMAN
Keyword(s):  
Tax Incidence ◽  
Proposition 13

scholarly journals Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Health and Medicine: Current Evidence and Implications for Patient Decision Aid Development

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110088
Author(s):  
Rachel Thompson ◽  
Zoe Paskins ◽  
Barry G. Main ◽  
Thaddeus Mason Pope ◽  
Evelyn C. Y. Chan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Quality Standards ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Unintended Effects ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision

Background More stringent policies for addressing conflicts of interest have been implemented around the world in recent years. Considering the value of revisiting conflict of interest quality standards set by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration, we sought to review evidence relevant to 2 questions: 1) What are the effects of different strategies for managing conflicts of interest? and 2) What are patients’ perspectives on conflicts of interest? Methods We conducted a narrative review of English-language articles and abstracts from 2010 to 2019 that reported relevant quantitative or qualitative research. Results Of 1743 articles and 118 abstracts identified, 41 articles and 2 abstracts were included. Most evidence on the effects of conflict of interest management strategies pertained only to subsequent compliance with the management strategy. This evidence highlighted substantial noncompliance with prevailing requirements. Evidence on patient perspectives on conflicts of interest offered several insights, including the existence of diverse views on the acceptability of conflicts of interest, the salience of conflict of interest type and monetary value to patients, and the possibility that conflict of interest disclosure could have unintended effects. We identified no published research on the effects of IPDAS Collaboration conflict of interest quality standards on patient decision making or outcomes. Limitations Because we did not conduct a systematic review, we may have missed some evidence relevant to our review questions. In addition, our team did not include patient partners. Conclusions The findings of this review have implications for the management of conflicts of interest not only in patient decision aid development but also in clinical practice guideline development, health and medical research reporting, and health care delivery.

INTERPRETING PROPOSITION 13: A COMMENT

1979 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 43-46
Author(s):  
GEORGE F. BREAK
Keyword(s):  
Proposition 13

Biosafety of Genome Editing Applications in Plant Breeding: Considerations for a Focused Case-Specific Risk Assessment in the EU

BioTech ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 10
Author(s):  
Michael F. Eckerstorfer ◽  
Marcin Grabowski ◽  
Matteo Lener ◽  
Margret Engelhard ◽  
Samson Simon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Genome Editing ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Unintended Effects ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Gm Plants ◽  
European Court ◽  
Assessment Approach ◽  
Deliberate Release ◽  
Specific Assessment

An intensely debated question is whether or how a mandatory environmental risk assessment (ERA) should be conducted for plants obtained through novel genomic techniques, including genome editing (GE). Some countries have already exempted certain types of GE applications from their regulations addressing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the European Union, the European Court of Justice confirmed in 2018 that plants developed by novel genomic techniques for directed mutagenesis are regulated as GMOs. Thus, they have to undergo an ERA prior to deliberate release or being placed on the market. Recently, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published two opinions on the relevance of the current EU ERA framework for GM plants obtained through novel genomic techniques (NGTs). Regarding GE plants, the opinions confirmed that the existing ERA framework is suitable in general and that the current ERA requirements need to be applied in a case specific manner. Since EFSA did not provide further guidance, this review addresses a couple of issues relevant for the case-specific assessment of GE plants. We discuss the suitability of general denominators of risk/safety and address characteristics of GE plants which require particular assessment approaches. We suggest integrating the following two sets of considerations into the ERA: considerations related to the traits developed by GE and considerations addressing the assessment of method-related unintended effects, e.g., due to off-target modifications. In conclusion, we recommend that further specific guidance for the ERA and monitoring should be developed to facilitate a focused assessment approach for GE plants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document