Combating the ‘myth of physical restraint’ in human trafficking and modern slavery trials heard in the Crown Court

The greatest hurdle to an effective criminal justice response to human trafficking is the prevalence of myths about how exploitation happens and who ‘counts’ as a genuine victim. This includes the myth that, to be a genuine victim, an individual must have been subject to some form of physical restraint. Previous work has demonstrated how this myth undermines trafficking prosecutions in various jurisdictions. It has demonstrated that, in the absence of physical restraint during their exploitation, victims are deemed to lack credibility. However, what is missing in the current body literature is a robust analysis of whether something should be done to address this issue. By engaging with the foundational principle of accurate fact-finding, this article argues that some form of regulation of cross-examination in the English and Welsh jurisdiction, with a view to preventing this myth from manifesting in trials, would be justified.

Empirical evaluation of fundamental principles of evidence-based medicine: a meta-epidemiological study

Rationale, aims and objectives 39 Evidence-based medicine (EBM) holds that estimates of effects of health interventions based on 40 high-certainty evidence (CoE) are expected to change less frequently than the effects generated 41 in low CoE studies. However, this foundational principle of EBM has never been empirically 42 tested. 43 Methods 44 We reviewed all systematic reviews and meta-analyses in Cochrane Database of Systematic 45 Reviews from January 2016 through May 2021 (n=3,323). We identified 414(207x2) and 384 46 (192x2) pairs of original and updated Cochrane reviews that assessed CoE and pooled 47 treatment effect estimates. We appraised CoE using the Grading of Recommendations 48 Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. We assessed the difference in 49 effect sizes between the original versus updated reviews as a function of change in CoE, which 50 we report as a ratio of odds ratio (ROR). We compared ROR generated in the studies that 51 changed CoE from very low/low (VL/L) to moderate/high (M/H) vs. MH/H VL/L. We also 52 assessed the heterogeneity and inconsistency (using the tau and I2 statistic), the change in 53 precision of effect estimates (by calculating the ratio of standard errors) (seR), and the absolute 54 deviation in estimates of treatment effects (aROR). 55 Results 56 57 We found that CoE originally appraised as VL/L had 2.1 (95%CI: 1.19 to 4.12; p=0.0091) times 58 higher odds to be changed in the future studies than M/H CoE. However, the effect size was not 59 different when CoE changed from VL/L M/H vs. M/H VL/L [ROR=1.02 (95%CI: 0.74 to 1.39) 60 vs. 1.02 (95%CI: 0.44 to 2.37); p=1 for the between subgroup differences]. aROR was similar 61 between the subgroups [median (IQR):1.12 (1.07 to 1.57) vs 1.21 (1.12 to 2.43)]. We observed 62 large inconsistency (I 2=99%) and imprecision in treatment effects (seR=1.09). 63 Conclusions 64 We provide the first empirical support for a foundational principle of EBM showing that low65 quality evidence changes more often than high CoE. However, the effect size was not different 66 between studies with low vs high CoE. The finding that the effect size did not differ between low 67 and high CoE indicate urgent need to refine current EBM critical appraisal methods

Waiving COVID-19 Vaccine Patents: A Bad Idea and a Dangerous Precedent

The Biden Administration believes that suspending COVID-19 vaccine patents will expedite the swift development of high quality “cheap” versions of existing vaccines and hasten the pandemic’s end. This view is dangerously wrong. Vaccinating the world is essential, but temporarily waiving patent rights for COVID-19 vaccines (also known as “compulsory licensing”) will actually slow their availability to the developing world. While providing no gain, compulsory licensing promises lots of pain. Waiving patent protection discourages cutting-edge research investments, which in turn produce breakthrough treatments not just for COVID-19, but for other diseases, like cancer. Weakening these protections would be anti-patient and counterproductive. The reality is that, in order to save the world, we must all work together as partners. The remarkable speed with which we developed diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to combat COVID-19 points to the need for more collaboration, not less. Patents are a foundational principle upon which that success rests. While the policy of temporarily waiving patents seems fair and humanitarian, the devil is in the details. Such a policy will not result in a single citizen of the developing world getting vaccinated one minute sooner. In fact, the unintended consequences are the reverse. More confusion, lower quality, less transnational cooperation. A triple play of disastrous global proportions.

Reviewing Health Service and Program Evaluations in Indigenous Contexts: A Systematic Review

This study systematically reviewed evidence regarding health program and service evaluations in Indigenous contexts. Following the PRISMA guidelines and combining terms for ‘Indigenous populations’ and ‘health programs and services’. Eight principles emerged: Principle 1: Adopting Indigenous led or co-led approaches is vital to balance power relationships by prioritizing self-determination, Principle 2: Evaluation team should include local Indigenous community members, Principle 3: Indigenous community knowledge and practice should be foundational, Principle 4: Evaluations must be responsive and flexible to meet the needs of the local community, Principle 5: Evaluations should respect and adhere to local Indigenous protocols, culture, wisdom and language, Principle 6: Evaluations should emphasize reciprocity, shared learnings and capacity building, Principle 7: It is important to build strong relationships and trust between and within researcher teams, evaluators and communities, and Principle 8: The evaluation team must acknowledge community capacity and resources by investing in time and relationships.

Provenance Attestation of Human Cells Using Physical Unclonable Functions

We introduce a novel methodology, namely CRISPR-Engineered Attestation of Mammalian Cells using Physical Unclonable Functions (CREAM-PUFs), which can serve as the cornerstone for formally verifying transactions in human cell line distribution networks. A PUF is a physical entity which provides a measurable output that can be used as a unique and irreproducible identifier for the artifact wherein it is embedded. Popularized by the electronics industry, silicon PUFs leverage the inherent physical variations of semiconductor manufacturing to establish intrinsic security primitives for attesting integrated circuits. Owing to the stochastic nature of these variations and the multitude of steps involved, photo-lithographically manufactured silicon PUFs are impossible to reproduce (thus unclonable). Inspired by the success of silicon PUFs, we sought to exploit a combination of sequence-restricted barcodes and the inherent stochasticity of CRISPR-induced non-homologous end joining DNA error repair to create the first generation of genetic physical unclonable functions in three distinct human cells (HEK293, HCT116, and HeLa). We demonstrate that these CREAM-PUFs are robust (i.e., they repeatedly produce the same output), unique (i.e., they do not coincide with any other identically produced PUF), and unclonable (i.e., they are virtually impossible to replicate). Accordingly, CREAM-PUFs can serve as a foundational principle for establishing provenance attestation protocols for protecting intellectual property and confirming authenticity of engineered cell lines.

14. The Welfare Principle

This chapter is concerned with the foundational principle of child law: the welfare principle. It discusses the contested meaning of ‘welfare’ in s 1 of the Children Act 1989, particularly through evaluation of the terms outlined in the welfare checklist. This includes consideration of matters such as the weight to be given to children’s wishes and feelings. The meaning of ‘paramountcy’ is then discussed, including assessment of the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 and an explanation of the circumstances in which welfare is not paramount. The chapter then turns to the impact of the presumption of parental involvement, ‘no order’ principle and the need to avoid undue delay on the assessment of a child’s welfare.

Fundamentals of Criminal Law

This book explores the theoretical principles underlying the general part of the criminal law. It demonstrates how the major general part doctrines governing actus reus, mens rea, and defences are informed by deeper considerations of responsibility, culpability, and wrongdoing. The book shows how many of the criminal law’s doctrines can and should accommodate the demand that criminal convictions be imposed only upon persons who are culpable for their wrongdoing. But those same doctrines are not always driven by culpability. They are grounded also in certain further principles that the book identifies: specifically, principles of “moral responsibility”, “ascriptive responsibility”, and “wrongdoing”. Neither can many of those doctrines be separated from questions of criminalization. Doctrines governing such matters as causation, omissions, complicity, and even mens rea all serve more than one foundational principle, requiring mediation and compromise. As such, the book argues, they engage wider debates about wrongdoing, and about the boundaries between liability and freedom.

An Argument for Trust Assessment in Human-Machine Interaction: Overview and Call for Integration

Trust is a foundational principle in Human Factors Engineering. While an understanding of trust can help predict and alter much of human-machine interactions (HMI), assessment of trust is underutilized in the field. We make the argument that trust assessment provides great utility for anyone interested in HMI, followed by an overview of the various trust assessment techniques which exist. With each broad assessment technique, we evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of its use. We then apply those shortcomings in a call for future development of new trust assessment techniques, be they subjective self-reports, behavioral, or physiological measures. For scientists and practitioners alike, trust assessment provides a substantial opportunity for greater understanding of the human in human-machine interactions.