Book review: ‘Anterior Eye Disease and Therapeutics A-Z' [2nd ed.] Edition, by A. Bruce and M. Loughnan. Churchill Livingstone (Elsevier), Edinburgh 2011

With the ever-increasing emphasis on ocular disease recognition in the practice of optometry and especially anterior eye disease management and therapeutics, any book addressing such issues is bound to have a captive audience. This second edition of Anterior Eye Disease and Therapeutics A–Z provides a succinct yet comprehensive coverage of this topic.

David L. Rosenhan (1929–2012)

Presents an obituary for David L. Rosenhan (1929–2012). A distinguished psychologist and professor emeritus at Stanford University, Rosenhan died February 6, 2012, at the age of 82, after a long illness. Born in Jersey City, New Jersey, on November 22, 1929, he received a bachelor’s degree in mathematics (1951) from Yeshiva College and a master’s degree in economics (1953) and a doctorate in psychology (1958) from Columbia University. A professor of law and of psychology at Stanford University from 1971 until his retirement in 1998, Rosenhan was a pioneer in applying psychological methods to the practice of law, including the examination of expert witnesses, jury selection, and jury deliberation. A former president of the American Psychology–Law Society and of the American Board of Forensic Psychology, Rosenhan was a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, of the American Psychological Association, and of the American Psychological Society. Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty, he was a member of the faculties of Swarthmore College, Princeton University, Haverford College, and the University of Pennsylvania. He also served as a research psychologist at the Educational Testing Service. As generations of Stanford students can attest, David Rosenhan was a spellbinding lecturer who managed to convey the sense that he was speaking to each individual, no matter how large the group. To his graduate students, he was consistently encouraging and optimistic, always ready to share a joke or story, and gently encouraging of their creativity and progressive independence as researchers. The lessons he cared most about offering, in the classroom as in his research, were about human dignity and the need to confront abuse of power and human frailties.

David Williamson's The Club : football politic, a dirty story

Watching David Williamson’s The Club (Bruce Beresford, 1980) now, as a scandal over performance‐enhancing drugs threatens to destroy at least one AFL club and permanently taint the League’s credibility, while in another form of football a player is bought and sold for a world record fee of almost $150 million, the indignant outrage of the film’s coach and players over the $120,000 fee paid for a pot‐smoking raw recruit appears quaint and comic in unintended ways. Were it ever true, it seems harder than ever now to agree with Nick Parson’s assertion that ‘in Australia the only sphere of endeavour that is considered morally pure is sport.

The David and Goliath principle: Cultural, ideological, and attitudinal underpinnings of the normative protection of low-status groups from criticism

Two studies documented the “David and Goliath” rule—the tendency for people to perceive criticism of “David” groups (groups with low power and status) as less normatively permissible than criticism of “Goliath” groups (groups with high power and status). The authors confirmed the existence of the David and Goliath rule across Western and Chinese cultures (Study 1). However, the rule was endorsed more strongly in Western than in Chinese cultures, an effect mediated by cultural differences in power distance. Study 2 identified the psychological underpinnings of this rule in an Australian sample. Lower social dominance orientation (SDO) was associated with greater endorsement of the rule, an effect mediated through the differential attribution of stereotypes. Specifically, those low in SDO were more likely to attribute traits of warmth and incompetence to David versus Goliath groups, a pattern of stereotypes that was related to the protection of David groups from criticism.

David Clutterbuck, mentoring and coaching - A commentary

Simon Jenkins, in his stimulus piece on David Clutterbuck amply demonstrates just how prolific Clutterbuck has been over a working lifetime. Generally accepted as the person who introduced supported mentoring into Europe, Clutterbuck has written widely on matters that relate to relationships, processes, evidence (and its capacity or otherwise to influence practice), procedures, complexity, management, supervision, guidance (of one kind or another); the list goes on. It is an impressive vita indeed and yet, Clutterbuck’s influence on the world of sports and more specifically, sports coaching; remains relatively modest. Of course this is the purpose of Jenkins’ piece, to stimulate our thought processes such that our attention can be drawn to the possible impact Clutterbuck might have in sport, sports coaching, and athlete and coach mentoring. If nothing else, this is an admirable challenge that Jenkins has set himself.

The legacy of David Unaipon

The historical case of David Unaipon is a good starting point for a wider discussion of Indigenous intellectual property law, practice and reform. His story is a microcosm of larger battles over the cultural appropriation of Indigenous culture, iconography and science. David Unaipon could be seen as a beneficiary of intellectual property law. He is a creator of copyright works; an inventor of patented inventions; and an iconic figure, worthy of personality rights. His creative and scientific work has been an inspiration for others. David Unaipon could also be seen as being disenfranchised by intellectual property law. He lost ownership of his economic rights in respect of literary works; and his moral rights have not been respected under copyright law. His case also highlights the deficiencies of copyright law in respect of its failure to provide comprehensive recognition of communal authorship and ownership of copyright works. While he was a patent applicant, David Unaipon never seemed to have benefitted from the patent system. His experience raises questions about access to justice. The government and commercial use of the persona of David Unaipon raises complex questions about trade mark law, passing off and personality rights. The story of David Unaipon highlights the need for the systematic and holistic reformation of intellectual property law, so that it better serves Indigenous communities and peoples.

Who is the South African retail giant behind the David Jones bid?

Yesterday morning came the news South African retailer Woolworths had offered $4 a share to acquire David Jones, a proposal that has the approval of the department store’s board. This offer, worth an estimated A$2.15 billion, represents a 25% premium over the current share price value. An earlier offer, from rival Myer, was rejected earlier this year. But who is Woolworths? Not to be confused with Australia’s largest supermarket, Woolworths SA is one of South Africa’s largest retailers.

David Jones seeks to exploit top end gap in Australian grocery

While Australia’s supermarkets continue to battle on price, the South African owner of David Jones, Woolworths Holdings, has found a gap in the Australian grocery market and is preparing to exploit it. Reports that the group has appointed Pieter de Wet to overhaul the David Jones food business signals once again the ever-changing face of the Australian food and grocery landscape. A re-energised David Jones food offer will provide positive outcomes for both shoppers and suppliers, while potentially becoming another headache for Coles and Woolworths.