Quick, Effective Public Health Measures

By Stephen Latham [cross-posted at his blog, A Blog on Bioethics]

I’m freshly back from the annual meeting of the Public Health Law Research program, sponsored by Robert Wood Johnson.

At most academic meetings, I prefer schmoozing in the halls to listening to the talks. That’s part personal vice, and part stage-of-career: at this point, it matters more who I talk to than whose paper I hear. This conference was different, though–perhaps because I’m new to it. A very large percentage of the papers (and posters!) repaid close attention.

But the best session of the conference, to my mind, was the “Critical Opportunities” session. The session, which is apparently an annual affair, is presented as a competition: a handful of public health law scholars are invited to present their best ideas for high-impact, evidence-based public health interventions that have a chance at actual enactment. The audience votes on which one they think is (to put it roughly) most worth peddling to health-policy folk under the banner, “Do it now!”

Upcoming event: Seminar on food subsidies and health at Tufts

Next Wednesday, Professor Sean Cash of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts will deliver a seminar presentation titled, “Fat Taxes and Thin Subsidies: Can food price interventions improve health?” Professor Cash will discuss the efficacy and health impacts of food price interventions that increase the cost of undesirable foods and/or decrease the cost of desirable ones. (For a little advance reading, take a look at his 2005 article by a similar title, which argues that estimates of the cost per statistical life saved through such subsidies compare favorably with existing U.S. government programs). Here’s a brief description of the lecture:

Activists often argue that food prices drive the obesity epidemic, and call for a change in taxes to raise the cost of undesirable foods and subsidies to lower prices of more desirable ones. Do these fat taxes and subsidies actually work? This seminar will review the evidence on efficacy, producer and consumer responses, distribution of health impacts and financial gains or losses, as well as the role of non-price interventions in relation to price changes.

As an added bonus, the seminar will be broadcast via live stream here—so no need to brave the icy cold!

PHLR Annual Meeting Post-Mortem

This past week, PHLR hosted 150 researchers, lawyers, public health practitioners and others for our fourth annual meeting. With our theme for the conference in mind, “Driving Legal Innovation,” our attendees shared results of evaluations of laws and regulations, offered up suggestions for new ways to use law to improve health, and attacked head on the issues facing the United States and our public health.

While you wait for more multimedia content, here are a few highlight moments: Continue reading

Accentuate the Negative

by Suzanne M. Rivera, Ph.D.

While attending the annual Advancing Ethical Research Conference of Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R) last month in San Diego, I had the opportunity to hear a talk by Dr. John Ioannidis, in which he debunked commonly accepted scientific “truths.”  Calling upon his own work, which is focused on looking critically at published studies to examine the strength of their claims (see his heavily downloaded 2005 paper “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”), Ioannidis raised important questions for those of us who think about research ethics, and who oversee and manage the research conducted at universities and scientific institutes across the country.

Ioannidis persuasively argued that our system for publishing only studies with statistically significant positive findings has resulted in a bizarre kind of reality where virtually no studies are ever reported that found “negative” results.  Negative results are suppressed because nobody is interested in publishing them.  Editors and reviewers have a major role in this problem; they choose not to publish studies that are not “sexy.”  This artificially inflates the proportion of observed “positive” results and influences the likelihood a scientist will even write up a journal article because she knows what it takes to get published.

But isn’t there an ethical obligation to publish so-called negative results?  In human research, people give their time and undergo risks for the conduct of a study.  Their sacrifices are not meaningful if the results are never shared.  Furthermore, negative results tell us something important.  And if they are not published, some other research team somewhere else may unknowingly repeat a study, putting a new batch of subjects at risk, to investigate a question for which the answer is already known.  Finally, to the extent a study is conducted using taxpayer dollars, the data derived should be considered community property, and there are opportunity costs associated with unnecessarily repetitive work.  Continue reading

Outsourcing the Up Goering of My Job Talk Paper to Forbes: Personalized Medicine, Personalized Regulation

By Michelle Meyer

So, one thing they say about being on the law teaching market is that you likely will never before have enjoyed — and, less happily, will likely never again enjoy — so much attention to your work and so many opportunities to discuss it. That’s totally true, and it’s totally fabulous. But there’s a flip side of that that they don’t tell you: after a while, you get burned out on talking about the same paper over and over again. You’ve likely moved on to other projects and are more excited about them, even if (or because) those projects build on your job talk paper. At this point in the process, your recitation of your job talk paper may have become rote and uninspired. You may, like me, have come to dread the act of rattling off your job talk paper’s thesis and why it matters.

And so it is that, having promised some months ago to blog my job talk paper on what I call the “heterogeneity problem” in research regulation, I have yet really to do so. I’ve blogged around the edges, to be sure (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here), but I can’t bring myself to explain the central thesis one more time. I also owe book editors (holla, Glenn and Holly!) a chapter on the challenges of heterogeneity for the growing global trend in “risk-based regulation” across many industries, and I’ve been procrastinating that, too, I think, largely because it requires me first to provide the reader with a précis of the heterogeneity problem. All of this is annoying, because there are lots of things that build on that central thesis that I’d like to write about, if only I could get over this strange aversion.

Enter physician-scientist David Shaywitz, whose overly kind piece yesterday in the Pharma & Healthcare section of Forbes.com, Personalized Regulation: More Than Just Personalized Medicine — And Urgently Required, highlights my work and, essentially, Up Goers it for me. It of course doesn’t cover all of the points I make in the paper, and in other ways it extends my thesis beyond what I defend in the paper, but it gives readers the gist. Thank you, David! (Let this also serve as supplemental answers to hiring committee questions about “What does your work have to do with the law?” and “Aren’t you ‘just’ a bioethicist whose work has no relevance for health or administrative law?”)

And now, with that out of the way, in my next post I’ll feel free to apply the heterogeneity problem to this question I was asked on Twitter. I can almost guarantee you that it will be my first and last post about football.

[Cross-posted at The Faculty Lounge]