Sandusky Loses Bid to Delay Trial

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has denied an 11th-hour attempt from Jerry Sandusky?s defense to delay the trial of the former Penn State assistant coach, which is slated to begin next week.

Link by Link: Historians Seek a Delay in Posting Dissertations

Today, Mr. Hattem, 38, is a graduate student at Yale working on a dissertation in American history that “explores the role of competing historical memories of 17th-century Britain in shaping late colonial political culture.”

He told his exceptional story to help explain why he came to the defense of the American Historical Association last week when it issued a statement calling on universities to allow newly minted Ph.D’s to “embargo” their dissertations for up to six years — that is, keep them from being circulated online.

Though policies vary from university to university, the practice increasingly is to require that dissertations be filed electronically upon acceptance and to provide them to anyone with access to a university’s online collection.

The statement, which appeared to come out of the blue, caused more than a few double-takes. Don’t historians want their research to be immediately shared, stimulating arguments and, ideally, new research that either refutes or reinforces those arguments? And why would someone work years to produce a dissertation and then insist that it not be seen for as many as six more years? Academics almost by definition are delayed-gratification specialists, but still.

“Ideally, I would want all of our work freely available,” Mr. Hattem said in a telephone interview, “but we have to deal with the way things are.”

And the way things are, he said, is that university presses are known to be skeptical about agreeing to publish a book when the Ph.D dissertation it is based on is readily available online.

“If you want tenure at a university, you have to publish a book,” he said. “It’s professional currency.”

This term, “embargo” — so common in how journalism doles out information in the digital age — perhaps is evidence that some academics are learning from journalists: readers simply have less interest in old news, even old news about the British colonies.

The historical association, which is based in Washington and has 14,000 members, including high school teachers, government historians and university professors, was inspired to act, officials said, because of simmering concerns that institutions were moving to require that students’ work be shared freely.

“I have heard from junior scholars, newly minted Ph.D’s, I have heard from my colleagues who are mentors to these younger scholars, from university press acquisition editors, who say ‘we are very happy you released this statement,’ ” said Jacqueline Jones, a history professor at the University of Texas at Austin, who is the vice president of the professional division at the historical association.

Critics of the embargo argue that knowledge should circulate freely on the Internet. In this case, they say that if incentives in academic hiring discourage such sharing, then the American Historical Association should agitate to change those incentives, not promote the idea of embargoes.

“The idea of locking up ideas for six years is not right,” said Heather Joseph, the executive director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, which favors open research. “The thing that bothered us the most is that it was a one-dimensional response to a multidimensional issue, and a missed opportunity.”

The association has tried to frame the issue as giving scholars a choice, while also noting that it has pressed for greater inclusion of digital-based scholarship. Questions and answers published in response to criticism tried to lower the stakes.

“Is the A.H.A. recommending that students embargo their dissertations?” was the first question, and “No” was the first answer, with the explainer, “The A.H.A. is recommending that universities adopt flexible policies that will allow newly minted Ph.D’s to decide for themselves whether or not to embargo their dissertations.”

Health Law Delay Puts Exchanges in Spotlight

The Obama administration’s decision, announced on Tuesday, to delay for a year a requirement that larger employers provide insurance or pay a penalty has made the operation of the state exchanges — where individuals can shop for insurance starting Oct. 1 — more critical to the success of the new health care law.

The delay is viewed as an unspoken acknowledgment by federal officials of the size of the task ahead, according to policy experts and benefits consultants. By putting off the employer requirements, officials are in a position to concentrate on making sure the state exchanges work.

“The real focus is now getting the individual exchanges and premium tax credits up and running,” said Timothy S. Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University who closely follows the new law, known as the Affordable Care Act.

In addition to the creation of the exchanges, the law’s broad market reforms of the insurance industry and the expansion of Medicaid will continue, Mr. Jost said, adding, “I just don’t see this as a game changer.”

Also still in effect is the requirement that people without insurance buy it by 2014 or face fines. Subsidies will be available for people who meet income requirements.

The companies affected by the delay — those with 50 or more full-time employees — were increasingly anxious about their ability to meet the law’s requirements, given the delay by the administration in issuing the final rules for the companies to follow to ensure they were in compliance, said Helen Darling, the president of the National Business Group on Health, which represents employers that offer health benefits.

“This is a recognition that they were not going to meet some key deadlines,” she said.

Companies that employ fewer than 50 workers have already been given a reprieve from the law’s requirements.

Many of the companies being granted the latest reprieve either offered no coverage or provided it only to certain workers — like managers or those working 40 hours a week. Some employers had been expected to pay the law’s penalty of $2,000 a worker for every employee rather than provide insurance, while others said they would go ahead and offer it.

“We don’t know how many people would have gained coverage or won’t because of the delay,” said Paul Fronstin, a senior researcher at the Employee Benefit Research Institute. “It’s not a big deal because it doesn’t affect many people, but it’s a big deal if it affects you.”

A large majority of larger employers — 94 percent — already offer coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies the market. “We do believe the practical effect of this will be really quite modest,” said Drew Altman, the foundation’s president.

The reprieve will give companies more time to consider what they should do over the next year. Bill Petersen, who owns a franchise of the elder-care business Visiting Angels in South Elgin, Ill., outside of Chicago, for example, does not offer coverage to his 100 full-time employees and had been deciding whether to cut back their hours to avoid the law’s requirement or start providing health benefits.

When he heard about the delay, Mr. Petersen, who celebrates any good news by ringing a bell in the main office, said he “went down there and rang the bell.”

“It was just a relief to know that we had some time to be able to look at our options and understand the act just a little bit more,” he said.

Others say they plan to proceed with their plans to expand their coverage, although they are waiting for final guidance from the administration before deciding what benefits they will offer. “I still want to stay on the same time line,” said Don Fox, the chief executive of Firehouse Subs, a chain of restaurants based in Jacksonville, Fla. At the company-owned restaurants, only general managers and headquarter personnel are now offered coverage, and Mr. Fox said the company was going to cover the additional 90 to 100 employees required under the law. “I’ve been setting an expectation with our employees,” he said.

Thom Mangan, the chief executive of United Benefit Advisors, described the delay as “a nice gift that the government gave.” He said that companies that employ many part-time and hourly employees would probably delay providing additional benefits in the next year. “They would be crazy not to,” he said.

Environmental Review to Delay Two Engineered Crops

The department said on Friday that it had made the decision after determining that approval of the crops “may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.”

The crops in question are Dow Chemical’s corn and soybeans that would be resistant to the herbicide 2,4-D and Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant cotton and soybeans.

Many farmers say they would welcome the new crops because it would give them a way to kill the rapidly growing number of weeds that have become resistant to their main herbicide — Roundup, known generically as glyphosate. Most of the corn, soybeans and cotton grown in the United States are genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate, allowing farmers to spray the chemical to kill weeds without hurting the crops.

But opponents all say that approval of the crops would spur big increases in the use of 2,4-D and dicamba, which they say are more damaging to the environment and possibly human health than glyphosate.

Some fruit and vegetable growers and canners have been concerned that their crops would be damaged by 2,4-D or dicamba drifting over from nearby corn or soybean farms. The Agriculture Department said Friday that both chemicals had “been safely and widely used across the country since the 1960s.”

The department had already prepared shorter environmental assessments on two of the Dow crops and put them out for public comment. It did not say how long the more complete environmental impact statements would take, though past experience suggests it could be 15 months to more than two years.

Dow had initially hoped to have its 2,4-D-resistant corn on the market this year, though it then pushed it back to 2014. On Friday, it said approval was now not likely until 2015. It had not expected its soybeans to be ready for market until 2015 anyway.

Monsanto, which called the Agriculture Department decision “unexpected,” had been hoping to start selling its soybeans in 2014 and cotton in 2015.

The department was likely to be sued had it not taken the new course.

The federal approvals of genetically engineered alfalfa and sugar beets were rescinded by a federal judge a few years ago. The judge, in response to lawsuits filed by the Center for Food Safety, said the Agriculture Department had not adequately considered the environmental impacts.

Still, the department said on Friday that, under its regulatory authority, the decision on whether to approve the crops would rest solely on whether they are plant pests. That raised questions about what influence, if any, the environmental impact statements would have.

One environmental group, the Pesticide Action Network, applauded the delay. “Farmers across the country have been voicing their growing worries about these seeds, which have been designed to be used with toxic drift-prone herbicides,” Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, a senior scientist, said in a statement.

However, she said the fact that the approval decision would be based solely on the plant pest risk rather than the overall environmental impact “illustrates gaping flaws in our regulatory system.”

The Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group representing biotech crop developers, said the decision set a bad precedent.

These crops “have already been subjected to multiple delays in the approval system,” Cathleen Enright, executive vice president for food and agriculture, said in a statement. “No new scientific issues about potential risks have been raised.”

Dow and Monsanto said they would cooperate with the Agriculture Department and use the extra time to better prepare for the introduction of the crops.

“Glyphosate-resistant and hard-to-control weeds have spread across our nation’s farmland,” Dow said in a statement. “Twenty-five states are now affected and the number of new acres infested in 2012 increased by 50 percent over the previous year. These adverse trends will continue without new state-of-the-art solutions like the Enlist Weed Control System.”

Enlist is Dow’s name for the crops resistant to 2,4-D and the accompanying herbicide.

Sandusky Loses Bid to Delay Trial

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has denied an 11th-hour attempt from Jerry Sandusky?s defense to delay the trial of the former Penn State assistant coach, which is slated to begin next week.

Sandusky Seeks to Delay Trial; McQueary Files Writ Against Penn State

Jerry Sandusky?s attorney, Joseph Amendola, filed a motion for continuance Tuesday seeking to delay the start of his client?s sex-abuse trial.

Sandusky Loses Bid to Delay Trial

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has denied an 11th-hour attempt from Jerry Sandusky?s defense to delay the trial of the former Penn State assistant coach, which is slated to begin next week.

Sandusky Seeks to Delay Trial; McQueary Files Writ Against Penn State

Jerry Sandusky?s attorney, Joseph Amendola, filed a motion for continuance Tuesday seeking to delay the start of his client?s sex-abuse trial.

Sandusky Loses Bid to Delay Trial

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has denied an 11th-hour attempt from Jerry Sandusky?s defense to delay the trial of the former Penn State assistant coach, which is slated to begin next week.