On September 15, 2020, online news service, ProPublica, published an article containing a series of maps that chart possible future climate scenarios for North America and the mainland United States. It's sobering reading.
Thursday, September 10, 2020
As Michael Cassio laments in Othello, “Reputation, reputation, reputation! Oh, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial.” William Shakespeare may have believed that, once lost, reputation may be lost for good. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has reaffirmed that those who believe they have been defamed may have the right to be compensated and try restore their damaged reputations.
In Bent v. Platnick, the Supreme Court of Canada ("Court") dismissed an appeal opposing the rights of a physician to sue an attorney for defamation. (Le jugement en français de la Cour suprême du Canada est ici.) In its September 10, 2020, decision, the Court strengthened the legal right to defend one's reputation against negative allegations. The Court summarized the facts of the case as follows:
B is a lawyer and partner at an Ontario law firm. She is a member and, at the relevant time, was the president‑elect of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (“OTLA”). The OTLA is an organization comprised of legal professionals who represent persons injured in motor vehicle accidents. P is a medical doctor who is typically hired through insurance companies to review other medical specialists’ assessments of persons injured in motor vehicle accidents and to prepare a final report with an ultimate assessment of the accident victim’s level of impairment. Following two insurance coverage disputes in which B was acting as counsel for an accident victim, B sent an email to a Listserv (i.e. an email listing) of approximately 670 OTLA members in which she made two statements that specifically mention P by name and allege that, in the context of those disputes, P “altered” doctors’ reports and “changed” a doctor’s decision as to the victim’s level of impairment. B’s email was eventually leaked anonymously by a member of the OTLA and as a result, an article was published in a magazine which reproduced B’s email in its entirety and referred to testimony from B.The Court found that the attorney had met her burden because her "email constitutes an expression that relates to a matter of public interest and P’s defamation proceeding arises from that expression." According to the Court, the burden then shifted to the physician "to show that there are grounds to believe that his defamation proceeding has substantial merit and that B has no valid defence to it". Having "shown that there are grounds to believe that his defamation proceeding has substantial merit," the Court dismissed the attorney's appeal, allowing the physician to have his day in court.
P commenced a lawsuit in defamation against both B and her law firm, claiming damages in the amount of $16.3 million. B filed a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (“CJA”) to dismiss the lawsuit. The motion judge allowed B’s motion and dismissed P’s defamation proceeding. The Court of Appeal set aside the motion judge’s determination, dismissed B’s motion, and remitted P’s defamation claim to the Superior Court for consideration.
The attorney in this dispute has pursued a very different path to that followed by basketball superstar, Charles Barkley, who once said, in response to a comment he found insulting, "My initial response was to sue her for defamation of character, but then I realized that I had no character."
Tuesday, September 8, 2020
On September 8, 2020, the chief executive officers of biopharmaceutical firms
We, the undersigned biopharmaceutical companies, want to make clear our on-going commitment to developing and testing potential vaccines for COVID-19 in accordance with high ethical standards and sound scientific principles.
The safety and efficacy of vaccines, including any potential vaccine for COVID-19, is reviewed and determined by expert regulatory agencies around the world, such as the
United States Food and Drug Administration(FDA). FDA has established clear guidance for the development of COVID-19 vaccines and clear criteria for their potential authorization or approval in the US. FDA’s guidance and criteria are based on the scientific and medical principles necessary to clearly demonstrate the safety and efficacy of potential COVID-19 vaccines. More specifically, the agency requires that scientific evidence for regulatory approval must come from large, high quality clinical trials that are randomized and observer-blinded, with an expectation of appropriately designed studies with significant numbers of participants across diverse populations.
Following guidance from expert regulatory authorities such as FDA regarding the development of COVID-19 vaccines, consistent with existing standards and practices, and in the interest of public health, we pledge to:
- Always make the safety and well-being of vaccinated individuals our top priority.
- Continue to adhere to high scientific and ethical standards regarding the conduct of clinical trials and the rigor of manufacturing processes.
- Only submit for approval or emergency use authorization after demonstrating safety and efficacy through a Phase 3 clinical study that is designed and conducted to meet requirements of expert regulatory authorities such as FDA.
- Work to ensure a sufficient supply and range of vaccine options, including those suitable for global access.
We believe this pledge will help ensure public confidence in the rigorous scientific and regulatory process by which COVID-19 vaccines are evaluated and may ultimately be approved.
How many other vaccine developers will join this pledge remains to be seen.
Sunday, September 6, 2020
The world’s first successfully cloned endangered Przewalski’s horse was born on August 6, 2020. Revive & Restore, San Diego Zoo Global (SDZG), and ViaGen Equine collaborated to clone from a cell line of a genetically important stallion that had been cryopreserved since 1980 at the SDZG Frozen Zoo. This groundbreaking achievement was conceived as a new strategy to help restore genetic diversity to the Przewalski’s horse species.
Saturday, September 5, 2020
On September 3, 2020, the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing ("Commission") released its new report: Heritable Human Genome Editing. Here is a webinar from the Commission, explaining its findings and recommendations:
Friday, September 4, 2020
On September 4, 2020, in The Lancet, Lagunov et al. published a peer reviewed study entitled "Safety and immunogenicity of an rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine in two formulations: two open, non-randomised phase 1/2 studies from Russia". The article concludes,
these data collectively show that the heterologous vaccine based on rAd26-S and rAd5-S is safe, well tolerated, and does not cause serious adverse events in healthy adult volunteers. The vaccine is highly immunogenic and induces strong humoral and cellular immune responses in 100% of healthy adult volunteers, with antibody titres in vaccinated participants higher than those in convalescent plasma.