Medievalism: Testing Ground for Historicism(s)? Round table discussion

The Competition and Regulation European Summer School and Conference (CRESSE) is an informal network of academics and professionals with an interest in competition policy and sectoral regulation. It was initiated by Yannis Katsoulacos (Athens University of Economics and Business) in 2005 and has since grown to become an important event in the competition and regulation annual conferences calendar, with the continuous support of Massimo Motta (European University Institute, Florence), Patrick Rey (University of Toulouse) and David Ulph (University of St. Andrews). The objective is to provide a forum in which the latest research in the areas of competition and regulation is presented and discussed. CRESSE Conference themes have been ‘Abuses of Dominance’ (2006), ‘Competition and Regulation in Network Industries’ (2007), ‘Competition Policy: Procedures, Institutions, IPR's’ (2008) and ‘Advances in the Analysis of Competition Policy’ (2009). Presentations in the two-day annual Conference include 3–5 invited papers and a limited number (typically 25%–30%) of papers selected from those submitted following a call in the major IO journals. The annual CRESSE Conference is held in early July in Greece, the institution responsible for its organization being the Athens University of Economics and Business. CRESSE also organizes an annual summer school in which visiting faculty from a large number of European and U.S. universities provide high quality training to practitioners of competition policy and sectoral regulation who wish to be up to date with new economic literature and recent legal developments. It is also active in disseminating research in the areas of competition policy and regulation and in contributing, through the organization of special policy sessions and round tables, to public debates on specific policy issues. The annual CRESSE Conference typically has two keynote lectures (the Jean-Jacques Laffont Lecture and the CRESSE Conference Policy Lecture), two round table (policy-related) discussions and a series of parallel and plenary sessions in which the latest research findings are presented. The third annual CRESSE Conference took place on July 4-5, 2008, and the title, Competition Policy: Procedures, Institutions, IPR's, embraced two broad but rather distinct themes: How competition policy should be applied in highly innovative industries Assessing the impact of the processes and procedures used by competition authorities on the effectiveness of competition policy. Competition Policy and IPR's was a timely theme in the light of recent debates in many fast-growing and innovation-driven industries. While the classic trade-off between ex ante incentives to invest in R&D and the ex post efficient diffusion of innovation has been extensively studied, the importance of continuing improvements and the number of technology components now involved in any major project (the so-called ‘patent thicket’ problem) has called for new forms of cooperation. This raises many competition issues regarding, for example, the dynamics of innovation efforts and the adequate balance between protecting past investment and promoting future advances, which relates to the coverage of licensing agreements and the acceptability of restrictive clauses, but also concerns the scope for coordination and price discussions in multilateral negotiations, or the design and operational organization of standard-setting organizations which include participants with quite different interests (pure innovators versus integrated industry participants, platform developers versus content providers and users, and so forth). The invited lectures, roundtables and presentations offered a good overview of recent empirical studies and conceptual advances, as well as of the challenges ahead of us. Procedures and Institutions was chosen as a theme because as competition policy has moved towards an economics/effects based approach, economists have increasingly become centrally involved in the implementation of competition policy, with leading academic industrial economists being appointed as directors and/or chief economists in competition agencies across Europe. This has led economists to reflect on and critically evaluate the practices operated by either their own agencies or others with which they came in contact. So, in addition to the long-standing contribution of economics to examining the welfare effects of various practices employed by firms, there is an emerging literature which subjects the procedures and institutions used to implement competition policy to a similarly rigorous scrutiny. We wanted to reflect this emerging literature in the 2008 Conference. Consistent with the two broad themes of the 2008 CRESSE Conference: The Jean-Jacques Laffont Lecture was presented by Professor Richard Schmalensee (MIT) on the topic ‘Standard-Setting, Competition and Innovation’1 while Professor William Kovacic (Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, U.S.A.) delivered the CRESSE Conference Policy Lecture on the theme ‘Rating the Competition Agencies: What Is Good Performance?’ In addition, there was a Special Lecture by Frederic Jenny (ESSEC Business School, Paris, and Judge at the Cour de Cassation) entitled ‘Judicial Review of Competition Authorities' Decisions in Europe.’ The two round-table discussions were on ‘Competition Policies and IPR's' and on ‘Competition Policy: Institutions and Procedures.’ This special issue offers a selection of the lectures and papers that were presented at the 2008 CRESSE Conference. Two of the papers published here address the theme of Competition and IPR's. Richard Schmalensee offers an insightful exploration of the competition issues triggered by the operations of standard-setting organizations (SSO's). He first discusses the incentives to adopt a standard and suggests that private and social interests are largely aligned when industry participants are in symmetric positions. He then distinguishes between innovation specialists and integrated industry participants, and studies the respective roles of formal ex ante competition and joint determination of licensing fees in solving royalty-stacking problems. David Encaoua and Yassine Lefoulli examine the implications for patenting and licensing activity when patent offices issue weak patents that can be the subject of litigation. They generalise some recent analysis by allowing for innovations of any size and for the possibility that not all downstream firms will choose to pay for a licence. They determine conditions under which, when the equilibrium two-part tariff for licences is in place, firms will or will not choose to litigate. In addition, they show that licensing revenue may not over-compensate the patent holder. Finally, they show that welfare can be enhanced by policies that make litigation a more attractive option thus reducing the license revenue extracted by the patent holder. The remaining papers are concerned with various aspects of the theme of Procedures and Institutions. The paper by Frank Verboven and Theon van Dijk provides a framework for computing cartel damages when the customers of the cartels are not final users but rather industrial players active in a downstream market. The price overcharge raises the customers' costs, but they will usually pass through part of this cost increase to their own customers, which will impact their output. To evaluate the relative importance of the three effects, the authors consider several variants of downstream competition and argue in favour of an adjusted passing-on defence, taking into account the change in output. They also apply their approach to the European vitamin cartel, and show finally that output changes also play a critical role in the assessment of social harm. The paper by Sylvain Bourjade, Patrick Rey and Paul Seabright studies the role of private actions in enforcing competition law in a framework where plaintiffs, who pursue their own interest, may have information of a breach of the law and may also settle out of court. The paper first shows that screening liable from non-liable defendants requires strict rules on admissible evidence. It also argues that, in order to enhance antitrust enforcement, increasing damages is better than reducing the cost of initiating suits. It also stresses the merit of introducing a system of compensation for defendants found non-liable. The paper by Yannis Katsoulacos and David Ulph examines an issue that has been much debated by both lawyers and economists – whether competition authorities should use a Per Se standard or an Effects-Based approach when deciding whether to allow or disallow actions that come before them. The authors develop a general framework that addresses this issue rigorously. They obtain a precise condition for determining when an effects based approach has lower decision error cost than a per se standard, and this is when the quality of the effects-based rule (a measure of its propensity for making Type I and Type II errors (false acquittals and false convictions respectively) is greater than the strength of the presumption of legality (or illegality), which in turn depends on the relative frequency of harmful/benign actions in the base population and the relative harm/benefit of such actions. They also examine the deterrent effects of the choice of legal standard on the decision of firms as to whether or not to take action, and show that compared to a per se rule, an effects-based standard will deter too many actions when on average they are benign but too few actions when they are on average harmful. Finally, they show that once deterrence effects are recognised, there are also welfare losses arising from certain procedural features of competition authorities' decision making practices such as delays in decision-making and low coverage rates the fact that only a fraction of cases may come to the attention of the competition authority. In a closely related paper, Lars Sørgard explores the question of what the optimal coverage rate for a competition authority to employ is when tackling mergers (though in fact the analysis applies far more widely). He considers the broad class of cases where the social harm and private profit arising from mergers are not positively correlated, and shows that if the competition authority can commit to a coverage rate before firms have made the decision to merge, then, at an interior optimum, the competition authority will be trading off two competing considerations. A higher coverage rate will have the positive deterrent effect of dissuading some marginal mergers which would necessarily have been harmful had they occurred. On the other hand, because of the inevitable decision errors, a higher coverage rate will have the negative enforcement effect of disallowing a number of actions which on average would have been beneficial. He also shows that welfare is higher when competition authorities commit in advance to the coverage rate.

The article is dedicated to “History of French Literature” (1894) of Gustave Lanson (1857–1934), professor of Fine Arts and literary critic. This work became the foundation of the history of literature as an independent philological discipline. For the first time Lanson’s book is considered as a “literary work” from the point of view of the peculiarities of the poetics. The analysis of artistic features is preceded by a brief sketch of the life of Gustave Lanson, a scientist and teacher. The concept of “History of French literature”, principles of material organization, features of storytelling technique are considered in the context of historical and literary works of his contemporaries (Dom Antoine Rivet de La Grange, Désiré Nizard, Eugène Géruzez, Ernest Renan) and methodological principles, the basis of the author’s historical and literary research and teaching of the history of literature. Analysis of the poetry of Lanson’s book, its composition, paratext, storytelling registers, the style that combines precise analysis and lyricism, the ways of recreating the individual creative appearance of French writers in space and time, makes it possible to see in this fundamental study the features of a historical novel about French literature with its character reflecting the features of the national culture, its appearance, embodied in genre forms, her heroes and their creators, French writers from the first medieval poets up to the authors of the XIX century.

How not to Speak of Books You Can’t Ignore – the Trouble with Francophone Literature Oana Panaïté In what follows I propose to examine two works of literary history and one treatise on the evolution of literary language in France, while focusing on the explicit arguments and the implied motivations that constitute what Nicolas Bancel calls a “blockage” but would be better termed as epistemological trouble with the “other” French literature. Before I proceed, one clarification seems necessary: my goal is not to call into question the important contribution made by these works and their authors, first, to the renewal of literary history and second, to a better and more complete understanding of French literature, but rather to invite reflection on the possibilities of overcoming certain academic reflexes which prevent them from fulfilling their intellectual promise. The obvious and the obscured In the introduction to their book La littérature française au temps présent in which they offer a thorough and innovative approach to the study of new forms and directions in French literature, the authors Dominique Viart and Bruno Vercier discuss at length the cultural turn of 1980 and the institutional constraints exerted upon scholars interested in working on contemporary literature, due to what they inspiringly call the “myopia” of French critics towards it. When it comes to drawing the line but also highlighting the connections between “French or Francophone literature?”, the two scholars promptly recognize the idiomatic relation between the two, based on the use of the French language. Furthermore, [End Page 279] they state from the very beginning: “French is a shared language” (Viart 7); however the next line rules out any possibility of a shared literary space: “Several literatures, each one different from the others, are written in it.” In order to justify their refusal of a transfrontier reading, Viart and Vercier then proceed to offer a set of powerful arguments. The first argument relies on the widespread geographical presence of French across many diverse cultures, each with its own irreducible history, political context and racial and ethnic makeup. Therefore, in order to provide an accurate overview of French-language writing in Paris as well as Quebec, Polynesia, Switzerland, Lebanon and Africa, one must, Viart and Vercier contend, have studied in depth these countries or regions and their people. The second argument contends that such a broad reading would simply lead to a superficial and purely tokenistic treatment of Francophone literatures to which other works have allotted only a “minimal section.” The third argument delves into the obstacles facing a transfrontier reading of French-language literature. The most vexing one is the fuzziness of the criteria used to categorize Francophone authors. What criterion could tell us that a writer is French rather than Francophone? his birthplace ? his place of residence? his native publisher? his nationality? [...] Geography and political history have bequeathed us peculiar divisions: one is French in Guadeloupe and Reunion, but francophone in Haiti and Mauritius, although these islands are much closer to each other than to continental France. (8) The criterion of writers’ citizenship presents us with a puzzling set of situations. If only French citizens qualify for inclusion in a history of French literature, then for the last fifty years alone, Nathalie Sarraute, Pascal Quignard, Jean-Marie Le Clézio and Marguerite Duras, should be read side-by-side with Maryse Condé, Édouard Glissant, Déwé Gorodé or Daniel Vaxelaire, who were born in the non-metropolitan French territories, in the Caribbean, New Caledonia or French Polynesia. Another interesting case is that of first or second-generation French writers born of parents who immigrated to the country or of one French and one non-French parent, the classic examples here being the so-called “beur” authors such as Azouz Begag, Leïla Sebbar, and Paul Smaïl. Paradoxically, according to the argument cited above, they are to be considered less “French” than European writers who chose to adopt France and its language to produce and publish their literary works, who [End Page 280] have thus successfully “assimilated”, like Samuel Beckett, Eugène Savitzkaya or Amélie Nothomb. Viart and Vercier set forth a set of pragmatic parameters that fulfill...

Three organizations, the Basic Acrylic Monomer Manufacturers (BAMM), Methacrylate Producers Association (MPA), and Vinyl Acetate Toxicology Group (VATG), have sponsored development of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models for nasal tissue dosimetry with, respectively, acrylic acid (AA), methyl methacrylate (MMA), and vinyl acetate (VA). These compounds cause lesions in nasal epithelial tissues and are classified as "Category 1" gases within the U.S. EPA (1994) classification scheme. The National Center for Environmental Assessment in the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development also has continuing interests in refining its methods for dosimetry adjustments when data on mode of action are available for Category 1 gases. A round-table discussion was held in Research Triangle Park, NC, on 11-12 February 1998, to develop a broader appreciation of the key processes and parameters required in developing nasal tissue dosimetry models. The discussions at the round table drew on these three case studies and several background presentations to assess the manner in which chemical-specific and mode-of-action data can be incorporated into nasal dosimetry models. The round table had representation from the U.S. EPA, academia, and industry. This article outlines the presentations and topical areas discussed at the round table and notes recommendations made by participants to extend models for nasal dosimetry and to develop improved data for modeling. The contributions of several disciplines-toxicology, engineering, and physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling-were evident in the discussions. The integration of these disciplines in creating opportunities for dosimetry model applications in risk assessments has several advantages in the breadth of skills upon which to draw in model development. A disadvantage is in the need to provide venues and develop cross-discipline dialogue necessary to ensure the understanding of cultural attitudes, terminology, and methods. The round-table discussions were fruitful in achieving such enhanced understanding and communication. Subsequent elaboration of these models will benefit from the interactions of these groups at the round table. The round-table discussions have already led to model improvements-as noted in several recently published articles. Participants emphasized several generic data needs in relation to nasal vapor uptake studies in human subjects, to broader discussion of tissue diffusion models, and to extensions to other classes of gases. The round-table articles that are published separately in this issue and the discussions, captured in this overview, provide a glimpse of the state of the science in nasal dosimetry modeling and a clear indication of the growth of and continuing opportunities in this important research area.

Climate change is one of the biggest challenges for modern society. The health effects of climate change lead to negative impacts on European health systems, and conversely, European health systems contribute significantly to climate change. To overcome challenges posed by the climate crisis, European cooperation is essential. The interdependencies between climate change and public health and its broader impact underline the importance of resilience in European health systems, calling for concrete actions from both EU institutions and national governments. Additionally, the topic of resilient health systems currently ranks high on the European agenda, with the Belgian Presidency promoting health care strengthening as one of its six priorities. The European Commission will also continue its work on this issue for the next five years. The EU has already taken steps in this matter, such as the launch of the European Health Union and the adoption of the EU4Health Programme. However, in order to better prepare for climate resilient health systems, the EU must further develop in this regard. To explore this pressing issue, the round table discussion will focus on how EU actions in climate adaptation can synergistically contribute to the resilience of health systems. Resilience, often associated with adaptation, embodies the capacity to anticipate, withstand, and recover from shocks and stresses related to climate change. By delving into this question, the workshop seeks to uncover ways in which EU and Member State climate initiatives can reinforce health system resilience, thereby fostering a more adaptive and responsive health workforce and infrastructure. Featuring 4 panellists from Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Austrian National Public Health Institute, the Dutch Green Healthcare Alliance and the European Environment Agency, the round table will bring together diverse perspectives on this issue. The added value of the round table is laying out possible ways of how both the EU and Member States can contribute to enhancing the resilience of European health systems. After establishing the necessity for action, the round table discussion will focus on generating ideas to address climate change. Specifically, this discussion will cover examples of national policies, such as from the Netherlands, Austria, and other Member States. Also discussed will be the importance of monitoring and surveillance, and conducting a health and vulnerability assessment. This ensures better understanding of the relevant current and future health impacts, which will inform resilience measures. This will be followed by a discussion with the audience to formulate recommendations for improving the resilience of EU health systems for the next five years. Key messages • Climate change challenges European health systems, emphasising the need for European cooperation in resilience efforts. • Synergising climate adaptation with health system strengthening enhances EU’s capacity for resilience. Speakers/Panelists Chiara Cadeddu Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands Aleksandra Kazmierczak European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark Andrea Schmidt Austrian Public Health Institute, Vienna, Austria Juliette Mattijsen Groene Zorg Alliantie, Rotterdam, Netherlands

To summarize the progress that has been made since the laststrangeness conference and to focus on the ourstanding questions whichremain to be addressed, the organizers of the conference decided tohold a `round table' discussion with some of the chairman of theindividual sessions.The goals of the presentations were not simply to recapitulate thepresentations in the various sessions but to present the views of thechairmen as to the significant advances reported, to place them in abroader context, and to emphasize those aspects which in their viewrequired additional attention.In addition to the chairmen, the conference organizers asked twoadditional physicists to join the round table, Jan Rafelski and Nu Xu.Most of the round table participants submitted summaries of theircomments as noted in the following. They varied considerably innature, as could be expected from the different state of the researchin the various areas. In some cases the chairman felt that theircomments did not add sufficiently to the work presented in theseparate sessions for their contributions to be useful.In perusing these contributions the reader will undoubtedly concludethat although much has been accomplished, there are still crucialoutstanding questions. One of the concerns which, in the view of thiswriter, was brought into sharper focus than previously, is the factthat we do not yet understand the nature of the p-A interaction. E.g. to interpret one of the most striking strangeness signals, theenhancement of strange particles as a function of their strangeness,it has become very clear that related effects in p-A must be studiedand understood.

Preface The periods devoted to round table discussions of general corrosion problems and of pipe line corrosion problems were two of the highlights of the April, 1950, Corrosion Conference in St. Louis. Delegates and members submitted many questions prior to the meeting. As time permitted, a limited number were discussed. Those in attendance were able to both contribute and receive information and to evaluate it in terms of their own experience. For these reasons these round table discussions were most interesting and informative. At the General Corrosion Problems Round Table each discussor was requested to submit a resume of his remarks for use in preparing answers for publication. These discussions were off the record and no one was quoted directly. These written answers were collected and edited by the leader, F. L. LaQue, and are presented below. Since only a limited number of questions could be taken up in the allotted time the remaining questions have been submitted to the editor of the Questions...

This paper offers a critical evaluation of the “4th Film Festival Symposium,” held on May 27–28, 2025, as part of the 22nd Eskişehir International Film Festival. Centered on the theme of “audiences of film festivals,” the symposium brought together scholars, industry professionals, and students to explore the evolving dynamics of film festivals. Over the course of two days, the program featured twenty-four paper presentations, two keynote speeches, two panel sessions, and a roundtable discussion. The presentations, addressing topics such as film festivals and industry dynamics, digitalization, shifting audience profiles, thematic film festivals and representation, national festivals, changes in sectoral dynamics, the role of festivals in shaping national and individual memory, and the rise of educational strategies and curatorial ideologies, collectively emphasized that film festivals are undergoing transformation in tandem with a changing world, and must therefore be reconsidered through new critical perspectives. The symposium not only reflected the increasing academic interest in festival studies in Türkiye but also underscored the need for interdisciplinary, critical approaches that account for ideological, spatial, and experiential dimensions of contemporary film spectatorship.

Chapter 9 - Round Table Discussion: The Target and Assessment of Clinical Tests

Chairman Gibson: For a good many years, it seems to me, we have been hashing over the same old problems of rheumatic fever without making much progress in our knowledge of the disease. Recently, however, I think there are hopeful signs that we are learning a little bit more about rheumatic fever and will be a little better able to deal with it. As you all know, rheumatic fever is a disease with many varied manifestations. Some cases are so outright that even a junior medical student could make a diagnosis; other cases are so obscure that at a given time and in a given case one is quite unable to make a definite diagnosis. Yet within a wide scope of variations it seems to me that rheumatic fever does show a definite group of phenomena which, by careful study, one can usually evaluate in the course of time and thereby determine whether rheumatic fever is present. I felt we might best handle the subject by dividing our discussion on rheumatic fever into 4 parts: etiology, recognition, prevention and treatment. At this time I want to introduce to you Dr. Edward C. Lambert, who is my associate in this Round Table discussion. He is at the University of Buffalo Medical School in Pediatrics and in charge of the Cardiac Children's Clinic. Dr. Edward C. Lambert, Buffalo: About 50 years ago Dr. Osler defined rheumatic fever as an acute noncontagious febrile infection depending on an unknown infectious agent, characterized by multiple arthritis and a special tendency to involve the heart.

Journal Article Round table discussion—Treatment of lower respiratory tract infections with co-trimoxazole Get access D. T. D. Hughes, D. T. D. Hughes Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar A. Pines, A. Pines Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar A. Percival, A. Percival Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar W. Stille W. Stille Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Volume 5, Issue Supplement_B, November 1979, Pages 207–219, https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/5.Supplement_B.207 Published: 01 November 1979

Journal Article Round Table Discussion - Statistics of Human Exposure to Ionising Radiation Get access J. Mahaffey, J. Mahaffey Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar B. Wall, B. Wall Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar R. Osborne, R. Osborne Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar B. Bennett, B. Bennett Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar J. Lochard, J. Lochard Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar J. Estéve, J. Estéve Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar J. Sinnaeve J. Sinnaeve Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Radiation Protection Dosimetry, Volume 36, Issue 2-4, 1 June 1991, Pages 341–342, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a081025 Published: 01 June 1991

THERE IS GROWING INTERNATIONAL CONCERN related to the possibility that gadolinium-containing MRI agents are or may be associated with nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF). Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis is known to be a rare multisystem fibrosis disorder that primarily affects the skin but may affect other organs of patients with renal insufficiencies. The opinions expressed in recent publications vary related to the determination of whether intravenous gadolinium-containing MR agents are definitely, possibly, or conditionally associated with the development of NSF. The literature has a range of opinions, a few of which are described here. A recent article in the American Journal of Roentgenology concludes that the development of NSF is strongly associated with gadodiamide administration in the clinical setting of either acute hepatorenal syndrome or dialysis-dependent chronic renal insufficiency (1). A different opinion, stated in the guest editorial published in this issue, stresses that the exposure to gadolinium-containing agents is not currently a proven prerequisite for the onset of NSF (2). Also, in their recent review of 3D contrast-enhanced MR angiography, Zhang et al (3) suggest that gadolinium-based contrast agents do not pose a risk for nephrotoxicity. However, in a letter to the editor that is currently in press with JMRI (4), this suggestion has been challenged. The authors of the letter to the editor note that gadolinium-based contrast agents might induce NSF, a newly identified, debilitating, and potentially fatal disorder (5) in patients with renal insufficiencies. They urge practitioners to stay updated about this emerging disorder and to follow appropriate recommendations. In an article published in this issue, Lin and Brown (6) state that the causal link between high dose gadolinium-containing agents and NSF has not been proven. That article refers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendation that cautious use of any gadolinium in patients with advanced renal failure be applied. This article also recommends that if contrast-enhanced MR examination is necessary, the dose should be limited and dialysis should be promptly performed (7). In addition, the American College of Radiology has just issued guidelines for the utilization of gadolinium-containing MRI contrast agents in patients with renal disease (8). Clearly, consensus is needed concerning the risks and recommended safety guidelines for contrast-enhanced MRI studies. Through JMRI and the society, ISMRM, and its members whom we serve, we have both the opportunity and the responsibility to communicate new and accurate information. This can involve maintaining a balance between disseminating reports with documented credibility related to any MRI issue—including contrast enhancement—while not prematurely raising anxiety with data that are or may be currently incomplete or evolving. With the goal of achieving this balance, JMRI is pleased to participate in and enable peer review for scientific articles and data that result from the special round table discussion and poster session that have been developed for the annual ISMRM/ESMRMB meeting in Berlin on the topic of the potential causal relationship between gadolinium-containing MRI agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF). The round table discussion is scheduled for Tuesday, May 22, 13:30–15:30 hours, and the poster session is scheduled for Thursday, May 24, 14:50–15:30 hours. We anticipate reviewing and potentially publishing in JMRI a summary of conclusions and recommendations that come from these sessions, together with peer-reviewed, revised, and accepted scientific papers on the subject, which we hope to group together in a special section, or possibly in a special issue of JMRI. I encourage each interested ISMRM member's active participation in dialogue related to this topic, including the round table discussion and poster session in Berlin this month. Letters to the editor are welcome! Together we seek the finest scientific data and the finest clinical investigations that can result in appropriate guidelines or boundary conditions for the safe utilization of gadolinium-containing MRI contrast agents in all patients, especially those with severe renal disease.

The European congress on cobalt and hard metal disease. Conclusions, highlights and need of future studies

Round Table Discussion — Community Issues