How to assign a likelihood ratio in a footwear mark case: an analysis and discussion in the light of R v T

This article analyses and discusses issues that pertain to the choice of relevant databases for assigning values to the components of evaluative likelihood ratio procedures at source level. Although several formal likelihood ratio developments currently exist, both case practitioners and recipients of expert information (such as judiciary) may be reluctant to consider them as a framework for evaluating scientific evidence in context. The recent ruling R v T and ensuing discussions in many forums provide illustrative examples for this. In particular, it is often felt that likelihood ratio-based reasoning amounts to an application that requires extensive quantitative information along with means for dealing with technicalities related to the algebraic formulation of these approaches. With regard to this objection, this article proposes two distinct discussions. In a first part, it is argued that, from a methodological point of view, there are additional levels of qualitative evaluation that are worth considering prior to focusing on particular numerical probability assignments. Analyses will be proposed that intend to show that, under certain assumptions, relative numerical values, as opposed to absolute values, may be sufficient to characterize a likelihood ratio for practical and pragmatic purposes. The feasibility of such qualitative considerations points out that the availability of hard numerical data is not a necessary requirement for implementing a likelihood ratio approach in practice. It is further argued that, even if numerical evaluations can be made, qualitative considerations may be valuable because they can further the understanding of the logical underpinnings of an assessment. In a second part, the article will draw a parallel to R v T by concentrating on a practical footwear mark case received at the authors' institute. This case will serve the purpose of exemplifying the possible usage of data from various sources in casework and help to discuss the difficulty associated with reconciling the depth of theoretical likelihood ratio developments and limitations in the degree to which these developments can actually be applied in practice.

La responsabilité entre éthique et religion. Discussion avec Paul Ricoeur

(Résumé de l'ouvrage) Ethique de la biologie, mais aussi éthique de la science, des affaires, des assurances, de lentreprise, du corps et de la sexualité, de la communication, de lenvironnement, de la famille... Les champs dapplication de léthique sont sans limites. ... Composé de trois parties, cet ouvrage présente dabord les grandes options philosophiques (libéralisme, utilitarisme, éthique de la discussion, etc.) et les grandes figures (Aristote, Kant, Spinoza, Heidegger, Foucault, etc.) en matière déthique, puis les différents domaines concernés, et enfin les grands débats (pour ou contre la pornographie, le clonage, l'euthanasie, l'éducation, l'avortement...). Écrit de façon pédagogique, il donne une bibliographie très actuelle pour chaque entrée, un index des thèmes et des noms. L'ouvrage rassemble plus de cinquante intervenants francophones. ...

Clarification of the Meaning of "Beneficial Owner" in the OECD Model Tax Convention: Comment on the April 2011 Discussion Draft

In April 2011, the OECD released an important discussion draft that is intended to clarify the meaning of the term "beneficial ownership" under articles 10, 11 and 12 of the OECD Model (2010). This article discusses these proposals and demonstrates that some refinement is necessary.

'Bio-nano interactions: new tools, insights and impacts': summary of the Royal Society discussion meeting

Bio-nano interactions can be defined as the study of interactions between nanoscale entities and biological systems such as, but not limited to, peptides, proteins, lipids, DNA and other biomolecules, cells and cellular receptors and organisms including humans. Studying bio-nano interactions is particularly useful for understanding engineered materials that have at least one dimension in the nanoscale. Such materials may consist of discrete particles or nanostructured surfaces. Much of biology functions at the nanoscale; therefore, our ability to manipulate materials such that they are taken up at the nanoscale, and engage biological machinery in a designed and purposeful manner, opens new vistas for more efficient diagnostics, therapeutics (treatments) and tissue regeneration, so-called nanomedicine. Additionally, this ability of nanomaterials to interact with and be taken up by cells allows nanomaterials to be used as probes and tools to advance our understanding of cellular functioning. Yet, as a new technology, assessment of the safety of nanomaterials, and the applicability of existing regulatory frameworks for nanomaterials must be investigated in parallel with development of novel applications. The Royal Society meeting 'Bio-nano interactions: new tools, insights and impacts' provided an important platform for open dialogue on the current state of knowledge on these issues, bringing together scientists, industry, regulatory and legal experts to concretize existing discourse in science law and policy. This paper summarizes these discussions and the insights that emerged.