Search

This study describes the quantitative aspects of metaphor in academic publications. In particular, we analyze the frequency of metaphor types and source domains in medical papers written by native and non-native speakers of English. The data have been collected from selected published articles on cancer and tissue engineering. The method combines a manual procedure with a semantic tagger and keyness statistics in Wmatrix software for metaphor identification. The results show that while the distribution of metaphor is relatively stable across tissue engineering and cancer articles written by native and non-native speakers, indirect metaphor is more often used than other types of metaphor. Moreover, the findings indicate that some metaphorical source domains are specifically used for a particular topic and that some are more frequently exploited by native speakers of English than by non-native speakers. This study has implications for English for Academic Purposes (EAP) pedagogy and the development of metaphorical awareness activities as it may set the ground for future corpus studies that analyze metaphor properties in academic registers.

Whilst there are not yet laws specifically relating to nanotechnology and its products in any country, the technology and its products are not unregulated. Regulatory frameworks created for conventional technologies and products will be expected to apply to nanotechnology and its products. For example, new medicines are regulated in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. If a new medicine incorporates nanotechnology, then it should still be regulated as a medicine. However, whether the expectation that pre-existing regulatory frameworks will apply is correct and, if so, whether the application of such frameworks is adequate are important issues to be answered. This paper considers these questions, drawing on lessons learnt from significant regulatory reviews undertaken in the United Kingdom, United States and Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are well documented manpower and equipment deficiencies in the specialty of Radiation Oncology in Australia. These deficiencies persist despite numerous reports over the last decade detailing their existence. The Patterns of Care Study (PCS) from the United States of America (USA) is a unique, comprehensive review of Radiation Oncology services in that country. It has clearly demonstrated that substantial benefits not only in survival but also in reduced treatment morbidity accrue when a full range of modern techniques and equipment is used. The present paper is a review of the PCS: this study has immense implications for patient care in particular and cancer services in general, in Australia. There seems little point in continuing to fund cancer research in the hope of gains in survival rates while continuing to ignore the fact that gains of a similar magnitude can be obtained by the maximum use of current knowledge and the provision of modern equipment.

The interest in Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) in the international community is growing. A panel titled 'What Can Comparative Effectiveness Research Contribute to Integrative Health in International Perspective?' took place at the 3rd International Research Congress on Integrative Medicine and Health in Portland, Oregon, in 2012. The presentations at this panel highlighted different perspectives on CER, including the funders' and the stakeholders' perspectives from the United States, as well as experiences with economic evaluations from Australia and pragmatic trials in Europe. The funders' perspective emphasized the need for innovation and controlling costs in large-scale studies. The stakeholder's perspective stressed the need to gather the input of stakeholders in shaping the framework for more informative, more decision-maker-driven research. Several examples of cost-effectiveness analyses were offered from Australia. The importance of balancing rigor and pragmatism was also discussed in a presentation of the efficacy-effectiveness continuum. A wide-ranging discussion explored additional questions concerning the translation of evidence into practice; the effect of pragmatic trials on funding or policy; evidentiary distinctions between and among pragmatic trials and traditional randomized clinical trials; and the multiple roles of stakeholders, particularly in generating new information and knowledge. The presentations and discussions showed that more development of methods is needed. This includes developments on study design and statistical approaches, as well as methods for stakeholder involvement and mechanisms to bring these results into practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]