Utility as a first principle for education research : reworking autonomy in Australian higher education

The focus of this paper is on the community impact of education research, as conceived specifically within a changing context of research assessment in Australia, first mooted by the previous Federal Coalition (conservative) Government within a new Research Quality Framework (RQF), and now to be reworked by the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiated by the incoming Federal Labour (progressive) Government. Convinced that a penchant for the utility of research will not go away, irrespective of the political orientations of government, our interest is in exploring: the assumption that research, particularly in areas such as education, should have an impact in the community (as this was first defined within the RQF); the difficulties much education research (despite its “applied” characterisation) has in complying with this ideal; and what a community impact requirement means for the kinds of education research that will be privileged in the future. In particular, we are concerned about the potential narrowing of education research directed at or by community impact and what is lost in the process. One potential loss or weakening is in the positional autonomy of higher education to conduct independent education research.

Comonitoring of adenosine and dopamine using the wireless instantaneous neurotransmitter concentration system : proof of principle : laboratory investigation

Object

The authors of previous studies have demonstrated that local adenosine efflux may contribute to the therapeutic mechanism of action of thalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) for essential tremor. Real-time monitoring of the neurochemical output of DBS-targeted regions may thus advance functional neurosurgical procedures by identifying candidate neurotransmitters and neuromodulators involved in the physiological effects of DBS. This would in turn permit the development of a method of chemically guided placement of DBS electrodes in vivo. Designed in compliance with FDA-recognized standards for medical electrical device safety, the authors report on the utility of the Wireless Instantaneous Neurotransmitter Concentration System (WINCS) for real-time comonitoring of electrical stimulation–evoked adenosine and dopamine efflux in vivo, utilizing fast-scan cyclic voltammetry (FSCV) at a polyacrylonitrile-based (T-650) carbon fiber microelectrode (CFM).
Methods

The WINCS was used for FSCV, which consisted of a triangle wave scanned between −0.4 and +1.5 V at a rate of 400 V/second and applied at 10 Hz. All voltages applied to the CFM were with respect to an Ag/AgCl reference electrode. The CFM was constructed by aspirating a single T-650 carbon fiber (r = 2.5 μm) into a glass capillary and pulling to a microscopic tip using a pipette puller. The exposed carbon fiber (the sensing region) extended beyond the glass insulation by ~ 50 μm. Proof of principle tests included in vitro measurements of adenosine and dopamine, as well as in vivo measurements in urethane-anesthetized rats by monitoring adenosine and dopamine efflux in the dorsomedial caudate putamen evoked by high-frequency electrical stimulation of the ventral tegmental area and substantia nigra.
Results

The WINCS provided reliable, high-fidelity measurements of adenosine efflux. Peak oxidative currents appeared at +1.5 V and at +1.0 V for adenosine, separate from the peak oxidative current at +0.6 V for dopamine. The WINCS detected subsecond adenosine and dopamine efflux in the caudate putamen at an implanted CFM during high-frequency stimulation of the ventral tegmental area and substantia nigra. Both in vitro and in vivo testing demonstrated that WINCS can detect adenosine in the presence of other easily oxidizable neurochemicals such as dopamine comparable to the detection abilities of a conventional hardwired electrochemical system for FSCV.
Conclusions

Altogether, these results demonstrate that WINCS is well suited for wireless monitoring of high-frequency stimulation-evoked changes in brain extracellular concentrations of adenosine. Clinical applications of selective adenosine measurements may prove important to the future development of DBS technology.

Using Pareto principle plus statistic methodology in establishing a cost estimating model

Previous experience and research indicated that the Pareto Principle (80/20 Principle) has been widely used in many industries to achieve more with less. The study described in this paper concurs that this principle can be applied to improve the estimating accuracy and efficiency, especially in design development stage of projects. In fact, establishing an effective cost estimating model to improve accuracy and efficiency in design development stage has been a subject, which has attracted many research attentions over several decades. For over almost 40 years, research studies indicate that using the 80/20 Principle is one of the approaches. However, most of these studies were built by assumption, theoretical analysis or questionnaire survey. The objective of this research is to explore a logical and systematic method to establish a cost estimating model based on the Pareto Principle. This paper includes extensive literatures review on cost estimating accuracy and efficiency in the construction industry that points out the current gap of knowledge area and understanding of the topical. These reviews assist in developing the direction for the research and explore the potential methodology of using the Pareto Principle in the new cost estimating model. The findings of this paper suggest that combining the Pareto Principle with statistical analysis could be used as the technique to improve the accuracy and efficiency of current estimating methods in design development stage.

The common law principle of legality

In this age of statutes and human rights the common law principle of legality has assumed a central importance. The principle holds that '[u]nless the Parliament makes unmistakably clear its intention to abrogate or suspend a fundamental freedom, the courts will not construe a statute as having that operation.' This development has occurred throughout the common law world most relevantly in New Zealand and the United Kingdom where its re-emergence coincided with the enactment of statutory bill of rights. It is however the aim of this article to outline the nature and scope of the principle of legality in contemporary Australian law.

The principle of legality as clear statement rule: significance and problems

In Australia, the common law principle of legality has hardened into a strong clear statement rule that is applied when legislation engages common law rights and freedoms. It has transformed a loose collection of rebuttable interpretive presumptions into a quasi-constitutional common law bill of rights. However, these developments are not without controversy or issue. The analysis undertaken in this article suggests that the principle of legality as clear statement rule -- as mandated by the High Court in Coco v The Queen -- can only work legitimately if Parliament has clear and prior notice of the rights and freedoms that it operates to protect. But it is problematic if what a common law right, such as freedom of speech, requires or guarantees in any given legislative context is unclear and contested, and so must be judicially divined at the point of application. In these cases, the principle operates to enforce a (post-legislative) judicial approximation of what best protects and promotes an abstract legal value or principle. It amounts to the illegitimate judicial remaking of prior legislative decisions on rights. This undercuts the normative justifications for the principle of legality as it obscures from Parliament the common law (rights) backdrop against which its legislation is enacted and interpreted.

Addressing the curious black spot that is the separation between the principle of legality and sentencing

The principle of legality has evolved into a clear and entrenchedjurisprudential mechanism for protecting common law rights and freedoms. It operates as a shield to preserve the scope of application of fundamental rights and fre edoms. In recent years it has been increasingly applied by the courts to limit the scope of legislative provisions which potentially impinge on human rights and fundamental freedoms. Yet there is one domain where the principle of legality is conspicuously absent: sentencing. Ostensibly, this is paradoxical. Sentencing is the realm where the legalsystem operates in its most coercive manner against individuals. In thisarticle, we argue that logically the principle of legality has an importantrole in the sentencing system given the incursions by criminal sanctionsinto a number of basic rights, including the right to liberty, the freedom ofassociation and the deprivation of property. By way of illustration, we setout how the principle of legality should apply to the interpretation of keystatutory provisions. To this end, we argue that the objectives of generaldeterrence and specifi c deterrence should have less impact in sentencing. It is also suggested that judges should be more reluctant to send offenders with dependants to terms of imprisonment. Injecting the principle of legality into sentencing law and practice would result in the reduction in severity of a large number of sanctions, thereby reducing the frequency and extent to which the fundamental rights of offenders are violated. The methodology set out in this article can be applied to alter the operation of a number of legislative sentencing objectives and rules.

Excessive criminal punishment amounts to punishing the innocent : an argument for taking the parsimony principle seriously

Punishing the innocent is incontestably repugnant. Punishing offenders more harshly than is justified is a form of punishing the innocent, yet this practice is commonplace in the United States. This Article sets out a normative argument in favor of less severe penalties for many forms of offenses. There is already an established principle, which limits punishment to the minimum amount of hardship that is required to achieve the objectives of sentencing. The principle is termed “parsimony” and is widely endorsed. Yet, in reality, it is illusory. It has no firm content and in its current form is logically and jurisprudentially incapable of grounding a persuasive argument for more lenient sentences. This Article gives content to the principle of parsimony. It is argued that application of the principle will result in a considerable reduction in the number of offenders who are sentenced to imprisonment and shorter sentences for many offenders who are jailed. The recommendations in this Article will enhance the fairness and transparency of the sentencing system. The argument is especially important at this point in history. The United States is experiencing an incarceration crisis. The principle of parsimony, properly applied, is an important key to ameliorating the incarceration problem. The Article also examines the operation of the parsimony principle in Australia. Unlike sentencing courts in the United States, Australian judges enjoy considerable discretion in sentencing offenders. Despite the vastly different approach to sentencing in Australia, it too is experiencing a considerable increase in the incarceration rate. It emerges that the courts in a tightly regimented sentencing regime (the United States) and a mainly discretionary system (Australia) effectively ignored the parsimony principle. It is not the strictures in the United States that curtail the imposition of parsimonious sentences; rather, it is the absence of a forceful rationale underpinning the principle and a lack of clarity regarding the attainable objectives of sentencing. This Article addresses these shortcomings. In doing so, it paves the way for fundamentally fairer sentencing outcomes in the United States and Australia.