Expression of mammalian glutathione S-transferase 5-5 in Salmonella typhimurium TA1535 leads to base-pair mutations upon exposure to dihalomethanes

Dihalomethanes can produce liver tumors in mice but not in rats, and concern exists about the risk of these compounds to humans. Glutathione (GSH) conjugation of dihalomethanes has been considered to be a critical event in the bioactivation process, and risk assessment is based upon this premise; however, there is little experimental support for this view or information about the basis of genotoxicity. A plasmid vector containing rat GSH S-transferase 5-5 was transfected into the Salmonella typhimurium tester strain TA1535, which then produced active enzyme. The transfected bacteria produced base-pair revertants in the presence of ethylene dihalides or dihalomethanes, in the order CH2Br2 > CH2BrCl > CH2Cl2. However, revertants were not seen when cells were exposed to GSH, CH2Br2, and an amount of purified GSH S-transferase 5-5 (20-fold excess in amount of that expressed within the cells). HCHO, which is an end product of the reaction of GSH with dihalomethanes, also did not produce mutations. S-(1-Acetoxymethyl)GSH was prepared as an analog of the putative S-(1-halomethyl)GSH reactive intermediates. This analog did not produce revertants, consistent with the view that activation of dihalomethanes must occur within the bacteria to cause genetic damage, presenting a model to be considered in studies with mammalian cells. S-(1-Acetoxymethyl)GSH reacted with 2′-deoxyguanosine to yield a major adduct, identified as S-[1-(N2-deoxyguanosinyl)methyl]GSH. Demonstration of the activation of dihalomethanes by this mammalian GSH S-transferase theta class enzyme should be of use in evaluating the risk of these chemicals, particularly in light of reports of the polymorphic expression of a similar activity in humans.

Development of a new regulatory model for occupational health and safety in the New South Wales coal industry: an issues paper for the New South Wales Department of Mineral Resources

This paper addresses the regulatory issues arising in developing a new regulatory model for the New South Wales Coal Industry. As such, it identifies the relevant literature on this subject, the options available for reform, and the experience of Australian and key international bodies responsible for the development of regulatory standards in this area. In particular it: Identifies the main shortcomings in the existing regulatory approach; Identifies the potential roles/main strengths and weaknesses of different types of standards (eg specification, performance, process and systems-based rules) and potential “best practice’ combinations of standards; Examines the appropriateness of the current regulatory regime whereby the general OHS legislation (including the general duty provisions) applies to mining in addition to the large body of regulation which is specific to mining; Identifies the importance of, and possible means of addressing, issues of worker participation within the coal mining industry; Draws on the literature on what motivates companies and individuals for the purpose of recommending key provisions for inclusion in new legislation to provide appropriate personal and organisational incentives; Draws on the literature on major hazards facilities to suggest the appropriate roles for OHS management systems and safety reports or comparable approaches (eg mine safety management plans); Draws on the United Kingdom (UK) and United States of America (USA) experience of coal mine safety and its regulation for comparative purposes, and for insights as to what sort of regulation most effectively reduces work related injury and disease in coal mining; Examines the relevant roles of International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions; Examines the extent to which different regulatory regimes would be appropriate to open cut and underground coal mining; and Examines options for reform. This paper is focussed specifically on the issues identified above.

Building the safety case for UAS operations in support of natural disaster response

A framework supporting the systematic development of safety cases for Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations in a broad range of civil and commercial applications is presented. The case study application is the use of UAS for disaster response. In those States where regulations do not preclude UAS operations altogether, approvals for UAS operations can be granted on a case-by-case basis contingent on the provision of a safety case acceptable to the relevant National Airworthiness Authority (NAA). A safety case for UAS operations must show how the risks associated with the hazards have been managed to an acceptable level. The foundational components necessary for structuring and assessing these safety cases have not yet been proposed. Barrier-bow-tie models are used in this paper to structure the safety case for the two primary hazards of 1) a ground impact, and 2) a Mid-Air Collision (MAC). The models establish the set of Risk Control Variables (RCVs) available to reduce the risk. For the ground-impact risk model, seven RCVs are identified which in combination govern the probability of an accident. Similarly, ten RCVs are identified within the MAC model. The effectiveness of the RCVs and how they can implemented in terms of processes, policies, devices, practices, or other actions for each of the case-study applications are discussed. The framework presented can provide for the more systematic and consistent regulation of UAS through a "safety target" approach.

Government grants - an abrogation or management of risks?

New public management (NPFM), with its hands-on, private sector-style performance measurement, output control, parsimonious use of resources, disaggreation of public sector units and greater competition in the public sector, has significantly affected charitable and nonprofit organisations delivering community services (Hood, 1991; Dunleavy, 1994; George & Wilding, 2002). The literature indicates that nonprofit organisations under NPM believe they are doing more for less: while administration is increasing, core costs are not being met; their dependence on government funding comes at the expense of other funding strategies; and there are concerns about proportionality and power asymmetries in the relationship (Kerr & Savelsberg, 2001; Powell & Dalton, 2011; Smith, 2002, p. 175; Morris, 1999, 2000a). Government agencies are under increased pressure to do more with less, demonstrate value for money, measure social outcomes, not merely outputs and minimise political risk (Grant, 2008; McGreogor-Lowndes, 2008). Government-community service organisation relationships are often viewed as 'uneasy alliances' characterised by the pressures that come with the parties' differing roles and expectations and the pressures that come with the parties' differing roles and expectations and the pressurs of funding and security (Productivity Commission, 2010, p. 308; McGregor-Lowndes, 2008, p. 45; Morris, 200a). Significant community services are now delivered to citizens through such relationships, often to the most disadvantaged in the community, and it is important for this to be achieved with equity, efficiently and effectively. On one level, the welfare state was seen as a 'risk management system' for the poor, with the state mitigating the risks of sickness, job loss and old age (Giddens, 1999) with the subsequent neoliberalist outlook shifting this risk back to households (Hacker, 2006). At the core of this risk shift are written contracts. Vincent-Jones (1999,2006) has mapped how NPM is characterised by the use of written contracts for all manner of relations; e.g., relgulation of dealings between government agencies, between individual citizens and the state, and the creation of quais-markets of service providers and infrastructure partners. We take this lens of contracts to examine where risk falls in relation to the outsourcing of community services. First we examine the concept of risk. We consider how risk might be managed and apportioned between governments and community serivce organisations (CSOs) in grant agreements, which are quasiy-market transactions at best. This is informed by insights from the law and economics literature. Then, standard grant agreements covering several years in two jurisdictions - Australia and the United Kingdom - are analysed, to establish the risk allocation between government and CSOs. This is placed in the context of the reform agenda in both jurisdictions. In Australia this context is th enonprofit reforms built around the creation of a national charities regulator, and red tape reduction. In the United Kingdom, the backdrop is the THird Way agenda with its compacts, succeed by Big Society in a climate of austerity. These 'case studies' inform a discussion about who is best placed to bear and manage the risks of community service provision on behalf of government. We conclude by identifying the lessons to be learned from our analysis and possible pathways for further scholarship.

The darker side of green : plantation forestry and carbon violence in Uganda

In recent years, there has been a significant trend toward land acquisition in developing countries, establishing forestry plantations for offsetting carbon pollution generated in the Global North. Badged as “green economic development,” global carbon markets are often championed not only as solutions to climate change, but as drivers of positive development outcomes for local communities. But there is mounting evidence that these corporate land acquisitions for climate change mitigation—including forestry plantations—severely compromise not only local ecologies but also the livelihoods of the some of the world’s most vulnerable people living at subsistence level in rural areas in developing countries.

The Corporate Governance Effects of Audit Committee

This chapter provides a synthesis and evaluation of empirical research on the governance effects associated with audit committees. Given recent policy recommendations in several countries aimed at strengthening these committees, it is important to establish what research evidence demonstrates about their existing governance contribution. A framework for analyzing the impact of audit committees is described, identifying potential perceived effects which may have led to their adoption and documented effects on aspects of the audit function, on financial reporting quality and on corporate performance. It is also shown that most of the existing research has focused on factors associated with audit committee existence, characteristics, and measures of activity and there is very little evidence on the processes associated with the operation of audit committees and the manner in which they influence organizational behavior. It is clear that there is no automatic relationship between the adoption of audit committee structures or characteristics and the achievement of particular governance effects, and caution may be needed over expectations that greater codification around factors such as audit committee members’ independence and expertise as the means of ‘‘correcting’’ past weaknesses in the arrangements for audit committees. The most fundamental question concerning what difference audit committees make in practice continues to be an important area for research development. For future research we suggest: (1) greater consideration of the organizational and institutional contexts in which audit committees operate; (2) explicit theorization of the processes associated with audit committee operation; (3) complementing extant research methods with field studies; and (4) investigation of unintended as well as expected consequences of audit committees.

Patterns of boardroom discussions around the accountability process in a nonprofit organisation

This chapter sets out to identify patterns at play in boardroom discussions around the design and adoption of an accountability system in a nonprofit organisation. To this end, it contributes to the scarce literature showing the backstage of management accounting systems (Berry, 2005), investment policy determining (Kreander, Beattie & McPhail, 2009; Kreander, McPhail & Molyneaux, 2004) and financial planning strategizing (Parker, 2004) or budgeting (Irvine 2005). The paucity of publications is due to issues raised by confidentiality preventing attendance at those meetings (Irvine, 2003), Irvine & Gaffikin, 2006). However, often, the implementation of a new control technology occurs over a long period of time that might exceed the duration of a research project (Quattrone & Hopper, 2001, 2005). Recent trends consisting of having research funded by grants from private institutions or charities have tended to reduce the length of such undertakings to a few months or rarely more than a couple of years (Parker, 2013);