Oaths

'Faith in Public Office: The Meaning, Persistence and Importance of Oaths' by Nicholas Aroney comments 

Oaths of office are strangely ubiquitous in liberal-democratic regimes. They bind office-holders to their duties of office, but they do so by invoking divine or religious sanction for the performance of those duties. This divine witness to the oath of office appears to stand in as a guarantor of the political order, but also looms large as an authority that is separate from, and in some sense stands above, the political order. This opens up the possibility that this other sovereign may make moral demands that supersede those of the political order and the duties incumbent upon the office holder. This is the paradox of the oath of office. It both guarantees the performance of official duties and subjects the content of those duties to external judgement. It is a paradox embedded in the very nature of the oath of office, which captures within its short compass the very large question of the relationship between religious conviction, moral principle and political power. Through a study of the use of oaths in our political systems (including their secular adaptation, the affirmation of office), much light can be shed on the nature of faith in public office.

US Drone Registration

The US Federal Aviation Administration’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Registration Task Force Aviation Rulemaking Committee has released its recommendations [PDF].

The report featuring those recommendations states

 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) chartered the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Registration Task Force (RTF) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) (Task Force) to provide recommendations to the FAA “on registration requirements and process for small UAS, including those used for commercial purposes, and all model aircraft.”

Federal law (49 U.S.C. § 44101(a)) requires that a person may only operate an aircraft when it is registered with the FAA. An “aircraft” is defined as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air” (49 U.S.C. § 40102(a) (6)). In 2012, Congress confirmed that UAS, including those used for recreation or hobby purposes, are aircraft consistent with the statutory definition set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6). See Pub. L. 112-95, §§ 331(8), 336. The FAA currently requires civil UAS operators who have been granted operational authority by exemption to register their aircraft. The FAA would also require registration for civil UAS that would be operating under the proposed rule titled Operation and Certification of small UAS (sUAS). See 80 FR 9544 (Feb. 23, 2015).

Although the FAA does not currently enforce the requirement for sUAS used for hobby or recreational purposes to be registered, the rapid proliferation of these aircraft in the national airspace has caused the FAA to reevaluate this policy in the interests of public safety and the safety of the National Airspace System (NAS). On October 22, 2015, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the FAA published the Clarification of the Applicability of Aircraft Registration Requirements for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Request for Information Regarding Electronic Registration for UAS (Clarification and RFI). See 80 FR 63912. The Clarification and RFI did three main things: (1) clarified that the statutory requirements regarding aircraft registration of UAS apply to aircraft used for recreational or hobby purposes; (2) announced the formation of this Task Force; and (3) facilitated the Task Force’s work, requesting information and data from the public in 10 specific areas.

The stated objective of the Task Force was to develop recommendations for the creation of a registration process, which ultimately would contribute to an enforceable rule imposed by the FAA. The FAA stated that the intent of establishing this registration framework was to promote a culture of accountability while achieving a maximum level of compliance.

The FAA scoped the Task Force’s objectives at inception, and advised them that deliberations and recommendations were not dependent on the issuance or enactment of new regulation(s) or legislation, thus bound by existing statutes and rules. Additionally, the FAA advised the Task Force that recommendations should only consider sUAS operations covered under existing laws or statutes for which the FAA has direct oversight or responsibility (e.g., indoor sUAS operations were outside of the scope of discussion).

Recommendations from the Task Force are within the bounds of its charter, and may be used at the FAA’s discretion. The FAA may incorporate all, some, or none of the recommendations provided in any rulemaking activity, as well as take any future steps deemed necessary by the Agency to ensure compliance with the registration requirement. The work of the Task Force is an important step toward promoting a safety culture, but it is by no means the only action that can be taken. Any implemented registration system must align with the Agency’s priorities of safety, education, and accountability.

 The Task Force had  three formal objectives:

1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be registered. ● Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other factors such as age of operator.

2. Develop and recommend registration processes. ● Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: electronic means for registration, data retention and storage, fee collection, and information required to be submitted for registration.  

3. Develop and recommend methods for proving registration and marking. ● Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: how certificates will be issued and how a UAS will be able to be identified with the registered owner.

It was asked to consider the following questions:

  1. What methods are available for identifying individual products? Does every UAS sold have an individual serial number? Is there another method for identifying individual products sold without serial numbers or those built from kits?

2. At what point should registration occur (e.g., point-of-sale (POS) or prior to operation)? How should transfers of ownership be addressed in registration?

3. If registration occurs at POS, who should be responsible for submission of the data? What burdens would be placed on vendor of UAS if DOT required registration to occur at POS? What are the advantages of a point-of-sale approach relative to a prior-to-operation approach?

4. Consistent with past practice of discretion, should certain UAS be excluded from registration based on performance capabilities or other characteristics that could be associated with safety risk, such as weight, speed, altitude operating limitations, duration of flight?

5. How should a registration process be designed to minimize burdens and best protect innovation and encourage growth in the UAS industry?

6. Should the registration be electronic or web-based? Are there existing tools that could support an electronic registration process?

7. What type of information should be collected during the registration process to positively identify the aircraft owner and aircraft? 8. How should the registration data be stored? Who should have access to the registration data? How should the data be used?

9. Will the data be used primarily to hold registrants accountable for accidents or intentional misuse? If so, how will this affect registration by consumers? How will registration be enforced?

10. To encourage awareness, should the registration process include an acknowledgment of UAS safe operating rules?

11. Should a registration fee be collected and if so, how will the registration fee be collected if registration occurs POS? Are there payment services that can be leveraged to assist (e.g., PayPal)?

12. How will a registration program affect sales of drones, future innovation, and the positive economic impacts of the use of drones?

13. The effort to register all aircraft will have costs to government, consumers, industry, and registrants. What are these costs, and are these costs clearly outweighed by the benefits to aviation safety?

14. Are there additional means to encourage accountability and safe responsible use of UAS?

In response

The Task Force agreed that it was outside the scope of the Task Force’s objectives to debate or discuss the DOT Secretary’s decision to require registration of sUAS or the legal authority for the implementation of such a mandate. Once that understanding was reached, the Task Force undertook the task to develop and recommend a registration process that ensures accountability for users of the NAS and encourages a maximum level of compliance with the registration requirement, while not unduly burdening the nascent UAS industry and its enthusiastic owners and users of all ages. The Task Force also sought to define a category of sUAS that should be excluded from the registration requirement because they do not present a significant level of risk to the non-flying public and to users of the NAS.

It provided the following  recommendations for the registration process

1) Fill out an electronic registration form through the web or through an application (app).

2) Immediately receive an electronic certificate of registration and a personal universal registration number for use on all sUAS owned by that person.

3) Mark the registration number (or registered serial number) on all applicable sUAS prior to their operation in the NAS.

The report comments

While the brief summary above leaves out some details, like the option of serial number registration, it demonstrates the simplicity of the solution recommended by the Task Force members. This simplicity is what allowed for a consensus recommendation to develop. Any registration steps more burdensome than these three simple steps may jeopardize the likelihood of widespread adoption and would undermine the overall registration philosophy that enabled the Task Force to come to consensus. Although there were often very divergent views, and some decisions were not unanimous, the Task Force reached general agreement on their recommendations to the FAA with the frequent use of votes. Additionally, the general consensus view of the Task Force is that the recommendations on the three objectives are to be presented together as a unified recommendation, with each of the individual recommendations dependent upon elements in the others. Compromises in positions were made whenever possible to obtain a general consensus, and changes to any of the components could further dilute support among the Task Force members and their constituencies for the final recommendations. It should be noted that the Task Force acknowledged that the timeframe provided for deliberations did not allow for in-depth analysis of all the factors involved in instituting a federal requirement for registering sUAS, nor did it allow for an assessment of the impact of such a mandate on the recreational/hobby community.

Based primarily upon an assessment of available safety studies and risk probability calculations, and notwithstanding determinations in other countries with differing weight thresholds, the Task Force recommended an exclusion from the registration requirement for any small unmanned aircraft weighing a total of 250 grams (g) or less. The 250 grams or less exclusion was based on a maximum weight that was defined as the maximum weight possible including the aircraft, payload, and any other associated weight. In manned aircraft terms, it is the “maximum takeoff weight.”

The Task Force also recommends a free, owner-based registration system with a single registration number for each registrant. (They also suggested that if the FAA is required by statute to charge, that the fee should be $0.001). sUAS owners would be required to register with the FAA, prior to operation in the NAS, by entering their name and street address into a web-based or app based registration system. The system would be powered by an Application Program Interface (API) that would allow multiple app clients to feed registration information into the database, ensuring widespread compliance. Provision of email address, telephone number, and serial number of the aircraft into the system would be optional. Information on U.S. citizenship or residence status would not be required, but there would be a minimum age requirement of 13 years to register. At the time of registration, each registrant would receive a certificate of registration that contains a unique universal registration number (and the aircraft serial number if provided) that can be used on all sUAS owned by the individual. This registration number would be required to be directly marked on or affixed to each sUAS the registrant owns, prior to outdoor operation. This marking would need to be maintained in a readable and legible condition, and be readily accessible upon visual inspection. If a registrant chose to provide the FAA with the aircraft’s serial number, the registrant would not be required to further mark the sUAS with the FAA-issued registration number , as long as the serial number meets the requirement of being readable, legible, and readily accessible (without the use of tools) upon visual inspection. The Task Force also recommends that the registration process contain some sort of education component which could be similar to the existing content in the Know Before You Fly campaign.

RDA

'The Racial Discrimination Act and Inconsistency under the Australian Constitution' by George Williams and Daniel Reynolds in (2015) 36(1) Adelaide Law Review 241-256 comments

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) has assumed a special place on the federal statute book in the forty years since its enactment. This is due to it operating as a national guarantee that rights shall be enjoyed equally by all people regardless of their race. This guarantee has, by virtue of s 109 of the Constitution, overridden inconsistent state legislation that detracts from such rights, and on one occasion has had a like effect on subsequent federal legislation. However, most such attempts to invoke inconsistency with state laws have failed due to limitations contained within the Act. Further, the effectiveness of the Act is limited at the federal level because the federal Parliament has the power to amend or suspend the Act’s operation, something Parliament has done on two occasions. Stronger protection – such as by entrenching the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of race in the Constitution – is required to bring about a stronger form of protection against racial discrimination.

 The authors argue

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (‘RDA’) is in many ways just another federal statute. It may be repealed or amended by the federal Parliament at will and has no special constitutional status. Despite this, Sir Harry Gibbs, a former Chief Justice of the High Court, went so far as to say that in the RDA ‘we may already have what appears to be a bill of rights, limited it is true in scope, which is effective[ly] entrenched against the States.’

Sir Harry’s comment no doubt had a rhetorical tone to it, but it nonetheless highlights how the RDA has assumed a special place in the statute book some 40 years after its enactment. One aspect of this is the political importance attached to it over and above almost any other piece of federal legislation. This no doubt stems from the fact that the RDA touches upon fundamental community values in amounting to Australia’s most significant national prohibition of racial discrimination. Its importance is highlighted, rather than diminished, when the RDA is set in contrast to Australia’s lengthy past history of enacting laws that discriminate on the basis of race. The RDA marks a key legal and political turning point from laws such as those that denied Aboriginal people the right to marry or move freely, or to cast a vote in federal elections. The iconic nature of the RDA can be apparent when a federal government proposes that it be amended or wound back. The recent controversy over the proposal by the Abbott Government that s 18C of the Act be amended or repealed is a case in point. Similarly, the suspensions of the RDA brought about in 1998 in respect of native title and in 2007 in regard to the Northern Territory intervention5 sparked long-running national debates. They also gave rise to a strong sense of grievance amongst Indigenous peoples, who have been the only group in the community ever denied the protection of the Act.

The political and community importance attached to the RDA is reflected in the effect given to the Act by the Australian Constitution. It is in this respect that the RDA comes closest to establishing an overarching, national principle of racial non-discrimination, and so to resemble Sir Harry’s description of it as some form of bill of rights. Section 109 of the Constitution states:

109. Inconsistency of laws

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

The effect of this provision is to render inoperative a section of a state statute that is inconsistent with a federal law. This can typically arise in any one of three ways:

1. If it is impossible to obey both laws.

2. If one law purports to confer a legal right, privilege or entitlement that the other law purports to take away or diminish

3. If the Commonwealth law evinces a legislative intention to ‘cover the field’, and a State law also operates in that same field. In this case there need not be any direct contradiction between the two enactments.

This supremacy of federal law over state law, combined with like rules that operate with respect to territory laws,  has enabled the RDA to set down a standard of racial non-discrimination not only at the federal level, but also for state and territory conduct.

This article examines this constitutional dimension to the RDA, that is, the extent to which the RDA has proved capable of overriding other laws so as to set down a national standard of freedom from racial discrimination. We do so by examining the cases in which it has been argued that the RDA overrides a state, territory or federal law. We do not deal with other constitutional questions, such as the source of power that enabled the Commonwealth to enact the RDA, or broader issues such as the efficacy of the RDA or whether it has acted as a limited bill of rights in other respects.

Brandeis and Pragmatism

'Reinventing Brandeis: Legal Pragmatism for the Twenty-First Century' by Daniel Farber in (1995) University of Illinois Law Review 163-190 comments

If Brandeis is the answer, what was the question?

No doubt many different responses are possible. My purpose is to consider whether Brandeis.can help resolve the postmodernist crisis in constitutional law. Many scholars have now lost faith in the possibility of providing constitutional law with a firm theoretical foundation. One response would be to give up on the entire constitutional enterprise, but another is to abandon the need for a foundational theory. Legal pragmatists, looking for inspiration to pragmatist philosophers, such as William James and John Dewey, favor this nonfoundationalist approach. But, if we are to proceed without a foundation, is anything left for us but a rudderless journey of ad hoc decision making?

Critics on both the Left and the Right argue that pragmatism is bankrupt as a source of legal theory. Opponents on the Left consider it a complacent ideology based on facile acceptance of the status quo. Those on the Right scorn legal pragmatism as unprincipled and incompatible with the rule of law.  Thus, legal pragmatism stands accused of being on the one hand tradition-bound and on the other a source of unrestrained judicial activism. As a legal pragmatist, I consider these to be serious criticisms which implicate important legal values.

It is certainly possible to fight out this dispute purely on the level of theory,  but that strategy itself seems decidedly unpragmatic, for pragmatism is, in part, a call for less obsession with theory and more attention to concrete practice.  Taking a more concrete approach, I will argue that Justice Brandeis provides a strong counterexample to these criticisms. While a notable practitioner of pragmatism, he also was known for his crusades for social change, his deep adherence to moral principle, and his legal craftsmanship. His example can teach much about how legal pragmatism can be translated from jurisprudence to practice.

In part I of this essay, I will explain the genesis of legal pragmatism and explore the arguments of its critics. Part II then presents Brandeis as a counterexample to these criticisms. Critics might well respond that Brandeis did have various admirable qualities, but that those qualities were independent of - or even inconsistent with - his pragmatism. In part III, I will argue that the various themes in Brandeis's thought are coherent. In his judicial opinions, we can discern a basis for a coherent pragmatist vision of law and community. Consideration of this vision also highlights connections between Brandeis and another current school of constitutional theory known as republicanism. The Brandeisian vision combines the claims of individuality with those of community. In the course of this essay, I hope to dispel the view - common among both its critics and supporters - that legal pragmatism is essentially banal.  On the contrary, it can offer passion and principle as well as prudence.

Medical Innovation and Mammoth Onesies

'A Property Theory of Medical Innovation' by Anna Laakmann in (2016) 56(2) Jurimetrics comments

In discussions about the proper scope and strength of intellectual property (IP) protection, commentators frequently note that robust IP rights for medical technology developers are necessary to offset the costs of regulatory scrutiny by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This observation, while true, fails to capture important nuances in the relationship between IP and FDA regulation. Ostensibly conflicting IP and regulatory systems actually are overlapping, complementary components of a composite legal scheme governing information production and distribution. Both systems create incentives to produce intangible goods, albeit different types of goods at different points in technology development timelines. IP pulls inventions into the commercial arena, and public health regulation pushes developers to move nascent discoveries downstream along innovation pathways. Importantly, interplay between IP and regulation creates feedback loops of cumulative technological innovation.

This Article highlights the functional relationships between IP and regulatory laws to advance a holistic approach to medical innovation policy. It introduces the term “regulatory property” to describe how administrative oversight gives rise to the creation of valuable information resources. Regulatory takings and givings involve government redistributions of preexisting goods that transfer wealth among affected members of society. By contrast, regulatory property refers to the process whereby government regulation leads to the production of new information goods. As regulatory property is generated, interacting federal and state laws manage its allocation across private and public domains. The Article proposes strategies to address the unique challenges raised by innovation that is not tied to the creation of new tangible things, such as diagnostic algorithms and newly discovered uses for known products. More broadly, it suggests that understanding the dynamics between intellectual and regulatory property aids in developing coherent governance schemes for all potentially beneficial, risky medical technologies.

The delicious 'How not to clone a mammoth' by Steve Jones in (2015) 386(9989) The Lancet 125, in reviewing Beth Shapiro's How To Clone A Mammoth, comments

The first line of the US mule-training manual is said to read: “First gain the animal's attention by striking it smartly between the ears with a stout stick”. For authors, their book's title does the same job. I got some odd glances on the tube a while ago when I was reading a work provocatively labelled (in sixty-point capitals) The Wisdom of Whores which, despite the empty seats that opened up on both sides of me, is in fact an enthralling account of the epidemiology of HIV/AIDS. The most recent Diagram Prize for Oddest Book Title of the Year at the Frankfurt Book Fair was won by Strangers Have the Best Candy, which should also guarantee a seat on a crowded train. How to Clone a Mammoth, too, might be a contestant for the titular crown. 

However, this is a book that waves a stout stick but never really gets round to using it. It is full of attention-grabbing speculations about the potential scientific process of “de-extinction”, but its ultimate response to its own front cover is that “You won't be able to” and, yes, there it is, in the author's own words on page 99: “Mammoth cloning is not going to happen”. The elephant in the room is not, it seems, a mammoth. .... 

There's not much hope of inserting the mammoth genes for thick hair and cold-resistant haemoglobin into a modern elephant. Another idea, Shapiro explains, is to cut and paste your pachyderm; to compare the most mammoth-like sections of a number of elephant genomes and then to assemble a simulacrum of the extinct proboscid that is really an elephant in disguise. Rather more rational (albeit needing several lifetimes' work) is the idea of breeding from hairy elephants with dumpy legs until an individual emerges hirsute and squat enough to withstand the arctic cold. Other schemes include the possibility of finding frozen sperm in a mammoth carcase and fertilising an elephant with it, but that idea is fantastical indeed. If the spurious Mammoth ever does appear the creatures could move to Pleistocene Park in Siberia, a recent attempt to simulate what the tundra looked like in the days when it was grazed by their extinct relatives. 

The mammoth steppe was the largest single block of habitat ever seen, far larger than the tropical rainforest, and those great beasts were what ecologists call a “keystone species”: a creature whose activities determine the fate of many others. Wolves are the same: when they were introduced into the USA's Yellowstone National Park 15 years ago, they reduced elk numbers by half, so that ground cover increased, sheltering voles that were eaten by hawks, and so on and on. A Russian enthusiast has already fenced off a section of Siberian tundra and filled it with wild horses, bison, and deer. Shapiro describes how the effect has been dramatic; a great increase in rich grassland as the animals trample the soil and recycle nutriments and, less predictably, less snow cover in winter as their hooves sweep it away. That, in turn, means that the permafrost gets colder than before, and—an unexpected bonus—releases less carbon dioxide. A new behemoth might then play a part in keeping the whole planet cool. 

Another approach to populating Pleistocene Park is simpler: why not get the conservationists of the world to knit great woolly suits for the animals to keep them warm and comfortable in wintry Siberia?

Magic

The report of the Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Private Health Insurance for Natural Therapies has been released.

The expectation was that

The Department would review ‘natural therapies’ to identify services that are not underpinned by a robust evidence base and for which the private health insurance rebate should be withdrawn.

The purpose of the Review was to ensure that natural therapies are underpinned by a credible evidence base that demonstrates their clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness and safety and quality. The Rebate will be paid for insurance products that cover natural therapy services as described in the previous Government’s media release: "The Private Health Insurance Rebate will be paid for insurance products that cover natural therapy services only where the Chief Medical Officer finds there is clear evidence they are clinically effective".

Such clear evidence has not been found.

The review examined the evidence of clinical efficacy, cost effectiveness, safety and quality of natural therapies 'in scope', ie those

• covered under private health insurance between December 2012 to January 2013 (as compiled from information provided by private health insurers); 
• not subsidised directly under Medicare; and
•  not provided by a health professional accredited under the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. 

They include Alexander Technique, Aromatherapy, Ayurveda, Buteyko, Herbalism/Western Herbalism, Homeopathy, Iridology, Naturopathy and Rolfing.

The Department received 46 submissions in relation to the Review. The report states

For a few modalities (Alexander technique, Buteyko, massage therapy, tai chi, yoga), there was evidence, which was graded as low to moderate quality, that these natural therapies may improve certain health outcomes for a limited number of clinical conditions. However, in most cases the quality of the overall body of evidence was not sufficient to enable definite conclusions to be drawn about the clinical effectiveness of the therapies. Very little literature exists in the area of health service delivery for most of the health-care disciplines evaluated in this report and this particularly affected consideration of herbalism, naturopathy and myotherapy. Overall, there was not reliable, high-quality evidence available to allow assessment of the clinical effectiveness of any of the natural therapies for any health conditions. Component treatment modalities in herbalism (see page 64) and naturopathy (see page 102) were not considered.

The absence of evidence does not in itself mean that the therapies evaluated do or do not work. Natural therapies emerged in an environment where there was not a premium on rigorous evidence base. Where there is limited evidence in some modalities, there is value in conducting more research.

In considering homeopathy the report states "The available evidence failed to demonstrate that homeopathy is an effective treatment for any of the clinical conditions for which it has been examined". It comments -

Homeopathy overview report

Objective The objective of this overview is to summarise the evidence from SRs regarding the effectiveness of homeopathy as a treatment for any clinical condition. In considering the effectiveness of homeopathy for this review, the HWC determined the following uses are also within scope: (i) homeopathy used to treat the side effects of another treatment/intervention; and (ii) homeopathy used in conjunction with another treatment/intervention, where the design of the study does not confound the results (that is, where the specific effect of homeopathy can be determined). For example, studies that examined ‘homeopathy plus other intervention’ versus ‘other intervention’ were included. The use of homeopathy as a preventative/prophylactic intervention was considered out of scope. In addition, the report did not include studies that exclusively examined safety or homeopathic aggravations, defined as a temporary worsening of existing symptoms following the administration of a homeopathic remedy (Grabia and Ernst, 2003); however, safety results reported in otherwise included studies were presented in the report.

Background

NHMRC were tasked with examining the available evidence on effectiveness (and where available, the safety, quality and cost-effectiveness) of a selection of in-scope and prioritised natural therapies. Independently of the Department’s Natural Therapies Review, NHMRC had begun its own review of the evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy. To avoid duplication, it was agreed that NHMRC would provide the Department with a copy of its homeopathy evidence review, to inform the Natural Therapies Review. At the start of the Review, the Department invited public submissions from stakeholder groups and members of the public. The purpose of this report is to review and evaluate any extra literature submitted to the Department that has not already been considered during NHMRC’s homeopathy review process.

It goes on to state

Prior to the Department’s request that NHMRC examine the effectiveness of the in-scope natural therapies, which included homeopathy, the NHMRC had independently begun a review of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy. The purpose of the NHMRC’s homeopathy review was to inform development of an information paper and position statement to help Australians make informed health-care choices as a part of NHMRC’s activities under its Strategic Plan. Due to the requirements of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992 (the NHMRC Act), this review had a different process and purpose, and differed from the approach to the other natural therapies in the following respects:

• A Homeopathy Working Committee (HWC) comprised of experts in evidence-based medicine and complementary and alternative medicine was set up by the NHMRC to oversee the review.

• For the information paper to be useful to the public, it needed to provide an NHMRC position on the effectiveness of homeopathy, based on the evidence as well as the HWC’s expert judgment. As the underlying principles of homeopathy lack scientific plausibility, the review used the null hypothesis that homeopathy has no effect as a treatment for a condition, unless there was sufficient reliable evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Evidence for each clinical condition was summarised and evidence statements were formulated after consultation and agreement with the HWC. In contrast, the evidence statements for the other in-scope natural therapies in this report state that the evidence is uncertain, unless there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate otherwise. 

• The external reviewers for the homeopathy overview appraised all SRs published between January 1997 and 3 January 2013, whereas the other natural therapies overviews included all SRs done since 2008. In addition, the homeopathy overview included any prospectively designed and controlled studies included within SRs; that is, level III evidence, whereas for the other therapies, studies assessed as level III evidence or below were excluded. 

• In line with NHMRC’s requirements under the NHMRC Act, the draft information paper was open for public consultation from 9 April to 2 June 2014. Submissions received during public consultation, along with comments received from independent experts in evidence-based medicine and/or complementary medicine, are being considered by the HWC in finalising the information paper. 

What were the results? The report states

Results of the Review

There is a paucity of good-quality studies of sufficient size that examine the effectiveness of homeopathy as a treatment for any clinical condition. The available evidence is not compelling and fails to demonstrate that homeopathy is an effective treatment for any of the reported clinical conditions.

Plain language summary

The paucity of good-quality primary studies, the preponderance of studies with small sample size and insufficient power, and the lack of replication of results in multiple studies made the interpretation of apparent ‘significant’ differences in favour of homeopathy over placebo difficult. Many studies also failed to use (or report) appropriate comparators, blinding, or randomisation, all of which would be necessary to permit a high level of confidence in the outcomes reported. Accordingly, in rating the body of evidence, the overall shortcomings of the primary evidence limited the ability of the evidence review team to draw conclusions about the efficacy of homeopathy for many of the clinical conditions included in this overview.

Research gaps

A major challenge in assessing the evidence and interpreting the results for this overview has been the paucity of good-quality primary studies that are of sufficient size to demonstrate the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions. If further primary research is conducted, investigators should try to:

• recruit substantially larger samples of patients and include statistical tests to demonstrate the significance of results 

• utilise blinding/double blinding methodology and randomised assignment of subjects to treatment groups 

• improve trial reporting and follow-up (for example, reporting of drop outs) 

• improve reporting of conflicts of interest 

• provide more detailed descriptions of interventions (including doses, dilutions), better descriptions of outcomes and how they were measured, and better discussion of potential confounders or bias 

• justify the use of active comparators and comment on the effectiveness of those comparators compared to placebo 

• use a methodological approach that can differentiate between the effect of homeopathic medicines and treatment by a homeopath (that is, interaction at a consultation).

In addition, systematic reviewers should:

• justify the pooling of results in meta-analyses and provide a detailed discussion of heterogeneity between the primary studies 

• adequately and accurately report study details including treatment regimens, length of follow-up, outcomes studied and the clinical and statistical significance of results.

Bear Wrestling

In the curiosa and animal law department, restrictions on bear wrestling (a practice fortunately not found at my university) -

Alabama Code s 13A-12-5: Unlawful Bear Exploitation

(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful bear exploitation if he or she knowingly does any one of the following:

(1) Promotes, engages in, or is employed at a bear wrestling match.

(2) Receives money for the admission of another person to a place kept for bear wrestling.

(3) Sells, purchases, possesses, or trains a bear for bear wrestling.

(4) For purposes of exploitation, subjects a bear to surgical alteration in any form, including, but not limited to, declawing, tooth removal, and severing tendons.

(b) Unlawful bear exploitation is a Class B felony and is punishable as provided by law.

(c) Upon the arrest of any person for violating this section, the arresting law enforcement officer, conservation officer, or animal control officer shall have authority to seize and take custody of any bear in the possession of the arrested person.

(d) Upon the conviction of any person for violating the provisions of this section, any court of competent jurisdiction shall have authority to order the forfeiture by the convicted person of any bear, the use of which was the basis of the conviction. Any bears ordered forfeited under this section shall be placed in the custody of a humane shelter, a society that is incorporated for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

(e) In addition to the fines, penalties, and forfeitures imposed under this section, the court may require the defendant to make restitution to the state, any of its political subdivisions, or a humane shelter or a society that is incorporated for the prevention of cruelty to animals for housing, feeding, or providing medical treatment to bears used for unlawful wrestling.

Section 13A-12-6 deals with 'hog and canine fighting' thus -

(a) As used in this section, the term "hog" shall mean a pig, swine, or boar.

(b) The crime of hog and canine fighting occurs when a person organizes or conducts any commercial or private event, commonly referred to as a "catch," wherein there is a display of combat or fighting between one or more domestic or feral canines and feral or domestic hogs and in which it is intended or reasonably foreseeable that the canines or hogs would be injured, maimed, mutilated, or killed.

(c) The crime of hog and canine fighting occurs when a person intentionally does any of the following for the purpose of organizing, conducting, or financially or materially supporting any event as provided in subsection (b):

(1) Finance, commercially advertise, sell admission tickets, or employ persons.

(2) Own, manage, or operate any facility or property.

(3) Supply, breed, train, or keep canines or hogs.

(4) Knowingly purchase tickets of admission.

(d) This section shall not apply to the lawful hunting of hogs with canines or the use of canines for the management, farming, or herding of hogs which are livestock or the private training of canines for the purposes enumerated in this subsection provided that such training is conducted in the field and is not in violation of this section.

(e) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor upon conviction for a first offense. A second or subsequent violation is a Class C felony. After a first violation, a judge shall inform the defendant of the enhanced penalty upon a second or subsequent violation.

In Missouri s 578.176 deals with bear wrestling thus -

Any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a class A misdemeanor:

(1) Bear wrestling;

(2) Permitting bear wrestling to be done on any premises under his charge or control;

(3) Promoting, conducting, or staging bear wrestling;

(4) Advertising bear wrestling;

(5) Collecting any admission fee for bear wrestling;

(6) Purchasing, selling, or possessing a bear which he knows will be used for bear wrestling;

(7) Training a bear for bear wrestling;

(8) Subjecting a bear to surgical alteration for bear wrestling.