The principle of relativity with applications to physical science /

Mode of access: Internet.

Royalty payments : hearings before the Committee on Patents, House of Representatives, seventy-seventh Congress, first session, on H.J. Res. 32, H.J. Res. 73 and H.J. Res. 123, joint resolutions to define the principle of international reciprocity in the protection of American patents, trade-marks, secret formulas and processes, and copyrights by providing a method for assuring the payments of amounts due to persons in the United States from users thereof in countries restricting international payments from their territories /

"317522."

Prejudice and the press; a restatement of the principle of freedom of the press with specific reference to the Hutchins-Luce Commission.

Mode of access: Internet.

Analysis of Federal Policy on Public Access to Scientific Research Data

Presentation from the MARAC conference in Pittsburgh, PA on April 14–16, 2016. S13 - Student Poster Session; Analysis of Federal Policy on Public Access to Scientific Research Data

Investigation of un-American propaganda activities in the United States : Hearings before a Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Seventy-fifth Congress, third session-Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, on H. Res. 282, to investigate (1) the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.

Martin Dies, chairman.

An evaluation of viability of public private partnerships in social infrastructure procurement projects in Queensland, Australia

Public private partnerships (PPP) have been widely used as a method for public infrastructure project delivery not only locally and internationally, however the adoption of PPPs in social infrastructure procurement has still been very limited. The objective of this paper is to investigate the potential of implementation of current PPP framework in social affordable housing projects in South East Queensland. Data were collected from 22 interviewees with rich experiences in the industry. The findings of this study show that affordable housing investment have been considered by the industry practitioners as a risky business in comparison to other private rental housing investment. The main determents of the adoption of PPPs in social infrastructure project are the tenant-related factors, such as the inability of paying rent and the inability of caring the property. The study also suggests the importance of seeking strategic partnership with community-based organisation that has experiences in managing similar tenants’ profiles. Current PPP guideline is also viewed as inappropriate for the affordable housing projects, but the principle of VFM framework and risk allocation in PPPs still be applied to the affordable housing projects. This study helps to understand the viability of PPP in social housing procurement projects, and point out the importance of developing guideline for multi-stakeholder partnership and the expansion of the current VFM and PPPs guidelines.

Open content licensing of public sector information and the risk of tortious liability for Australian Governments

There has been an increasing interest by governments worldwide in the potential benefits of open access to public sector information (PSI). However, an important question remains: can a government incur tortious liability for incorrect information released online under an open content licence? This paper argues that the release of PSI online for free under an open content licence, specifically a Creative Commons licence, is within the bounds of an acceptable level of risk to government, especially where users are informed of the limitations of the data and appropriate information management policies and principles are in place to ensure accountability for data quality and accuracy.

Biobanking of blood and bone marrow : emerging challenges for custodians of public resources

The Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry (ABMDR) is a publicly funded company that is part of an international network that facilitates unrelated bone marrow transplantation. This role means that the ABMDR has access to a large biospecimen repository, therefore making it a highly valuable research resource. Recognising the potential value of these biospecimens for research purposes, the ABMDR is in the process of determining whether, and how, to share its biospecimens with other biobanks. While this would undoubtedly be of value to the scientific community, and ultimately to the wider community, it would also inevitably transform the role of an institution whose primary role is therapeutic, and would compromise the degree of control that a custodian has over donated material. This article describe the challenges confronting the ABMDR, and organisations like it, in balancing their duties to donors, patients, researchers and the general public. These problems have led inevitably to the use of "property" rights language in the discussion of these issues but notions of gift, ownership, trusteeship and transfer might also be considered.

Effect of waiting time on health outcomes and service utilization : A prospective randomized study on patients admitted to hospital for hip or knee replacement

Although the principle of equal access to medically justified treatment has been promoted by official health policies in many Western health care systems, practices do not completely meet policy targets. Waiting times for elective surgery vary between patient groups and regions, and growing problems in the availability of services threaten equal access to treatment. Waiting times have come to the attention of decision-makers, and several policy initiatives have been introduced to ensure the availability of care within a reasonable time. In Finland, for example, the treatment guarantee came into force in 2005. However, no consensus exists on optimal waiting time for different patient groups. The purpose of this multi-centre randomized controlled trial was to analyse health-related quality of life, pain and physical function in total hip or knee replacement patients during the waiting time and to evaluate whether the waiting time is associated with patients health outcomes at admission. This study also assessed whether the length of waiting time is associated with social and health services utilization in patients awaiting total hip or knee replacement. In addition, patients health-related quality of life was compared with that of the general population. Consecutive patients with a need for a primary total hip or knee replacement due to osteoarthritis were placed on the waiting list between August 2002 and November 2003. Patients were randomly assigned to a short waiting time (maximum 3 months) or a non-fixed waiting time (waiting time not fixed in advance, instead the patient followed the hospitals routine practice). Patients health-related quality of life was measured upon being placed on the waiting list and again at hospital admission using the generic 15D instrument. Pain and physical function were evaluated using the self-report Harris Hip Score for hip patients and a scale modified from the Knee Society Clinical Rating System for knee patients. Utilization measures were the use of home health care, rehabilitation and social services, physician visits and inpatient care. Health and social services use was low in both waiting time groups. The most common services used while waiting were rehabilitation services and informal care, including unpaid care provided by relatives, neighbours and volunteers. Although patients suffered from clear restrictions in usual activities and physical functioning, they seemed primarily to lean on informal care and personal networks instead of professional care. While longer waiting time did not result in poorer health-related quality of life at admission and use of services during the waiting time was similar to that at the time of placement on the list, there is likely to be higher costs of waiting by people who wait longer simply because they are using services for a longer period. In economic terms, this would represent a negative impact of waiting. Only a few reports have been published of the health-related quality of life of patients awaiting total hip or knee replacement. These findings demonstrate that, in addition to physical dimensions of health, patients suffered from restrictions in psychological well-being such as depression, distress and reduced vitality. This raises the question of how to support patients who suffer from psychological distress during the waiting time and how to develop strategies to improve patients initiatives to reduce symptoms and the burden of waiting. Key words: waiting time, total hip replacement, total knee replacement, health-related quality of life, randomized controlled trial, outcome assessment, social service, utilization of health services

Performing immobility / protesting immobility: The risks & rewards of public space protest performances

Though there is much interest in mobilities and performing mobilities as a characteristic of modern, urban, social life today, this is not always matched by attention to immobilities, as the flipside of mobility in modern life. In this paper, I investigate public space performances designed to draw attention to precisely this counterpoint to current discourses of mobilities – performances about the socially produced immobilities many people with disabilities find a more fundamental feature of day-to-day life, the fight for mobility, and the freedom found when accommodations for alternative mobilities are made available. Although public policy is increasingly aligned with a social model of disability, which sees disability as socially constructed through systems, institutions and infrastructure deliberately designed to exclude specific bodies – stairs, curbs, queues and so forth – and although governments in the US, UK, and to a lesser degree Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth nations aim to address these inequalities, the experience of immobility is still every-present for many people. This often comes not just from pain, or from impairment, or event from lack of accommodations for alternative mobilities, but from fellow social performers’ antipathy to, appropriation of, or destruction of accommodations designed to facilitate access for a range of different bodies in public space, and thus the public sphere. The archetypal instance of this tension between the mobile, and those needing accommodations to allow mobility, is, of course, the antipathy many able bodied people feel towards the provision of disabled parking spaces. A cursory search online shows thousands of accounts of antagonism, vitriol, and even violence prompted by disputes which began when a disabled person asked an able person to exit a designated disabled parking space. For many, it seems, expecting them to pass by such parks so others can experience the mobility they take for granted is too much. In this paper, I examine a number of protest performances in public space in which activist present actions – for example, placing wheelchairs in every regular parking space in a precinct – to give bystanders, passersby and spectators, as well as antagonistic fellow social performers, a sense of what socially produced immobility feels like. I examine responses to such protest performances, and what they say about the potential social, political and ethical impacts of such protests, in terms of their potential to produce new attitudes to mobility, alternative mobility, and access to alternative modes of mobility.

SUSTAINABILITY OF OPEN ACCESS SERVICES: Phase 3: The Collective Provision of Open Access Resources

The report ‘Sustainability of Open Access Services - Phase 3: The Collective Provision of Open Access Resources’ discusses the economic and institutional issues faced by those sustaining free infrastructure services. It also identifies strategies to coordinate the collective provision of infrastructure services. These considerations are valuable input for the phases 4 and 5 of the project ‘Sustainability of Open Access Services’. This body of work will lead to practical recommendations for funders and project planners to consider when initiating an infrastructure service. The report was written by Raym Crow and funded by SPARC. Several key messages from the report are of interest. Providing infrastructure services as a public good imposes specific requirements on the design of the sustainability model. The challenge is to get enough institutions to reveal their demand for the service and support this. Arguments for an institution to support can be altruism or reciprocity or there being sufficient benefit to the institution for supporting a service. Institutions can also work together on a service through collective action (collecting voluntary contributions) and cross subsidies (funding collected by offering exclusive benefits to contributors).

Complying with the NIH Public Access Policy - Copyright Considerations and Options

On January 11, 2008, the National Institutes of Health ('NIH') adopted a revised Public Access Policy for peer-reviewed journal articles reporting research supported in whole or in part by NIH funds. Under the revised policy, the grantee shall ensure that a copy of the author's final manuscript, including any revisions made during the peer review process, be electronically submitted to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central ('PMC') archive and that the person submitting the manuscript will designate a time not later than 12 months after publication at which NIH may make the full text of the manuscript publicly accessible in PMC. NIH adopted this policy to implement a new statutory requirement under which: The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law. This White Paper is written primarily for policymaking staff in universities and other institutional recipients of NIH support responsible for ensuring compliance with the Public Access Policy. The January 11, 2008, Public Access Policy imposes two new compliance mandates. First, the grantee must ensure proper manuscript submission. The version of the article to be submitted is the final version over which the author has control, which must include all revisions made after peer review. The statutory command directs that the manuscript be submitted to PMC 'upon acceptance for publication.' That is, the author's final manuscript should be submitted to PMC at the same time that it is sent to the publisher for final formatting and copy editing. Proper submission is a two-stage process. The electronic manuscript must first be submitted through a process that requires input of additional information concerning the article, the author(s), and the nature of NIH support for the research reported. NIH then formats the manuscript into a uniform, XML-based format used for PMC versions of articles. In the second stage of the submission process, NIH sends a notice to the Principal Investigator requesting that the PMC-formatted version be reviewed and approved. Only after such approval has grantee's manuscript submission obligation been satisfied. Second, the grantee also has a distinct obligation to grant NIH copyright permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible through PMC not later than 12 months after the date of publication. This obligation is connected to manuscript submission because the author, or the person submitting the manuscript on the author's behalf, must have the necessary rights under copyright at the time of submission to give NIH the copyright permission it requires. This White Paper explains and analyzes only the scope of the grantee's copyright-related obligations under the revised Public Access Policy and suggests six options for compliance with that aspect of the grantee's obligation. Time is of the essence for NIH grantees. As a practical matter, the grantee should have a compliance process in place no later than April 7, 2008. More specifically, the new Public Access Policy applies to any article accepted for publication on or after April 7, 2008 if the article arose under (1) an NIH Grant or Cooperative Agreement active in Fiscal Year 2008, (2) direct funding from an NIH Contract signed after April 7, 2008, (3) direct funding from the NIH Intramural Program, or (4) from an NIH employee. In addition, effective May 25, 2008, anyone submitting an application, proposal or progress report to the NIH must include the PMC reference number when citing articles arising from their NIH funded research. (This includes applications submitted to the NIH for the May 25, 2008 and subsequent due dates.) Conceptually, the compliance challenge that the Public Access Policy poses for grantees is easily described. The grantee must depend to some extent upon the author(s) to take the necessary actions to ensure that the grantee is in compliance with the Public Access Policy because the electronic manuscripts and the copyrights in those manuscripts are initially under the control of the author(s). As a result, any compliance option will require an explicit understanding between the author(s) and the grantee about how the manuscript and the copyright in the manuscript are managed. It is useful to conceptually keep separate the grantee's manuscript submission obligation from its copyright permission obligation because the compliance personnel concerned with manuscript management may differ from those responsible for overseeing the author's copyright management. With respect to copyright management, the grantee has the following six options: (1) rely on authors to manage copyright but also to request or to require that these authors take responsibility for amending publication agreements that call for transfer of too many rights to enable the author to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible ('the Public Access License'); (2) take a more active role in assisting authors in negotiating the scope of any copyright transfer to a publisher by (a) providing advice to authors concerning their negotiations or (b) by acting as the author's agent in such negotiations; (3) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License; (4) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License and also grants a license to the grantee to make certain uses of the article, including posting a copy in the grantee's publicly accessible digital archive or repository and authorizing the article to be used in connection with teaching by university faculty; (5) negotiate a more systematic and comprehensive agreement with the biomedical publishers to ensure either that the publisher has a binding obligation to submit the manuscript and to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible or that the author retains sufficient rights to do so; or (6) instruct NIH-funded authors to submit manuscripts only to journals with binding deposit agreements with NIH or to journals whose copyright agreements permit authors to retain sufficient rights to authorize NIH to make manuscripts publicly accessible.

Genomics research: world survey of public funding.

BACKGROUND: Over the past two decades, genomics has evolved as a scientific research discipline. Genomics research was fueled initially by government and nonprofit funding sources, later augmented by private research and development (R&D) funding. Citizens and taxpayers of many countries have funded much of the research, and have expectations about access to the resulting information and knowledge. While access to knowledge gained from all publicly funded research is desired, access is especially important for fields that have broad social impact and stimulate public dialogue. Genomics is one such field, where public concerns are raised for reasons such as health care and insurance implications, as well as personal and ancestral identification. Thus, genomics has grown rapidly as a field, and attracts considerable interest. RESULTS: One way to study the growth of a field of research is to examine its funding. This study focuses on public funding of genomics research, identifying and collecting data from major government and nonprofit organizations around the world, and updating previous estimates of world genomics research funding, including information about geographical origins. We initially identified 89 publicly funded organizations; we requested information about each organization's funding of genomics research. Of these organizations, 48 responded and 34 reported genomics research expenditures (of those that responded but did not supply information, some did not fund such research, others could not quantify it). The figures reported here include all the largest funders and we estimate that we have accounted for most of the genomics research funding from government and nonprofit sources. CONCLUSION: Aggregate spending on genomics research from 34 funding sources averaged around $2.9 billion in 2003-2006. The United States spent more than any other country on genomics research, corresponding to 35% of the overall worldwide public funding (compared to 49% US share of public health research funding for all purposes). When adjusted to genomics funding intensity, however, the United States dropped below Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Canada, as measured both by genomics research expenditure per capita and per Gross Domestic Product.