| Blog and Miedia Roundup - Thursday, October 21, 2010; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 21 2010, 06:30 AM (372 Views) | |
| abb | Oct 21 2010, 06:30 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story_news_durham/9988072/article-NCCU-student-is-charged-in-campus-exposure-case?instance=main_article NCCU student is charged in campus exposure case The Herald Sun 10.20.10 - 10:37 pm By KEITH UPCHURCH kupchurch@heraldsun.com; 419-6612 DURHAM -- Two reports of men exposing themselves this month have led to an arrest at N.C. Central University and a continuing police investigation at a discount retail store on Durham-Chapel Hill Boulevard. The first incident occurred Oct. 4 at a Target store, where a man allegedly exposed himself to a 10-year-old girl. The child's mother filed a complaint the next day. No charges had been filed as of Wednesday in that case, police said. Target spokeswoman Kate Gillen said on Wednesday that Target "will continue to partner with local law enforcement during their investigation. As always, the safety of our guests and team members remains our top priority." The most recent case happened about 3:45 p.m. Friday at NCCU, campus police said. A crime alert sent by police to students said the exposure happened on George Street near the bus stop behind Baynes Hall. A man described as black was parked and sitting in the driver's seat of a white Chevrolet Cavalier with tinted windows, and exposed himself to a female who was walking by, according to the release. The suspect fled the scene in the car, traveling west on George Street, and entered the Student Union parking lot. NCCU police arrested him at 11:28 a.m. Sunday. He was identified as Justin Kennan Mason, 22, of 1203 N. Mangum St. in Durham, according to Cynthia Fobert, director of public relations at the university. She said Mason is a student at NCCU. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 21 2010, 06:35 AM Post #2 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/9984754/article-Race--poverty--road-projects?instance=hs_editorials Race, poverty, road projects The Herald Sun 10.20.10 - 05:19 pm The race to gather political endorsements was not quite a clean sweep for a bond issue to repair and repave Durham’s crumbling streets. The $20 million project, backed by nearly every major interest group in Durham, is opposed by The Durham Committee. We will see on Nov. 2 whether that “no” will matter as it might have in the past. In recent years, the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People has been criticized for internal leadership battles and erratic endorsements decided by Byzantine rules of order. Though the Committee is not what it once was, its reasons for opposing the bond referendum bear examination. “There are still unpaved streets that impact the African-American community,” Durham Committee Chairwoman Lavonia Allison told Herald-Sun reporter Ray Gronberg. In addition to privately owned streets that the city does not control, Deputy City Manager Wanda Page said, there are 20.35 miles of unpaved roads — mostly gravel — maintained with taxpayer dollars. We suspect that economics, more than race, affects road paving. Landowners along unpaved roads must submit a petition to the city, then front a financial contribution that ranges from $20 to $90 per linear foot of road frontage. We encourage the city to establish need-based grants for new paving projects, but we also note that those grants, and road building in general, are not as critical to Durham as the repair of 158 miles of streets whose condition is rated “poor.” Durham maintains 680 miles of street. The unpaved state of 2.9 percent of those streets should not dictate whether the remaining 97 percent will be brought into reasonable repair — and we suspect that all drivers would consider it a welcome improvement. The Committee also cited economic hardship and work that was left unfinished despite street bond issues in 2005 and 2007. Unless Durham residents want all of the roads to be reduced to gravel, the city will eventually have to perform major repairs, and that will require a major expenditure. The longer we wait, the worse the situation becomes. The bond market makes this an extremely affordable time to borrow — interest will cost taxpayers less now than it will once the economy improves. As for those unfinished bonds, we believe City Manager Tom Bonfield when he promises to “build ongoing street repaving funds, about $5 million a year, into the budget.” This is a critical capital project for Durham, and it should not be hostage to short-sighted criticism. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 21 2010, 06:36 AM Post #3 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/9985474/article-Why-does-Durham-need-another-bond-?instance=hs_guest_columnists Why does Durham need another bond? The Herald Sun 10.20.10 - 06:32 pm By Pam Karriker Guest columnist Very soon Durham residents will go to the polls to vote on yet another bond referendum that dedicates funds for street repairs. You may remember that we successfully passed similar bonds in 2005 and 2007. There is no doubt that the availability of these funds has helped improve the quality of our city streets, even as the state slowly works on the roads that it maintains. Still, hardly anyone would disagree that our streets are not where we want them to be. But why do we need another bond? Our streets got into disrepair because for years no funding was included in the city budget for routine maintenance. In 2004 the City Council appointed a Citizens Capital Improvement Panel (CCIP) consisting of representatives of Durham PACs, non-profits and community groups to provide input on matters regarding capital improvement projects and bond referendums and we began to play catch-up on maintenance. To prevent future problems, in December 2008 the CCIP recommended to the city manager that routine cyclical maintenance be included as a line item in the annual budget. The CCIP also recommended long-term bonds only be used for new capital projects. This policy was adopted by the city administration and a line item for deferred maintenance was finally included in the annual budget of 2009-2010 and approved by City Council. That's progress! And while it's a good start, the reality is that we still need a phased-in approach to catch up on deferred maintenance and achieve full implementation of this policy. We have been informed by city staff that the proposed $20 million bond referendum will be sufficient to complete the backlog of streets categorized as either poor or very poor. So, by a majority vote, the CCIP went on record as supporting the 2010 bond referendum for street repairs. To close the back door, our endorsement also carries a request for an officially recorded policy decision from City Council and city administration that a street maintenance fund of $5 million or more be established in all future city budgets to carry out cyclical road maintenance beginning in the 2012-2013 fiscal year. There are other good reasons to pass this bond. Citizens have indicated in surveys that this is a top concern and current economic conditions make it very favorable for the city to borrow money and have the work done quickly. But it is very important for Durham citizens to realize that neither this bond or any other is the final answer for street maintenance. In the past, some unfortunate decisions were made to put off repair and maintenance until later. Well, now it's later and, like it or not, we are paying for those decisions. The city is working very hard to catch up on street repair and resurfacing. Therefore the CCIP recommends that you vote for this bond. But no matter how you vote (and you should vote!), we as citizens need to encourage our city officials to continue to make the difficult but wise decision to put sufficient funds in every annual budget to keep our roads in good repair. Let's pass this bond. Let's make our streets as they should be. And let's never get in this position again. Pam Karriker is chairwoman of Durham's Citizens Capital Improvement Panel, a volunteer board appointed to evaluate and prioritize capital improvement projects. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 21 2010, 06:39 AM Post #4 |
|
http://dukechronicle.com/article/iom-review-potti-research-clinical-trials IOM to review Potti research, clinical trials By Sonia Havele October 21, 2010 The Institute of Medicine will conduct a study of the “scientific underpinnings” of three clinical trials that were based on the work of Duke cancer researcher Dr. Anil Potti, the organization announced Wednesday. However, the scope of the 18-month study, which is anticipated to produce a report by 2012, will extend beyond the evaluation of Potti’s research, said Christine Stencel, media relations officer for the IOM. The study, led by Sharyl Nass, director of the National Cancer Policy Forum at the IOM, will establish criteria for evaluating research on “omics”, such as genomics and proteomics, the study of proteins. Those guidelines will then be used to evaluate the trials based on Potti’s work. “To be helpful to the research community, it made sense for the study to look into the broader issue [of using genomic predictors in clinical trials],” Stencel said. “[The investigation] is not going to be focused solely on the clinical studies undertaken at Duke.” Committee formation is currently underway so the number of members is still unknown, Stencel said, adding that those selected will all be volunteers who are experts in their fields. After reviewing and discussing the published literature, the IOM committee will recommend an evaluation process for determining when predictive tests based on “omics” technologies are suitable for use in clinical trials, according to the study’s web page. In addition, criteria will be established in order to assess predictive tests. These criteria will then be used to assess the predictive models used in the three trials conducted by Duke that were based on Potti’s research. Enrollment in the trials was suspended when concerns about Potti’s work emerged in July. “The committee may assess the analytical methods used to generate and validate the predictive models, examine how the source data that were used to develop and test the predictive models were generated or acquired, assess the quality of the source data, and evaluate the appropriateness of the use of the predictive models in clinical trials,” the web page states. Dr. Victor Dzau, chancellor for health affairs and CEO of the Duke University Health System, said he could not say how the IOM study might affect Potti’s status at the University until the study concludes. The IOM study is one of two ongoing investigations related to Potti’s research. The other is a Duke research misconduct investigation that began after questions were raised regarding Potti’s research and credentials this summer. A separate University investigation which concluded in late August found “issues of substantial concern” in Potti’s resume. In 2006, Potti and a team of researchers introduced a new gene-based method of predicting how individual patients would respond to certain chemotherapy drugs. The approach stirred debate and excitement in the scientific community because it offered a potential solution to doctors’ inability to predict which drugs patients would respond to best. However, concerns regarding Potti’s science have contributed to the discussion of the need for standards in genomics. “Nationally or scientifically, there are no current guidelines or specific steps to my knowledge that exist everywhere that [explain] how one should evaluate these predictors,” Dzau said. “This is not a Duke issue—this is a much broader issue.” Stencel also noted that there are bigger questions about the issue of using “omic” predictors to personalize medicine. It has been difficult for scientists to find a consistent way of determining whether laboratory discoveries will be useful in a clinical setting, she said. She added that the IOM study will be useful in determining the best way to handle this kind of data in the future. Dzau noted that although Duke will give the IOM “everything [it] has” for the investigation, the University will not otherwise be involved. Stencel said Duke will be required to provide all records related to the three clinical trials. Following the evaluation of the three Duke trials, the committee will issue a report of its findings. The committee will also provide recommendations of criteria for using genomic models in clinical trials, as well as guidelines for ensuring that the scientific community adheres to the proposed process. Stencel declined to say how the study might affect “omics” fields or Potti. “We don’t want to speculate on what exactly will come out of this,” Stencel said. “Ultimately, our committees will go where the science and evidence commit them to go.” |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 21 2010, 06:39 AM Post #5 |
|
http://dukechronicle.com/node/153336/talk 5:30 AM October 21, 2010 Fact Checker * Search words: Duke University Anil Potti ✔Fact Checker here. The Chronicle is correct in itemizing different investigations into the Potti mess, and I start today's essay by declaring there is a need for one more. The Cancer Letter -- which broke the story of Potti's fake Rhodes Scholarship -- expressed this need very well: "When questions about Potti’s science emerged in scientific literature and in alarms sounded by internal critics, the Duke administration formed a protective barrier around the man they considered their star, forming committees that operated in secret, and then incorrectly portraying the findings of one of these committees as validation of Potti’s science." The integrity of this university, the credibility of its administration, demand a fourth investigation. An outside investigation of our administration. The alarms the Cancer Letter wrote about went off for nearly four years before this school acted. The Cancer Letter says the entire Brodhead Administration needs to be investigated. "Focusing on the three Duke trials (Potti's so called clinical trials, experiments on human beings) may have been good enough last week, but not now..." Moreover, Duke's action is replete with conflict of interest. FC notes the first Duke review -- conducted internally last December with outside bio-statisticians as consultants -- went forward while Duke had a substantial financial interest in proving Potti's science was indeed valid -- for the university would collect a royalty from every patient who ever is screened by the methods he invented. Why wasn't this conflict of interest recognized? Well it was, but not until recently. At least now Duke is divesting itself of a financial interest in Potti's so-called discoveries. Just how much money is at stake here? Neither Rose Ritts, executive director of Duke's Office of Licensing and Ventures, nor VP for PR Michael Schoenfeld, answered FC inquiries about how much money the school stood to make. Further, we have the spectacle of the husband of the Dean of the Medical School working with Dr Potti and co-signing at least one major medical journal article. Yet two administrators promoted by the Dean -- who still report to her -- were allowed to sign off on Duke's internal investigation last December. ✔✔And now the decision of the august Institute of Medicine to accept the assignment of reviewing Dr. Potti's science. Unfortunately, this is being muddled from the start by the simultaneous review of the standards that all scientists should be using when they develop tests -- thru their genome studies -- that will predict the course of a disease and its response to particular medicines. This gives Dr Potti a big excuse: the standards had not been developed within the profession, how could he have known what to live up to. Meanwhile, just like the three year old case of biochemist Homme Hellinga, the Potti case will drag on and on. The prediction for another 18 months. We know both Hellinga and Potti are collecting pay. In Potti's case, even though the Chronicle did not remind us today, we know he is suspended. The big question that FC has not been able to answer is suspended from what? Just his teaching position? Just his research position? His ability to admit and treat patients at Duke Hospital? In reviewing the website of the North Carolina Medical Board, FC notes Dr Potti retains his license to practice medicine, and there is NO report from Duke, as a health care institution, about actions it took against Potti after discovering "substantial concerns" -- meaning big lies -- in his resume. FC believes these concerns are properly reported to the Board. ✔Thank you for reading Fact Checker. Duke.Fact.Checker@gmail.com Archive http://dukefactchecker.blogspot.com/ |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 21 2010, 06:43 AM Post #6 |
|
http://dukechronicle.com/article/protecting-student-privacy Protecting student privacy By Lynn White October 21, 2010 At the end of yesterday’s article, “Lawyer: Irons will fight rape allegations”, you state, “It is Chronicle policy not to identify the victims of sexual assault cases.” In this unfortunate circumstance, Eric Irons has not been proven guilty. Might not he potentially be a “victim,” and shouldn’t you be as concerned about protecting his privacy as you are about protecting the privacy of his accuser? Lynn White Associate Dean, Academic Advising Center |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 21 2010, 08:03 AM Post #7 |
|
If this has been Duke it would have made the cover of Newsweek... |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 21 2010, 08:06 AM Post #8 |
|
Nothing like letting it drag on and on until everyone forgets about it...meanwhile, are those who were treated going to get faster answers to their questions? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







9:15 AM Jul 11