Characterisation of a human skin equivalent model to study the effects of ultraviolet B radiation on keratinocytes

The incidences of skin cancers resulting from chronic ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure are on the incline both in Australia and globally. Hence, the cellular and molecular pathways associated with UVR-induced photocarcinogenesis urgently need to be elucidated, in order to develop more robust preventative and treatment strategies against skin cancers. In vitro investigations into the effects of UVR (in particular the highly-mutagenic UVB wavelength) have, to date, mainly involved the use of cell culture and animal models. However, these models possess biological disparities to native skin, which to some extent have limited their relevance to the in vivo situation. To address this, we characterised a 3-dimensional, tissue-engineered human skin equivalent (HSE) model (consisting of primary human keratinocytes cultured on a dermal-derived scaffold) as a representation of a more physiologically-relevant platform to study keratinocyte responses to UVB. Significantly, we demonstrate that this model retains several important epidermal properties of native skin. Moreover, UVB-irradiation of the HSE constructs was shown to induce key markers of photodamage in the HSE keratinocytes, including the formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers, the activation of apoptotic pathways, the accumulation of p53 and the secretion of inflammatory cytokines. Importantly, we also demonstrate that the UVB-exposed HSE constructs retain the capacity for epidermal repair and regeneration following photodamage. Together, our results demonstrate the potential of this skin equivalent model as a tool to study various aspects of the acute responses of human keratinocytes to UVB radiation damage.

The Marrakesh Treaty could bring the world’s books to the blind

An estimated 285 million people worldwide are visually impaired. Some 90% of those live in developing nations, where less than 1% of the world’s books are available in a form they can read. In developed countries, the situation is only marginally better: only around 7% of the world’s books are accessible to print-disabled people. The right to read is part of our basic human rights. Access to the written word is crucial to allow people to fully participate in society. It’s important for education, political involvement, success in the workplace, scientific progress and, not least, creative play and leisure. Equal access to books and other cultural goods is also required by international law. The technology now exists to deliver books in accessible electronic forms to people much more cheaply than printing and shipping bulky braille copies or books on tape. Electronic books can be read with screen readers and refreshable braille devices, or printed into large print or braille if needed. Now that we have this technology, what’s been referred to as the global “book famine” is a preventable tragedy.

Medical and nursing students perceived knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning human immunodeficiency virus

Objective. To assess medical and nursing students’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Fiji. Methods. A cross-sectional study of 275 medical and 252 nursing students that participated in a questionnaire survey on HIV KAP. Data was analysed according to their gender, program of study, and academic year. Results. The mean HIV knowledge (HK) and attitude scores were 16.0 and 41.3, respectively. Mean HK score was significantly higher in males compared to females. Significant positive correlations were found between HK and academic year for medical () and nursing () students and between HK and attitude scores (). The majority of students indicated fear in contracting HIV through clinical practice and felt that health care workers have the right to know a patients HIV status for their own safety. The majority would wear gloves to touch a patient if suspected of HIV. Conclusions. The study found a high level of HIV knowledge and positive attitude towards HIV patients. However, respondents also displayed negative attitudes and unacceptable practices probably due to fear. Training institutions need to ensure that students gain accurate knowledge on HIV especially on transmission routes to allay the fear of caring for HIV-infected patients.

Evolution of the docklands food hub : a design-led innovation approach to food sovereignty through local food systems

Access to nutritious, safe and culturally appropriate food is a basic human right (Mechlem, 2004). Food sovereignty defines this right through the empowerment of the people to redefine food and agricultural systems, and through ecologically sustainable production methods. At the heart of the food sovereignty movement are the interests of producers, distributors and consumers, rather than the interests of markets and corporations, which dominate the current globalized food system (Hinrichs, 2003). Food sovereignty challenges designers to enable people to innovate the food system. We are yet to develop economically viable solutions for scaling projects and providing citizens, governments and business with tools to develop and promote projects to innovate food systems and promote food sovereignty (Meroni, 2011; Murray, Caulier-Grice and Mulgan, 2010). This article examines how a design-led approach to innovation can assist in the development of new business models and ventures for local food systems: this is presented through an emerging field of research ‘Design-Led Food Communities’. Design-Led Food Communities enables citizens, governments and business to innovate local food projects through the application of design. This article reports on the case study of the Docklands Food Hub Project in Melbourne, Australia. Preliminary findings demonstrate valued outcomes, but also a deficiency in the design process to generate food solutions collaboratively between government, business and citizens.

Ecosystem management along ephemeral rivers: Trading off socio-economic water supply and vegetation conservation under flood regime uncertainty

In ecosystems driven by water availability, plant community dynamics depend on complex interactions between vegetation, hydrology, and human water resources use. Along ephemeral rivers—where water availability is erratic—vegetation and people are particularly vulnerable to changes in each other's water use. Sensible management requires that water supply be maintained for people, while preserving ecosystem health. Meeting such requirements is challenging because of the unpredictable water availability. We applied information gap decision theory to an ecohydrological system model of the Kuiseb River environment in Namibia. Our aim was to identify the robustness of ecosystem and water management strategies to uncertainties in future flood regimes along ephemeral rivers. We evaluated the trade-offs between alternative performance criteria and their robustness to uncertainty to account for both (i) human demands for water supply and (ii) reducing the risk of species extinction caused by water mining. Increasing uncertainty of flood regime parameters reduced the performance under both objectives. Remarkably, the ecological objective (species coexistence) was more sensitive to uncertainty than the water supply objective. However, within each objective, the relative performance of different management strategies was insensitive to uncertainty. The ‘best’ management strategy was one that is tuned to the competitive species interactions in the Kuiseb environment. It regulates the biomass of the strongest competitor and, thus, at the same time decreases transpiration, thereby increasing groundwater storage and reducing pressure on less dominant species. This robust mutually acceptable strategy enables species persistence without markedly reducing the water supply for humans. This study emphasises the utility of ecohydrological models for resource management of water-controlled ecosystems. Although trade-offs were identified between alternative performance criteria and their robustness to uncertain future flood regimes, management strategies were identified that help to secure an ecologically sustainable water supply.

More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others

People typically evaluate their in-groups more favorably than out-groups and themselves more favorably than others. Research on infrahumanization also suggests a preferential attribution of the “human essence” to in-groups, independent of in-group favoritism. The authors propose a corresponding phenomenon in interpersonal comparisons: People attribute greater humanness to themselves than to others, independent of self-enhancement. Study 1 and a pilot study demonstrated 2 distinct understandings of humanness—traits representing human nature and those that are uniquely human—and showed that only the former traits are understood as inhering essences. In Study 2, participants rated themselves higher than their peers on human nature traits but not on uniquely human traits, independent of selfenhancement. Study 3 replicated this “self-humanization” effect and indicated that it is partially mediated by attribution of greater depth to self versus others. Study 4 replicated the effect experimentally. Thus, people perceive themselves to be more essentially human than others.

Unspeakably present: The (un)acknowledgment of diverse sexuality and gender human rights in Australian youth justice systems

A number of international human rights frameworks protect the rights of young people in contact with the criminal justice system in states parties, including Australia. These frameworks inform youth justice policy in Australia’s jurisdictions. While the frameworks protect young people’s right to non-discrimination on the grounds of ‘race’, religion and political opinion, the rights of young people to non-discrimination on the grounds of sexuality and gender diversity are not explicitly protected. This is problematic given that lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) young people appear over-represented in youth justice systems. This article argues that the exclusion of this group from human rights frameworks has an important flow-on effect: the marginalisation of the right of LGBTIQ young people to non-discrimination in policy and discourse that is informed by international human rights frameworks. After outlining the relevant frameworks, this article examines the evidence about LGBTIQ young people’s interactions with youth justice agencies, particularly police. The evidence indicates that the human rights of LGBTIQ young people are frequently breached in these interactions. We conclude by arguing that it is timely to consider how best to protect the human rights of LBGTIQ young people and keep their rights on the agenda.

Eco-crime and freshwater

The unsustainable and exploitative use of one of the most important but scarce resources on the planet - freshwater - continues to create conflict and human dislocation on a grand scale. Instead of witnessing nation-states adopting more equitable and efficient conservation strategies, powerful corporations are permitted to privatise and monopolise diminishing water reservoirs based on flawed neo-liberal assumptions and market models of the ‘global good’. The commodification of water has enabled corporate monopolies and corrupt states to exploit a fundamental human right, and in the process have created new forms of criminality. In recent years, affluent industrialised nations have experienced violent rioting as protestors express opposition to government ‘freshwater taxes’ and to corporate investors seeking to privatise drinking water. These water conflicts have included unprecedented clashes with police and deaths of innocent civilians in South Africa (BBC News, 2014a); the United Nations intervention in Detroit USA after weeks of public protest (Burns, 2014); and the hundreds of thousands of people protesting in Ireland (BBC News, 2014,b; Irish Times 2015). Subsequently, the commodification of freshwater has become a criminological issue for water-abundant rich states, as well as for the highly indebted water-scarce nations.

Analysis of arm elevation muscle activity through different movement planes and speeds during in-water and dry-land exercise

Objective The objectives of this cross-sectional, analytical inference analysis were to compare shoulder muscle activation at arm elevations of 0° to 90° through different movement planes and speeds during in-water and dry-land exercise and to extrapolate this information to a clinical rehabilitation model. Methods Six muscles of right-handed adult subjects (n = 16; males/females: 50%; age: 26.1 ± 4.5 years) were examined with surface electromyography during arm elevation in water and on dry land. Participants randomly performed 3 elevation movements (flexion, abduction, and scaption) through 0° to 90°. Three movement speeds were used for each movement as determined by a metronome (30°/sec, 45°/sec, and 90°/sec). Dry-land maximal voluntary contraction tests were used to determine movement normalization. Results Muscle activity levels were significantly lower in water compared with dry land at 30°/sec and 45°/sec but significantly higher at 90°/sec. This sequential progressive activation with increased movement speed was proportionally higher on transition from gravity-based on-land activity to water-based isokinetic resistance. The pectoralis major and latissimus dorsi muscles showed higher activity during abduction and scaption. Conclusions These findings on muscle activation suggest protocols in which active flexion is introduced first at low speeds (30°/sec) in water, then at medium speeds (45°/sec) in water or on dry land, and finally at high speeds (90°/sec) on dry land before in water. Abduction requires higher stabilization, necessitating its introduction after flexion, with scaption introduced last. This model of progressive sequential movement ensures that early active motion and then stabilization are appropriately introduced. This should reduce rehabilitation time and improve therapeutic goals without compromising patient safety or introducing inappropriate muscle recruitment or movement speed.

A Submission to the Inquiry into the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008 (Cth)

A right of resale, or droit de suite (a right to follow), is a legislative instrument under intellectual property law, which enables artists to receive a percentage of the sale price whenever artistic works are resold. A French legal scholar, Albert Vaunois, first articulated the need for a 'droit de suite' in connection with fine art back in 1893. The French Government introduced a scheme to protect the right of resale in 1920, after controversy over artists living in poverty, while public auction houses were profiting from the resale of their artistic creations. In the United States, there has been less support for a right of resale amongst legislatures. After lobbying from artists such as the king of pop art, Robert Rauschenberg, the state of California passed the Resale Royalties Act in 1977. At a Federal level, the United States Congress has shown some reluctance in providing national recognition for a right of resale in the United States. A number of other European countries have established a right of resale. In 2001, the European Council adopted the Artists' Resale directive and recognised that the 'artist's resale right forms an integral part of copyright and is an essential prerogative for authors.' In 2006, the United Kingdom promulgated regulations, giving effect to a right of resale in that jurisdiction. However, a number of Latin American and African countries have established a right of resale. The New Zealand Parliament has debated a bill on a right of resale.

Access to essential medicines: Public health and international law

Historically, there have been intense conflicts over the ownership and exploitation of pharmaceutical drugs and diagnostic tests dealing with infectious diseases. Throughout the 1980’s, there was much scientific, legal, and ethical debate about which scientific group should be credited with the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus, and the invention of the blood test devised to detect antibodies to the virus. In May 1983, Luc Montagnier, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, and other French scientists from the Pasteur Institute in Paris, published a paper in Science, detailing the discovery of a virus called lymphadenopathy (LAV). A scientific rival, Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, identified the AIDS virus and published his findings in the May 1984 issue of Science. In May 1985, the United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded the American patent for the AIDS blood test to Gallo and the Department of Health and Human Services. In December 1985, the Institut Pasteur sued the Department of Health and Human Services, contending that the French were the first to identify the AIDS virus and to invent the antibody test, and that the American test was dependent upon the French research. In March 1987, an agreement was brokered by President Ronald Reagan and French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, which resulted in the Department of Health and Human Services and the Institut Pasteur sharing the patent rights to the blood test for AIDS. In 1992, the Federal Office of Research Integrity found that Gallo had committed scientific misconduct, by falsely reporting facts in his 1984 scientific paper. A subsequent investigation by the National Institutes of Health, the United States Congress, and the US attorney-general cleared Gallo of any wrongdoing. In 1994, the United States government and French government renegotiated their agreement regarding the AIDS blood test patent, in order to make the distribution of royalties more equitable... The dispute between Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo was not an isolated case of scientific rivalry and patent races. It foreshadowed further patent conflicts over research in respect of HIV/AIDS. Michael Kirby, former Justice of the High Court of Australia diagnosed a clash between two distinct schools of philosophy - ‘scientists of the old school... working by serendipity with free sharing of knowledge and research’, and ‘those of the new school who saw the hope of progress as lying in huge investments in scientific experimentation.’ Indeed, the patent race between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier has been a precursor to broader trade disputes over access to essential medicines in the 1990s and 2000s. The dispute between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier captures in microcosm a number of themes of this book: the fierce competition for intellectual property rights; the clash between sovereign states over access to medicines; the pressing need to defend human rights, particularly the right to health; and the need for new incentives for research and development to combat infectious diseases as both an international and domestic issue.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Submission to the draft Migration Assurance Policy - Improving the transition to the fixed-line national broadband network review

The rights of individuals to self-determination and participation in social, political and economic life are recognised and supported by Articles 1, 3 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.4 Article 1 of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council’s Resolution on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on the Internet of July 2012 confirms individuals have the same rights online as offline. Access to the internet is essential and as such the UN: Calls upon all States to promote and facilitate access to the Internet and international cooperation aimed at the development of media and information and communications facilities in all countries (Article 3) Accordingly, access to the internet per se is a fundamental human right, which requires direct State recognition and support.5 The obligations of the State to ensure its citizens are able, and are enabled, to access the internet, are not matters that should be delegated to commercial parties. Quite simply – access to the internet, and high-speed broadband, by whatever means are “essential services” and therefore “should be treated as any other utility service”...

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.

To ask or not to ask? Investigating workers' flexibility requests and the phenomenon of discontented non-requesters

Flexible working arrangements have attracted growing attention in workplaces across Australia and in many other countries in recent years. This contribution utilises the results of two large Australian employee surveys to analyse who asks for flexibility, why, and with what effects on work-life interference. This analysis is set in the context of Australia’s ‘Right to Request’ (RTR) provisions which, at the time of the study, gave parents of preschool children and those with a disabled child aged up to 18 the RTR flexibility. The analysis also draws on a set of qualitative interviews of those we term ‘discontented non-requesters’ (that is, those who are not content with current arrangements but who do not ask for flexibility) to probe beneath the survey results to consider explanations about why some people do not ask for flexibility despite desiring different working arrangements. We conclude with the implications for policy and regulation.