Laccase from Aspergillus niger: A novel tool to graft multifunctional materials of interests and their characterization

In the present study, we propose a green route to prepare poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) [(P(3HB)] grafted ethyl cellulose (EC) based green composites with novel characteristics through laccase-assisted grafting. P(3HB) was used as a side chain whereas, EC as a backbone material under an ambient processing conditions. A novel laccase obtained from Aspergillus niger through its heterologous expression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae was used as a green catalyst for grafting purposes without the use of additional initiator and/or cross-linking agents. Subsequently, the resulting P(3HB)-g-EC composites were characterized using a range of analytical and imagining techniques. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) spectra showed an increase in the hydrogen-bonding type interactions between the side chains of P(3HB) and backbone material of EC. Evidently, X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis revealed a decrease in the crystallinity of the P(3HB)-g-EC composites as compared to the pristine individual polymers. A homogeneous P(3HB) distribution was also achieved in case of the graft composite prepared in the presence of 2,2'-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid) (ABTS) as a mediator along with laccase as compared to the composite prepared using pure laccase alone. A substantial improvement in the thermal and mechanical characteristics was observed for grafted composites up to the different extent as compared to the pristine counterparts. The hydrophobic/hydrophilic properties of the grafted composites were better than those of the pristine counterparts.

Public Interests, Private Disputes: Investment Arbitration and the Public Good

This paper seeks to investigate the bases for resistance to arbitration in general -and investor arbitration in particular- focusing on the way in which arbitral tribunals deal with notions of public interest and the public good. The paper hypothesises that while courts have within their terms of reference the capacity to consider notions of public interest, arbitral tribunals do not. It is this core difference in the scope of decision making between the two bodies that could render privately organised dispute resolution unsuitable for disputes that have public aspects, like investor-state disputes. The paper discusses the meaning of public interest and the public good as found in the literature. It then proceeds to consider how tribunals in the investment field have dealt with these concepts. This leads to a conclusion urging not abandonment of arbitration as a component of dispute resolution, but caution. It is argued that unchecked growth in private dispute resolution can threaten perceptions of legitimacy and democratic accountability. The paper adopts a socio-legal methodology in considering the effect of legal mechanisms on social and political phenomena. It is also informed by a law and economics methodology in addressing impacts of dispute resolution mechanisms on economic efficiency. The contribution of the paper rests on theorising motivations for resistance to private dispute resolution, a topical issue in light of the TTIP debate.

Rights, Rationality and Reproduction: Balancing Interests in the Abortion Debate

As medical technology has advanced, so too have our attitudes towards the level of control we can or should expect to have over our procreative capacities. This creates a multidimensional problem for the law and family planning services in terms of access to services – whether to avoid conception or terminate a pregnancy – and the negligent provision of these services. These developments go to the heart of our perception of autonomy. Unsurprisingly, these matters also raise a moral dilemma for the law. Distinctively, discourse in this area is dominated by assertions of subjective moral value; in relation to life, to personal choice and to notions of the archetypal family. Against this, I stress that a model of objective morality can answer these challenging questions and resolve the inherent problems of legal regulation. Therefore, I argue that notions of autonomy must be based on a rational, action-based understanding of what it means to be a ‘moral agent’. I claim that from this we might support a legal standard, based on objective rational morality, which can frame our constitutional norms and our conception of justice in these contentious areas. This paper claims that the current regulation of abortion is outdated and requires radical reform. It proposes a scheme that would shift the choice towards the mother (and the father), remove the unnecessarily broad disability ground and involve doctors having a role of counsel (rather than gatekeeper).