Using genomic data to make indirect (and unauthorized) estimates of disease risk

The number of genetic factors associated with common human traits and disease is increasing rapidly, and the general public is utilizing affordable, direct-to-consumer genetic tests. The results of these tests are often in the public domain. A combination of factors has increased the potential for the indirect estimation of an individual's risk for a particular trait. Here we explain the basic principals underlying risk estimation which allowed us to test the ability to make an indirect risk estimation from genetic data by imputing Dr. James Watson's redacted apolipoprotein E gene (APOE) information. The principles underlying risk prediction from genetic data have been well known and applied for many decades, however, the recent increase in genomic knowledge, and advances in mathematical and statistical techniques and computational power, make it relatively easy to make an accurate but indirect estimation of risk. There is a current hazard for indirect risk estimation that is relevant not only to the subject but also to individuals related to the subject; this risk will likely increase as more detailed genomic data and better computational tools become available.

Framing as status or benefits? Consumers’ reactions to hierarchical loyalty program communication

Purpose A fundamental aspect of hierarchical loyalty programs is that some consumers get rewards that others do not. Despite the widespread use of such programs, academics have long debated whether these benefits are outweighed by the potential negative impact of the differential treatment of customers. This study extends our understanding, examining the impact of message framing on consumers’ reactions to hierarchical loyalty structures. Design/methodology/approach Three online studies were conducted. Study 1 uses advertisements to manipulate the message frame’s emphasis (benefits vs. status). Study 2 manipulates consumers’ frame of thought by directing their attention to either changes in benefits or status. Finally, Study 3 uses the proposed framework to reconcile contradictory findings from past research. Findings Low-frequency customers who do not expect to qualify for a superior customer tier tend to reject hierarchical programs when thinking about status. In contrast, when these customers think about concrete rewards, loyalty program messages produce no negative reactions. High-frequency customers are positively affected by communication regardless of the type of benefits framed. Research limitations/implications All studies were done online potentially limiting the external validity of the results. Nevertheless, the impact of message framing on perceptions about the loyalty program seems to be quite robust across different studies and manipulations. Practical implications When communicating with low-frequency customers managers should avoid promising status; customers should instead be motivated based on concrete rewards. High-frequency customers are indifferent to alternative emphasis of communication frames. Originality/value Marketing academics have acknowledged the importance of being able to reward top customers without demotivating light and moderate users. Our research is the first to provide a solution to this issue.

Using Lifespan developmental theory and methods as a viable alternative to the study of generational differences at work

I agree with Costanza and Finkelstein (2015) that it is futile to further invest in the study of generational differences in the work context due to a lack of appropriate theory and methods. The key problem with the generations concept is that splitting continuous variables such as age or time into a few discrete units involves arbitrary cutoffs and atheoretical groupings of individuals (e.g., stating that all people born between the early 1960s and early 1980s belong to Generation X). As noted by methodologists, this procedure leads to a loss of information about individuals and reduced statistical power (MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002). Due to these conceptual and methodological limitations, I regard it as very difficult if not impossible to develop a “comprehensive theory of generations” (Costanza & Finkelstein, p. 20) and to rigorously examine generational differences at work in empirical studies.

Economic theory informing approaches to phoenix activity in small business: A neo-Schumpeterian analysis

The adequacy and efficiency of existing legal and regulatory frameworks dealing with corporate phoenix activity have been repeatedly called into question over the past two decades through various reviews, inquiries, targeted regulatory operations and the implementation of piecemeal legislative reform. Despite these efforts, phoenix activity does not appear to have abated. While there is no law in Australia that declares ‘phoenix activity’ to be illegal, the behaviour that tends to manifest in phoenix activity can be capable of transgressing a vast array of law, including for example, corporate law, tax law, and employment law. This paper explores the notion that the persistence of phoenix activity despite the sheer extent of this law suggests that the law is not acting as powerfully as it might as a deterrent. Economic theories of entrepreneurship and innovation can to some extent explain why this is the case and also offer a sound basis for the evaluation and reconsideration of the existing law. The challenges facing key regulators are significant. Phoenix activity is not limited to particular corporate demographic: it occurs in SMEs, large companies and in corporate groups. The range of behaviour that can amount to phoenix activity is so broad, that not all phoenix activity is illegal. This paper will consider regulatory approaches to these challenges via analysis of approaches to detection and enforcement of the underlying law capturing illegal phoenix activity. Remedying the mischief of phoenix activity is of practical importance. The benefits include continued confidence in our economy, law that inspires best practice among directors, and law that is articulated in a manner such that penalties act as a sufficient deterrent and the regulatory system is able to detect offenders and bring them to account. Any further reforms must accommodate and tolerate legal phoenix activity, at least to some extent. Even then, phoenix activity pushes tolerance of repeated entrepreneurial failure to its absolute limit. The more limited liability is misused and abused, the stronger the argument to place some restrictions on access to limited liability. This paper proposes that such an approach is a legitimate next step for a robust and mature capitalist economy.

Turing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Intellectual Property, Public Health, and Access to Essential Medicines

A recent controversy in the United States over drug pricing by Turing Pharmaceuticals AG has raised larger issues in respect of intellectual property, access to medicines, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In August 2015, Turing Pharmaceuticals AG – a private biopharmaceutical company with offices in New York, the United States, and Zug, Switzerland - acquired the exclusive marketing rights to Daraprim in the United States from Impax Laboratories Incorporated. Martin Shkreli, Turing’s Founder and Chief Executive Officer, maintained: “The acquisition of Daraprim and our toxoplasmosis research program are significant steps along Turing’s path of bringing novel medications to patients with serious disorders, some of whom often go undiagnosed and untreated.” He emphasised: “We intend to invest in the development of new drug candidates that we hope will yield an even better clinical profile, and also plan to launch an educational effort to help raise awareness and improve diagnosis for patients with toxoplasmosis.” In September 2015, there was much public controversy over the decision of Martin Shkreli to raise the price of a 62 year old drug, Daraprim, from $US13.50 to $US750 a pill. The drug is particularly useful in respect to the treatment and prevention of malaria, and in the treatment of infections in individuals with HIV/AIDS. Daraprim is listed on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) List of Essential Medicines. In the face of much criticism, Martin Shkreli has said that he will reduce the price of Daraprim. He observed: “We've agreed to lower the price on Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit.” He maintained: “We think these changes will be welcomed.” However, he has been vague and ambiguous about the nature of the commitment. Notably, the lobby group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhARMA), disassociated itself from the claims of Turing Pharmaceuticals. The group said: “PhRMA members have a long history of drug discovery and innovation that has led to increased longevity and improved lives for millions of patients.” The group noted: “Turing Pharmaceutical is not a member of PhRMA and we do not embrace either their recent actions or the conduct of their CEO.” The biotechnology peak body Biotechnology Industry Organization also sought to distance itself from Turing Pharmaceuticals. A hot topic: United States political debate about access to affordable medicines This controversy over Daraprim is unusual – given the age of drug concerned. Daraprim is not subject to patent protection. Nonetheless, there remains a monopoly in respect of the marketplace. Drug pricing is not an isolated problem. There have been many concerns about drug pricing – particularly in respect of essential medicines for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. This recent controversy is part of a larger debate about access to affordable medicines. The dispute raises larger issues about healthcare, consumer rights, competition policy, and trade. The Daraprim controversy has provided impetus for law reform in the US. US Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton commented: “Price gouging like this in this specialty drug market is outrageous.” In response to her comments, the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index fell sharply. Hillary Clinton has announced a prescription drug reform plan to protect consumers and promote innovation – while putting an end to profiteering. On her campaign site, she has emphasised that “affordable healthcare is a basic human right.” Her rival progressive candidate, Bernie Sanders, was also concerned about the price hike. He wrote a letter to Martin Shkreli, complaining about the price increase for the drug Daraprim. Sanders said: “The enormous, overnight price increase for Daraprim is just the latest in a long list of skyrocketing price increases for certain critical medications.” He has pushed for reforms to intellectual property to make medicines affordable. The TPP and intellectual property The Daraprim controversy and political debate raises further issues about the design of the TPP. The dispute highlights the dangers of extending the rights of pharmaceutical drug companies under intellectual property, investor-state dispute settlement, and drug administration. Recently, the civil society group Knowledge Ecology International published a leaked draft of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the TPP. Knowledge Ecology International Director, James Love, was concerned the text revealed that the US “continues to be the most aggressive supporter of expanded intellectual property rights for drug companies.” He was concerned that “the proposals contained in the TPP will harm consumers and in some cases block innovation.” James Love feared: “In countless ways, the Obama Administration has sought to expand and extend drug monopolies and raise drug prices.” He maintained: “The astonishing collection of proposals pandering to big drug companies make more difficult the task of ensuring access to drugs for the treatment of cancer and other diseases and conditions.” Love called for a different approach to intellectual property and trade: “Rather than focusing on more intellectual property rights for drug companies, and a death-inducing spiral of higher prices and access barriers, the trade agreement could seek new norms to expand the funding of medical research and development (R&D) as a public good, an area where the US has an admirable track record, such as the public funding of research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal agencies.” In addition, there has been much concern about the Investment Chapter of the TPP. The investor-state dispute settlement regime would enable foreign investors to challenge government policy making, which affected their investments. In the context of healthcare, there is a worry that pharmaceutical drug companies will deploy their investor rights to challenge public health measures – such as, for instance, initiatives to curb drug pricing and profiteering. Such concerns are not merely theoretical. Eli Lilly has brought an investor action against the Canadian Government over the rejection of its drug patents under the investor-state dispute settlement regime of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Health Annex to the TPP also raises worries that pharmaceutical drug companies will able to object to regulatory procedures in respect of healthcare. It is disappointing that the TPP – in the leaks that we have seen – has only limited recognition of the importance of access to essential medicines. There is a need to ensure that there are proper safeguards to provide access to essential medicines – particularly in respect of HIV/AIDs, malaria, and tuberculosis. Moreover, there must be protection against drug profiteering and price gouging in any trade agreement. There should be strong measures against the abuse of intellectual property rights. The dispute over Turing Pharmaceuticals AG and Daraprim is an important cautionary warning in respect of some of the dangers present in the secret negotiations in respect of the TPP. There is a need to preserve consumer rights, competition policy, and public health in trade negotiations over an agreement covering the Pacific Rim.

Nomenclatural corrections to Australian species of Cricotopus (Wulp) (Diptera; Chironomidae)

Our attention has been drawn to lapsi and errors in a recent publication in this journal concerning Cricotopus Wulp (Diptera: Chironomidae) (Drayson et al., 2015).

Patient perspectives of factors contributing to inadequate dietary intake in acute care patients in hospital

Up to 30% of acute care patients consume less than half of the food provided in hospital. Inadequate dietary intake can have adverse clinical outcomes, including a higher risk of in-hospital mortality. This study aimed to investigate the reasons for poor intake among acute care patients in hospital. Patients with an observed intake of ≤50% of the food provided at lunch were approached to participate in the study. Thirty-two patients participated in semi-structured interviews over a three week period, to provide their perspective of food and mealtimes in hospital and discuss the reasons and factors influencing inadequate intake. Responses were coded and analysed thematically using the framework method. Patients reported both individual and organisational factors contribute to their inadequate intake. Half the patients reported the size of the meals were too large, with some patients reporting that large meal sizes puts them off their food and reduced their intake. ‘Not important to eat all the food provided’, and ‘do not need to eat much food in hospital’ were common attitudes among the patients. Half the patients reported that nurses did not observe their intake and were not concerned if all the food was not eaten. Identifying the reasons for poor intake can assist with the development of suitable interventions to improve dietary intake and reduce the risk of adverse clinical outcomes. Further investigation of suitable interventions to reduce portion sizes and improve both staff and patient perceptions of the importance of food in hospital is recommended.