Four models of the creative industries

Les activités et industries culturelles sont aujourd’hui englobées dans une nouvelle approche, celle d’industries créatives. Dans ce contexte, les interrogations sur les contributions de la culture au développement économique peuvent être repensées de manière élargie. La contribution examine les différentes réponses possibles à cette question, et quatre modèles sont ainsi distingués: l’approche du bien être; l’approche concurrentielle; l’approche de la croissance; l’approche de l’innovation. A chacun de ces modèles correspond une interprétation du lien entre activités créatives et économie. Ce sont ces interprétations dont la pertinence est appréciée à l’aide de données statistiques simples.

Correlation of the expression of human kallikrein-related peptidases 4 and 7 with the prognosis in oral squamous cell carcinoma

Background Very few articles have been written about the expression of kallikreins (KLK4 and KLK7) in oral cancers. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine and report on their prognostic potential. Methods Eighty archival blocks of primary oral cancers were sectioned and stained for KLK4 and KLK7 by immunohistochemistry. The percentage and the intensity of malignant keratinocyte staining were correlated with patient survival using Cox regression analysis. Results Both kallikreins were expressed strongly in the majority of tumor cells in 68 of 80 cases: these were mostly moderately or poorly differentiated neoplasms. Staining was particularly intense at the infiltrating front. Patients with intense staining had significantly shorter overall survival (p < .05). Conclusion This is the first observation on the patient survival influenced by kallikrein expression in oral carcinoma. The findings are consistent with those for carcinomas at other sites, in particular the prostate and ovary. KLK4 and/or KLK7 immunohistochemistry seems to have diagnostic and prognostic potential in this disease.

Managing wetlands sustainably as ecosystems : The contribution of the law (part 1)

The ways in which a society set standards of behaviour and of conduct for its members vary hugely. For example, accepted practices, recognised customs, spiritually or morally inspired norms, judicially declared rules, executively formulated edicts, formal legislative enactments or constitutionally embedded rights and duties. Whatever form they assume, these standards are the artificial construction of the human mind. Accordingly the law - whatever its form - can do no more and no less than regulate or set standards for human behaviour, human conduct, and human decision-making. The law cannot regulate the environment. It can only regulate human activities that impact directly or indirectly upon the environment. This applies as much to wetlands as components of the environment as it does to any other components of the environment or the environment at large. The capacity of the law to protect the environment and therefore wetlands is thus totally dependent upon the capacity of the law to regulate human behaviour, human conduct and human decision-making. At the same time the law needs to reflect the specific nature, functions and locations of wetlands. A wetland is an ecosystem by itself; it comprises a range of ecosystems within it; and it is part of a wider set of ecosystems. Hence, the significant ecological functions performed by wetlands. Then there are the benefits flowing to humans from wetlands. These may be social, economic, cultural, aesthetic, or a combination of some or of all of these. It is a challenge for a society acting through its legal system to find the appropriate balance between these ecological and these human values. But that is what sustainability requires.The ways in which a society set standards of behaviour and of conduct for its members vary hugely. For example, accepted practices, recognised customs, spiritually or morally inspired norms, judicially declared rules, executively formulated edicts, formal legislative enactments or constitutionally embedded rights and duties. Whatever form they assume, these standards are the artificial construction of the human mind. Accordingly the law - whatever its form - can do no more and no less than regulate or set standards for human behaviour, human conduct, and human decision-making. The law cannot regulate the environment. It can only regulate human activities that impact directly or indirectly upon the environment. This applies as much to wetlands as components of the environment as it does to any other components of the environment or the environment at large. The capacity of the law to protect the environment and therefore wetlands is thus totally dependent upon the capacity of the law to regulate human behaviour, human conduct and human decision-making. At the same time the law needs to reflect the specific nature, functions and locations of wetlands. A wetland is an ecosystem by itself; it comprises a range of ecosystems within it; and it is part of a wider set of ecosystems. Hence, the significant ecological functions performed by wetlands. Then there are the benefits flowing to humans from wetlands. These may be social, economic, cultural, aesthetic, or a combination of some or of all of these. It is a challenge for a society acting through its legal system to find the appropriate balance between these ecological and these human values. But that is what sustainability requires.