UV Responses in Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders and Asians Residing in Hawaiʻi and in Maryland

Background: UV exposure causes a wide range of skin damage including cutaneous melanoma. The mechanisms of cellular and molecular damage as well as erythemal and pigmentation responses to UV exposure have largely been studied in the White population. Methods: This study systematically investigates responses to UV exposure in the Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders (NHPI) and Asian populations living in Hawai’i (A/HI) as well as in Asians living in Maryland (A/MD). Results: Our analyses indicate that the NHPI population is less sensitive to UV exposure than the A/HI population. Comparisons between the two Asian groups suggest that, despite slightly but not statistically different baseline constitutive pigmentation (pre-UV exposure), the A/HI and A/MD had similar UV sensitivity, measured as minimal erythemal dose (MED). However, the A/MD population had higher levels of oxy-hemoglobin at doses of 2.0, 2.8 and 4.0 MED. Unexpectedly the A/MD subjects retained higher levels of pigmentation 2 weeks post UV exposure. Conclusion: This study provides insight into UV responses of the inhabitants of Hawai’i and shows that such responses are statistically significant for relatively small samples of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders, and for Asians living in Hawai’i and Asians living in Maryland.

Chief Audit Executives’ Evaluations of Whistle-Blowing Allegations

This study examines the effects of the source of whistle-blowing allegations and potential for allegations to trigger concerns about reputation threats on Chief Audit Executives’ handling of whistle-blowing allegations. The participants for this study, 79 Chief Audit Executives (CAEs) and deputy CAEs, evaluated whistle-blowing reports related to financial reporting malfeasance that were received from either an anonymous or a non-anonymous source. The whistle-blowing reports alleged that the wrongdoing resulted from either the exploitation of substantial weaknesses in internal controls (suggesting higher responsibility of the CAE and internal audit) or the circumvention of internal controls (suggesting lower responsibility of the CAE or internal audit). Findings indicate that CAEs believe anonymous whistle-blowing reports to be significantly less credible than non-anonymous reports. Although CAEs assessed lower credibility ratings for the reports alleging wrongdoing by the exploitation of substantial weaknesses in internal controls, they allocated more resources to investigating these allegations.