As seen in Scalia’s critique, one of the main flaws in the research used by the state of California in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association was its lack of causational evidence. Most of the research concerning the relationship between violent video games relied upon correlational evidence. Correlational studies measure two variables and their relationship to one another. Establishing a correlation between two variables often serves as a starting point for research, but it does not prove causation. Consider the case of ice cream sales and violent crime—as one rises so does the other. The two are correlated, but no one is seriously considering banning ice cream. That is because, upon deeper analysis, it was determined that there is a third cause that drives an increase in both: higher temperatures.

Read the full piece here.

In 2005, California proposed legislation to ban the sale of violent video games to minors. This law was a culmination of growing concerns that violent video games were causing children to become more aggressive. Commentators noted that perpetrators of mass shootings, as in the case of Columbine, Heath High School, and Sandy Hook, often played video games considered to be violent such as Doom, Grand Theft Auto, and Call of Duty.1 Studies on the connection between video games and aggression came pouring out. In response, policymakers began to introduce laws banning or otherwise regulating the sale of violent video games to minors.

This would seem to be the ideal result. Lawmakers were able to come together and pass a law that addressed the issue at hand. The only problem is that there is little to no evidence that video games, even violent ones, lead to increases in aggressive behavior let alone that they are a driving factor behind school shootings.

Read the full piece here.

Despite Biden’s attempts to “end fossil fuel” some basic economic analysis indicates his efforts are not in line with what the public wants. If you think back to your Econ 101 class, you’ll probably remember something called revealed preference.

This basic insight of economics says that people’s actions in a market place are a much better indicator of what is going on in their heads than asking them in a poll. Someone might tell you they like Biden’s attempts to kill off reliable, inexpensive energy, but when the rubber meets the road, their purchasing decisions say otherwise.

Read the full piece here.

This post discusses three important problems with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) accelerated-approval process. The first is that regulatory authorities and patient groups maintain that, legally, the standards of accelerated approval are the same as standard approval. Yet from a risk perspective, the standards are quite different; by shifting risk taking from regulator to patient, physician, and payer, this creates problems. The second problem is more practical and is generally considered the most significant problem with accelerated approval. Some companies that have received accelerated approval for their products have not done confirmatory studies, as required by their agreement with FDA. This leads to distrust of these companies and their products, and threatens to undermine the accelerated-approval program. The third problem is the issue of approving medicines with marginal benefits.

Read the full piece here.

Come Thursday (Jan 11), students will receive their 2023 GCE O-Level examination results.

The stress over performance can take on a slightly different dimension at this juncture – on the one hand, there is a greater range of education options from the academic to the practical-oriented; on the other, teenagers will have to start thinking ahead to university and even career possibilities.

As educators, we are often asked by students for advice. In particular, those keen on pursuing the more academic A-Level route seek help deciding which subjects they should take at the Higher 2 (H2) level.

Our short answer tends to be a pragmatic question: Think ahead – what would you like to study at university? Take subjects that open those doors for you.

Read the full piece here.

In my most recent post on medicine approvals I explored how the HIV/AIDS crisis drove a reevaluation of what was truly essential to demonstrate a new drug’s efficacy. Allowing HIV patients to take investigational treatments meant that research into rarer conditions—which previously would never have been profitable—might now be financially worthwhile.

This post estimates the benefits of accelerated approval and how oncology medicines have become the treatment category with the most accelerated approvals.

Read the full piece here.

Abstract

Through our excellent counsel at Yetter Coleman LLP, the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE ) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton cases. In it, we argue that the First Amendment’s protection of the “marketplace of ideas” requires allowing private actors—like social-media companies—to set speech policies for their own private property. Social-media companies are best-placed to balance the speech interests of their users, a process that requires considering both the benefits and harms of various kinds of speech. Moreover, the First Amendment protects their ability to do so, free from government intrusion, even if the intrusion is justified by an attempt to identify social media as common carriers.

Read the full piece here.