A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy

Market failures associated with environmental pollution interact with market failures associated with the innovation and diffusion of new technologies. These combined market failures provide a strong rationale for a portfolio of public policies that foster emissions reduction as well as the development and adoption of environmentally beneficial technology. Both theory and empirical evidence suggest that the rate and direction of technological advance is influenced by market and regulatory incentives, and can be cost-effectively harnessed through the use of economic-incentive based policy. In the presence of weak or nonexistent environmental policies, investments in the development and diffusion of new environmentally beneficial technologies are very likely to be less than would be socially desirable. Positive knowledge and adoption spillovers and information problems can further weaken innovation incentives. While environmental technology policy is fraught with difficulties, a long-term view suggests a strategy of experimenting with policy approaches and systematically evaluating their success. © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Expert assessments of retrofitting coal-fired power plants with carbon dioxide capture technologies

A set of 13 US based experts in post-combustion and oxy-fuel combustion CO2 capture systems responded to an extensive questionnaire asking their views on the present status and future expected performance and costs for amine-based, chilled ammonia, and oxy-combustion retrofits of coal-fired power plants. This paper presents the experts' responses for technology maturity, ideal plant characteristics for early adopters, and the extent to which R&D and deployment incentives will impact costs. It also presents the best estimates and 95% confidence limits of the energy penalties associated with amine-based systems. The results show a general consensus that amine-based systems are closer to commercial application, but potential for improving performance and lowering costs is limited; chilled ammonia and oxy-combustion offer greater potential for cost reductions, but not without greater uncertainty regarding scale and technical feasibility. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.

One sound or two? Object-related negativity indexes echo perception.

The ability to isolate a single sound source among concurrent sources and reverberant energy is necessary for understanding the auditory world. The precedence effect describes a related experimental finding, that when presented with identical sounds from two locations with a short onset asynchrony (on the order of milliseconds), listeners report a single source with a location dominated by the lead sound. Single-cell recordings in multiple animal models have indicated that there are low-level mechanisms that may contribute to the precedence effect, yet psychophysical studies in humans have provided evidence that top-down cognitive processes have a great deal of influence on the perception of simulated echoes. In the present study, event-related potentials evoked by click pairs at and around listeners' echo thresholds indicate that perception of the lead and lag sound as individual sources elicits a negativity between 100 and 250 msec, previously termed the object-related negativity (ORN). Even for physically identical stimuli, the ORN is evident when listeners report hearing, as compared with not hearing, a second sound source. These results define a neural mechanism related to the conscious perception of multiple auditory objects.

CD4 enumeration technologies: a systematic review of test performance for determining eligibility for antiretroviral therapy.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of CD4+ T-lymphocytes (CD4) is a crucial parameter in the management of HIV patients, particularly in determining eligibility to initiate antiretroviral treatment (ART). A number of technologies exist for CD4 enumeration, with considerable variation in cost, complexity, and operational requirements. We conducted a systematic review of the performance of technologies for CD4 enumeration. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE using a pre-defined search strategy. Data on test accuracy and precision included bias and limits of agreement with a reference standard, and misclassification probabilities around CD4 thresholds of 200 and 350 cells/μl over a clinically relevant range. The secondary outcome measure was test imprecision, expressed as % coefficient of variation. Thirty-two studies evaluating 15 CD4 technologies were included, of which less than half presented data on bias and misclassification compared to the same reference technology. At CD4 counts <350 cells/μl, bias ranged from -35.2 to +13.1 cells/μl while at counts >350 cells/μl, bias ranged from -70.7 to +47 cells/μl, compared to the BD FACSCount as a reference technology. Misclassification around the threshold of 350 cells/μl ranged from 1-29% for upward classification, resulting in under-treatment, and 7-68% for downward classification resulting in overtreatment. Less than half of these studies reported within laboratory precision or reproducibility of the CD4 values obtained. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of bias and percent misclassification around treatment thresholds were reported on the CD4 enumeration technologies included in this review, with few studies reporting assay precision. The lack of standardised methodology on test evaluation, including the use of different reference standards, is a barrier to assessing relative assay performance and could hinder the introduction of new point-of-care assays in countries where they are most needed.

Sound the alarm: fraud in neuroscience.

We expect scientists to follow a code of honor and conduct and to report their research honestly and accurately, but so-called scientific misconduct, which includes plagiarism, faked data, and altered images, has led to a tenfold increase in the number of retractions over the past decade. Among the reasons for this troubling upsurge is increased competition for journal placement, grant money, and prestigious appointments. The solutions are not easy, but reform and greater vigilance is needed.