text:
Join us on Friday October 2, 2015 for the 11th Anniversary of DM Youth!
DM Youth is now accepting applications to for the 2015 DM Youth Leaders in the Communuity Scholarship. The DM Youth organizing committee yearly awards the "DM Youth Leaders in the Community Scholarship" to a deserving individual within the GTA Hindu community. This scholarship will be a $1000 grant which will be given for the purposes of post secondary education.
Scholarship applications will be accepted from Southern Ontario students who are starting their first year of public post-secondary education in Canada (college or University) in September 2015
On Saturday November 15, 2014 , DM Youth hosted a bowling night at Neb's Fun World in Oshawa, Ontraio. The event was a huge success, with almost forty participants who came out in support of the youth. There was a variety of people, adults and children alike, and everyone was able to participate and take turns bowling. Everybody had a very enjoyable experience, and there were fun times to be had throughout the night.
DM Youth's event was able to convince individuals to leave their homes on a cold evening in order to join in this occasion, and the bowling night lived up to its' expectations. It was a great evening of amusement, and an even better way of spending time with friends, and even make some new ones as a result!
Written by Natasha Seeram
PICKERING, ONTARIO – October 20, 2014 It was a special night at the Devi Mandir for Dev Ramkallie, a youth of the Mandir who grew up attending the Baal Vikaas classes every Sunday morning. He was the recipient of the DM Youth Leaders in the Community Scholarship, a $1000 grant which is awarded to a deserving youth in the Hindu Community who has demonstrated academic excellence as well as community involvement.
Chad Shew, one of the organizing members of DM Youth who made the announcement at the Devi Mandir's Annual Diwali Mela on October 18th, 2014 told the audience of over 300 people the achievements of Dev throughout high school.
"[He] was a member of numerous committees including: the student council, the anti-bullying committee, and the Eco-Schools committee. [He] is also a competitive baseball player at the rep. level, and was a coach for a minor league in Ajax."
Dev is in his first year at the the University of Toronto, studying Political Science and International Relations. During his acceptance speech, Dev acknowledged the work of the founding members of DM Youth as well as the current organizers who make coming to the Devi Mandir a truly unique experience.
To date, DM Youth has awarded $8250 in scholarships to deserving youth at the Devi Mandir, a truly remarkable achievement by any Hindu youth organization throughout the Greater Toronto Area. This year DM Youth is celebrating 10 years of active community service and uniting Hindu Youth in the Devi Mandir.
"Its important that families today realize the importance of carrying on the traditions of our ancestors and maintaining the Hindu way of life in Canada," said Shawn Binda one of the founding members of DM Youth. "DM Youth is one avenue to encourage youth to get involved within the community, meet other Hindu youth and form bonds of friendship that will last a lifetime."
On September 20, 2014 DM Youth celebrated 10 years of uniting Hindu Youth in the Devi Mandir and the Hindu Community at large. Below is the keynote address presented by Chad Shew, one of the key organizing members of DM Youth
10 years. A lot can happen in ten years. A lot can change in ten years. Let's all take a moment, each of us, and think about where we were ten years ago. Ten years ago I was a student in Grade 11. And ten years ago today, I had just found out about a new youth group. This youth group called themselves DM Youth, and they were based out of the Devi Mandir. Apparently the story goes that a bunch of youth realized one day, if Hindu youth could come together, there'd be no limit to what we could achieve. I must admit, they really were ambitious. Creating a new youth group from scratch is no easy task. In fact it takes tremendous dedication and an intense desire to bring people together.
Personally, I'm grateful that those youth planted that DM Youth seed. Over the last ten years we've seen DM Youth take roots and grow. And as it grew, friendships were made, lessons were learned, and memories created. Each of us here tonight has our own favourite memories of DM Youth. But for those of us who are fairly new to DM Youth, the memories are just beginning to be made. So allow me to take a few minutes to walk down us down memory lane.
The year is 2004. To put things in perspective this was some time ago, in fact: Gmail didn't exist yet. Facebook didn't exist yet. I know what you're thinking, how on earth did we survive in this ancient time? Anyways, a new youth group launches on September 11 of that year (2004) with a huge gathering of Hindu youth at the Devi Mandir. The idea of creating a proud and vibrant community of Hindu youth is unveiled on that very day. Within two years, DM Youth successfully hosts a bowling night, as well as trips to the Toronto Zoo and the Canadian Museum of Hindu civilization. DM Youth then hosts a movie night showing Lagaan staring Amir Khan. In the process, DM Youth raises more than 600 lbs in food donations for the daily bread food bank. The online forum at DM Youth.com begins to grow, with dozens of posts going up daily. A year later, DM Youth hosts its first successful trip to Canada's Wonderland, a first of many. (more…)
This morning at the Devi Mandir, DM Youth hosted a series of youth debates, challenging participants to think critically about issues that Hindus are facing in today's society. Thank you to the great support for this event. The debate was stimulating and we hope you continue these type of activities to engage more members of our community.
Join us on March 29, 2014 for our Hindu Debate Session! No registration required!
Some of the topics up for discussion include:
Inter-Religious Relationships – Should a child follow Hinduism, or the 'other' religion?
Temple Worship – Is it necessary?
Gay Marriage – Acceptable in Hinduism?
Euthanasia vs Suicide in Hinduism
Divorce in Hinduism – YES OR NO
Evolutionary Theory vs. Hinduism's Theory of Creation
Religious Hindus vs. Hindus that have become Atheists
Violence. Can it be justified based on Hindu views?
Does Bollywood have a positive effect on Hindus and Hinduism?
Do men and women they have different roles in Hinduism?
With your generous support, DM Youth is able to support and sponsor a child in India through Plan Canada. Please visit our our new section "Plan Canada" to find out more about this exciting initiative!
Below is the essay from the 2013 DM Youth Leaders in the Community Scholarship winner – Ravin Dyal
The 21st century is an era of great technological and scientific development throughout the entire world. In North American society people's lives are consumed with going to work, paying bills, going to school, and trying to have moments of relaxation. With such busy schedules many do not devote any time to religion. When looking at Satya Sanatan Dharma, or Hinduism, some people, especially youth, find having time for it challenging because the importance of this dharma is questioned. With a belief system that has been established for thousands of years, with no date of origin, and no single creator, the question arises, how can such beliefs still be relevant to modern society? Through breaking down Hinduism to some of its basic beliefs, analyzing few of its scientific applications, and understanding the identity it gives to all Hindus, the reasons for how Hinduism is relevant to our lives can be determined. (more…)


text:
Bomb Me Hack Cheat Tool Destription:
Bomb Me Hack Cheat Tool Size 2.9 MB. Hey, today we want to show you Bomb Me Hack Cheat Tool. We created a game on today on Android And iOS. A little about the game and the cheats. I think most girls love this game. Show your shooting skills! The game is very addictive, it is without a doubt a very good pass time. Amazing attack with amazing graphics. The game is recommended in many forums. The game gives you a very cheap adventure wholeheartedly recommend this game. The game has the greatest need for Diamonds,Gold,Medals,Hearts. That's all we offer in this program. You can add an unlimited number of these things. Our generators work in a 100% and are completely safe. It has built-in features such as auto-proxy-system and anti-ban-system. What is new is that it automatically bypasses all security game. You can download game two mirrors. If you have a problem with downloading go to "How To Download". Remember that you need to plug phone connect to computer. Have a Good Game! Remember that you can add an unlimited number of these things.
Bomb Me Hack Cheat Tool Details:
- Supports Systems :Android/iOS
- Is it Auto-Updated?: YES
- Is it Undetectable?: YES
- Anti-Ban System : YES
- Proxy System : YES
- Easy to use user interface: YES
Bomb Me Hack Cheat Tool Functions:
-Add Unlimited Diamonds
-Add Unlimited Gold
-Add Unlimited Medals
-Add Unlimited Hearts
How To Use Bomb Me Hack:
1. Download Bomb Me Hack Cheat Tool from our site.
2. When you launch it, you will see the main menu.
3. Select Your Device And Click Detect Device!
4. Enter an amount of Goods that you want.
5. Press Connect And Cheat button and wait.
6. If everything went ok, you will have your account successfully cheated!
7. If you have any questions write to Facebook or the blog, Write us a private message.
8. Have a Good Game! Show this Cheat for your friends!
If you have a problem with downloading file visit how to download page.
If you have any suggestions or problem please write to us at email@example.com. You have to wait up to 5-10 minutes to get everything did correctly. Do not use 2 times a cheat on the same day. We scanned the files Antivirus if you believe that you'll see the virus visit and see them result! If the Bomb Me Hack Cheat Tool is detected, just wait 24-48h to let our team update the cheat. Enjoy! Have a Good Game!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Introduction, Background, and Definitions
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
Principle 7, the Nuremberg Code
The protection of individuals who volunteer to participate in research is essential to the ethical conduct of research. Such protections were not explicitly and systematically addressed in the United States, however, until the late 1940s, when scientists and policy makers recognized the need to respond to crimes committed by Nazi scientists during World War II. Since then national and international policies have evolved to create a system of protections requiring the involvement of investigators, research sponsors, research institutions, health care providers, federal agencies, and patient and consumer groups. This evolution is worth tracking to appreciate what brings this report to the forefront at this time; that is, how can this complex system of protections be assessed in a reliable and valid way to ensure that it is effective, efficient, and accountable—that "proper preparations " have been made and that "adequate facilities" have been provided to protect the experimental subjects of research?
Before beginning the discussion leading to the recommendations contained within this report, the committee notes that this document focuses narrowly on
the accreditation of programs that are charged with the responsibility of protecting individuals who volunteer for research. This first chapter provides the relevant background preceding this work, as well as discussion pertaining to the committee's concept of a human research participant protection program (HRPPP) and related terminology. Chapter 2 explores various models of accreditation. It also focuses on how accreditation might apply to activities surrounding protection of human research participants and explores the process for such a system.
Chapter 3 centers on the issue of standards; that is, what values and measurements should be used to address an organization's level of performance and expectations for activities that affect the protection of participants in human research? In response to its charge, the committee reviewed the draft Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM& R) standards and those developed by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA). Chapter 3 presents the committee's recommendations about standards for accreditation.
Chapter 4 focuses on issues in evaluating and analyzing a system of accreditation. In response to the committee's third task, this chapter includes committee recommendations for steps that the federal government should take to collect and analyze data that can be used to monitor and evaluate how well the system for protecting human research participants is operating.
In response to the atrocities committed by Nazi scientists during World War II, the Nuremberg Military Tribunal created the Nuremberg Code, a set of 10 principles for research involving human participants, including an absolute requirement for voluntary consent (Nuremburg Code, 1946–1949; United States v. Karl Brandt et al. The Medical Case 1946–1949). The Nuremberg principles placed primary responsibility on the investigator to ensure that research was ethically conducted. At the same time that the Nuremberg Trial was proceeding, anticipating the need for a rapid response to concerns about research abuses, the American Medical Association adopted its first code of research ethics for physicians in 1946, outlining principles to be followed in conducting research with human subjects (AMA Judicial Council, 1946).
Over the ensuing two decades, U.S. policy in this area evolved, addressing prohibitions on research involving vulnerable or special populations and eventually requiring independent review of research and written consent for "hazardous" research (ACHRE, 1995). The Kefauver-Harris Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act required the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to evaluate new drugs for safety as well as efficacy, significantly expanding the power of the federal government to influence the conduct of clinical
trials in particular.1 One of the provisions of this act required the informed consent of participants in the testing of new drugs. The federal policies were slowly moving away from reliance on the investigator as the sole focus of decision making about ethical research and more toward a policy that required independent review of research and retrieval of voluntary informed consent. This meant that the responsibility, although still on the investigator, was also being placed on the institutions that support and conduct research.
By the 1960s, however, few research institutions had in place a system for protecting research subjects, despite requests by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that they do so (Faden and Beauchamp, 1986). A 1966 U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) policy required independent review of research by a committee of the investigator's "institutional associates" (PHS, 1966). Later, NIH would create the Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) and take the lead in the protection of research subjects in research conducted or sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
The need for enhanced efforts to protect research subjects was underlined in 1966 when Henry Beecher published an article presenting 22 examples of "unethical or questionably ethical studies" that had appeared in mainstream medical journals (Beecher, 1966). One of these studies involved injection of the hepatitis virus into children seeking admission to the Willowbrook State School for the Retarded in New York. Although parental consent was obtained, it was likely uninformed and certainly suspect because of undue influence, that is, concerns of parents that their children could not be enrolled in the school if they refused to participate (ACHRE, 1995). Then, in 1972, details emerged about the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, begun in the 1930s (Heller, 1972). The study attempted to trace over several decades the natural history of syphilis in poor, African-American males living in Alabama. Not only were the participants not told the purpose of the study, but they were also led to believe that they were receiving treatment (Gamble, 1997; Heller, 1972; Jones, 1981). PHS deemed the study unethical and stopped it, offering the surviving participants antibiotic treatment.
A PHS advisory panel reviewing the Tuskegee study determined that existing procedures for the protection of research subjects were inadequate and that the U.S. Congress should establish a "permanent body with the authority to regulate at least all federally supported research involving human subjects" (Tuskegee Syphilis Study Ad Hoc Advisory Panel, 1973, p. 23). Subsequent congressional hearings led to passage of the National Research Act, which established the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (the National Commission) to provide analyses of the ethics and policies related to the conduct of research with human subjects.2
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. P.L. 75-717, 52, Stat. 1040, as amended 21 U.S.C. 31 et seq.
National Research Act of 1974. P.L. 93-348 (1974).
In 1979, the National Commission published The Belmont Report, which identifies three basic principles for the ethical conduct of research with human subjects: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. In response to this report, DHHS and FDA revised their regulations, creating in 1981 the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research.3 The National Commission described the then-emergent structure and function of ethics review boards at research institutions, which later became known as institutional review boards (IRBs). IRBs became the roof beam in the framework for the protection of the rights and interests of human participants in research and remain so today.
In 1981, the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research (the President's Commission) was established. Two of its reports focused on the system of protection of human participants in research (President's Commission, 1981, 1983). In Implementing Human Research Regulations, the President's Commission recommended that, "There should be a uniform Federal system documenting the implementation of the regulations through prior assurance and periodic site visits " (President's Commission, 1983, p. 3).
Eventually, the federal government would attempt to standardize the human subjects regulations across agencies and departments. In 1991, the regulations, now known as the "Common Rule" (Subpart A, 45 CFR 46), were simultaneously published in the Federal Register by 15 departments and agencies. By 2001, 18 agencies have adopted the Common Rule, and numerous additional international documents and guidelines have been developed and revised (see Box 1-1). The regulations used across the federal government prescribe requirements for research involving human subjects, including the functions, operations, and compositions of IRBs; IRB review of research; record keeping; and requirements for informed consent.
Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments
In 1993, the nation was shocked by a series of news articles in the Albuquerque Tribune that revealed experiments involving injection of plutonium into humans. This touched off national press coverage and subsequent revelations about Cold War-era radiation experiments conducted with civilian and military populations. In response, President Bill Clinton established the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE) to investigate reports of federally sponsored human research involving radioactive materials conducted
45 CFR 46; the FDA regulations are at 21 CFR 50, 56.
BOX 1-1 Relevant International Codes
Research is a global enterprise. U.S. commissions have built on and worked in parallel with codes developed elsewhere in the world, some of which also set a context for the present committee's work. Several international codes articulate principles for the ethical conduct of research. The Declaration of Helsinki is perhaps the best known among these. In its current form, the declaration contains 32 statements of principle to guide medical research. Its conceptual foundation is the medical ethics of the doctor-patient relationship, and this is extended to medical research via an investigator-subject relationship. The declaration opens with general statements of moral norms, the duties of physicians, and the subordinate role of science when it comes into conflict with the human rights of human subjects, followed by sections on research per se and research combined with medical care.
The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) prepares the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. The first CIOMS guidelines were published in 1982, followed by revision in 1993, and they are again being revised, with public release expected in the next year (CIOMS, 1982, 1993).
The International Conference on Harmonisation has developed detailed guidelines specific to drug trials and for good clinical practice (International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, 1996, 1997) and many other guidelines on other aspects of testing of pharmaceutical products. The International Conference on Harmonisation was formed in 1990 and involves government agencies and pharmaceutical trade organizations from the European Union, Japan, and the United States (International Conference on Harmonisation, 1998). Its guidelines are not just for research that crosses national borders but, in fact, constitute guidance for trials of any size and are recognized formally by the Food and Drug Administration.
Several governments, including those of India and Canada, have prepared guidelines for research that are recognized by the U.S. Office of Human Research Protections (CECHR, Indian Council of Medical Research, 2000; NSERC, 2000; OHRP, 2000a). The Indian Council of Medical Research guidelines apply to biomedical research, and the Tri-Council Statement from Canada applies to research under the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Institutes of Health Research.
between 1944 and 1972. ACHRE's work is a direct precedent to several current activities. As part of its charge, ACHRE also assessed the current state of protections for research subjects. In its final report, ACHRE concluded that it had found "evidence of serious deficiencies in some parts of the current system" (ACHRE, 1995, p. 797). In particular, ACHRE cited variability in the quality of IRBs, confusion on the part of research participants about whether they were to receive therapeutic benefit from volunteering for studies, and concern about the adequacy of the consent process. ACHRE urged that (1) federal oversight of human subject protections focus on outcomes and performance rather than paperwork reviews and intermittent audits for cause, (2) sanctions for violation be authorized and be in proportion to the seriousness of the violation, and (3) protections be extended to research that is not federally funded.
A study commissioned by NIH and published after release of the ACHRE report corroborated many of the ACHRE committee's findings. The study was based on a survey of IRBs and investigators at research institutions holding a federal assurance agreement with NIH. It found that an estimated half million people were involved in research under IRB-reviewed protocols and that the number of protocols had more than quadrupled in the two decades since the National Commission had last surveyed IRBs (Bell et al., 1998). That report concluded that the system of protection was by and large functioning adequately, but it did point to a mounting workload and the intermittent emergence of research scandals.
ACHRE also called for the creation of a national commission "to provide for the continuing interpretation and application of ethics rules and principles for the conduct of human subject research in an open and public forum" (ACHRE, 1995, p. 821). President Clinton 's executive order creating the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) implemented this recommendation.4
The National Bioethics Advisory Commission
NBAC was established by executive order in October 1995 and was asked by President Clinton to look into the protection of human subjects in research, with "protection of the rights and welfare of human research subjects" listed as its first priority (Clinton, 1995). As one of its first actions, in May 1997 NBAC unanimously resolved that "no person in the United States should be enrolled in research without the twin protections of informed consent by an authorized person and independent review of the risks and benefits of the research " (NBAC, forthcoming-b, p. 26). NBAC issued subsequent reports on research involving those with impaired decision-making capacity (NBAC, 1998), research using human biological materials (NBAC, 1999a), and ethical issues in human stem
NBAC's establishment was also a culmination of long-standing interest in a bioethics commission among members of Congress, such as Senators Mark Hatfield and Edward Kennedy and Rep. Henry Waxman, as well as a 1993 congressional report and the President's Science Advisor, John H. Gibbons (OTA, U.S. Congress, 1993).
cell research (NBAC, 1999b), all of which address issues of research oversight and IRB function. Forthcoming reports will address ethical principles for U.S. interests conducting clinical trials abroad (NBAC, forthcoming-a) and describe a 5-year review of the adequacy of the system of human subjects protection in the United States (NBAC, forthcoming-b).
Reports from DHHS Office of the Inspector General
In June 1998, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of DHHS issued a report, Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform (DHHS OIG, 1998b). The report's foremost finding was that "the effectiveness of IRBs is in jeopardy" (p. ii) and that IRBs are facing overwhelming demands. A system that was originally devised as a volunteer effort to oversee a much smaller research effort in the 1970s was characterized as contending with its growing burden with scant resources. Recommendations included better training of IRB members and investigators, recasting of federal requirements to give IRBs more flexibility yet require more accountability, reduction of potential conflicts of interest among IRBs to enhance independence, and improvement of feedback to IRBs about developments in multisite trials and prior reviews of research plans. Echoing one of the charges to the present committee, the DHHS OIG report called for greater attention to the development and reading of indicators of how well IRBs were doing their job.
A Time for Reform was the flagship in a convoy of DHHS OIG reports on the protection of human research subjects. Three other DHHS OIG reports came out at the same time: (1) promising approaches to improving protections, (2) a description of the IRB process, and (3) a description of the emergence of independent boards, that is, IRBs that mainly review drug, device, and biologics trials sponsored by private industry under FDA regulations (DHHS OIG, 1998c,d,e). In April 2000, the DHHS OIG issued an update on A Time for Reform. It noted the increased enforcement efforts of both OPRR and FDA but little overall progress on its other recommendations (DHHS OIG, 2000b). DHHS OIG staff testified at hearings in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate as Congress turned its attention to human subject protections in the year 2000 (Grob, 2000). The April 2000 DHHS OIG update specifically lauded the efforts of PRIM&R to develop standards for accreditation of IRBs and research institutions. A pair of reports published in June 2000 focused on recruiting human subjects, with one describing pressures in industry-sponsored clinical research and the other listing sample guidelines for practice (DHHS OIG, 2000c,d).
Shutdowns of Clinical Research at Academic and VA Medical Centers
In May 1999, OPRR halted human research studies at Duke University Medical Center, sending shock waves throughout the research community. Within a year, FDA and OPRR proceeded to halt all or some clinical research
projects at seven other research centers.5 These events focused the attention of research administrators on IRB operations and human subject protections with an intensity not seen in two decades. In November and December 2000, the newly established DHHS Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP)6 issued "compliance determination" letters that found that studies in the intramural program at NIH were out of compliance with federal regulations. OPRR/OHRP has restricted or suspended multiple project assurances and required corrective actions at nearly a dozen academic institutions, and FDA has suspended clinical research at others.7 OPRR/OHRP sanctions were imposed when numerous deficiencies and concerns regarding systemic protections for human subjects were found. Deficiencies occurred in such areas as IRB membership, education of IRB members and investigators, institutional commitment, initial and continuing review of protocols by IRBs, review of protocols involving vulnerable persons, and procedures for obtaining voluntary, informed consent. Also in 1999 it was discovered that researchers with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in West Los Angeles were performing risky research without obtaining partici-
OHRP maintains a list of "compliance determination" letters, indexed by month, on its website at http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/detrm_letrs/lindex.htm; FDA lists clinical researchers who have been sanctioned at http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/bimo/dis_res_assur.htm; and the Office of Research Integrity lists debarred investigators at http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/debar/default.htm.
In June 1999, the Secretary of HHS created a new office, the Office for Human Research Protection (OHRP), to replace the Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR), which had been responsible for oversight of research involving human participants at institutions receiving federal funds and implementing the 18-agency federal Common Rule. The location of OPRR had been debated for years. Three background papers prepared for NBAC pointed to difficulties in having the office responsible for ethical conduct housed under the director for extramural research at National Institutes of Health (NIH), effectively subordinate to the funding office for extramural research, and poorly positioned to exert influence over the NIH intramural research program (Fletcher, forthcoming; Gunsalus, forthcoming; McCarthy, forthcoming). The NBAC papers all cited a need to elevate the administrative hub for protecting human research participants up and out of NIH, but differed in whether the location should be within DHHS or in an independent executive agency. A committee convened by then NIH Director Harold Varmus recommended in June 1999 that OPRR be moved to the level of the HHS Secretary and, among other things, that the Secretary create an external advisory committee for the office and that resources be increased for monitoring and enforcement (Office for Protection from Research Risks Review Panel, 1999). Less than six months after its creation, OHRP began a streamlined IRB registration and assurance process.
Multiple project assurances are agreements between institutions and the federal government that pledge compliance with human subject regulations under 45 CFR 46. Suspension of these assurances effectively ceases research requiring IRB review. FDA actions include "clinical holds" on all or part of an institution's research under FDA human subject regulations (21 CFR 50, 21 CFR 56, and 21 CFR 312.120).
pants' consent, leading to congressional hearings and a subsequent change in VA policies (see below) (U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Veterans Affairs, 1999).
The Death of Jesse Gelsinger
Attention was already focused on the protection of human research participants when 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger died in a phase I gene transfer study at the University of Pennsylvania in September 1999. He was a relatively healthy (i.e., medically stable) young adult with a genetic condition—ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency—who had suffered intermittent health crises because of his condition throughout his life but who was doing relatively well on medications when he entered the gene transfer trial (Gelsinger, 2000; Lehrman, 2000a,b). The details of the case are complex and to some extent contested. Although Gelsinger was aware that he was in a gene transfer study, the FDA found that the consent form had been altered from that which had been approved and that data relevant to safety had not been reported. Questions were raised about whether some patients in the trial, including Gelsinger, fit the revised inclusion criteria and whether the IRB and relevant federal agencies were notified of adverse events that had occurred in studies with animals and in previous patients (Weiss and Nelson, 1999).
The Gelsinger case was heavily reported in the national media and drew the attention of clinical investigators and research administrators throughout the world. It also became the focus of a Senate hearing and commanded direct attention from the Secretary of HHS, who subsequently requested the Institute of Medicine (IOM) study presented in this report (see discussion below) (Shalala, 2000; U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Public Health, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions). Problems with the system of protections for those participating in research were already apparent in 1999, but the Gelsinger death brought a sharp escalation in attention because it resulted from the experimental intervention and failures in the system of protections more than his underlying condition.
The events of the 1990s that led to this report continuously highlighted the need for reform of the system of protections for humans involved in research. The rapid growth in the size of the research enterprise, the constant innovations in experimental tools and approaches, and growing demands on the review process from the public and research sponsors alike led PRIM&R and others to ask whether improvements could be gained by the establishment of standards for systems for the protection of humans, accompanied by a method for the measurement of compliance. Others argue that current ethical principles codified in
the federal regulations and relevant international guidelines are sufficient. These observers argue that what is needed are more resources devoted to IRBs and regulatory agencies to ensure that protections are in place (Amdur, 2000; Snyderman and Holmes, 2000; Sugarman, 2000).
In 1999 and 2000, several groups moved forward with plans to develop standards for accreditation of IRBs and human research protection programs. These initiatives have come forward largely from two groups: one spawned from the PRIM&R effort and the other developed through a contract between NCQA and the VA. The origins of both are discussed in Chapter 2.
In October 2000, the Secretary of HHS asked the IOM to conduct a two-phase study to address three interrelated topics involved in the protection of human research subjects. The three topics are (1) accreditation standards for HRPPPs8, (2) the overall structure and functioning of activities for the protection of human research subjects, including but not restricted to IRBs, and (3) criteria for evaluation of the performance of activities for the protection of human research subjects.
The IOM response is being conducted in two phases. Phase 1, the subject of this report, focuses on accreditation standards for HRPPPs. The specific tasks for phase 1 are to
review and consider proposed HRPPP performance standards;
recommend standards for accreditation of HRPPPs, considering measures of structure, process, and performance, as well as resource sufficiency; and
recommend steps that the organizations and institutions conducting research and the federal government should take to collect and analyze data to monitor and evaluate how well the system for protecting human subjects is operating.
Phase 2 will continue the 24-month study of the structure, function, and performance of activities for the protection of human research subjects.9 The results of this future work will be presented as a separate report.
In this section on definitions, the committee wishes to clarify its choice of terms to avoid confusion within this report and also to signal its awareness of the
In the course of committee deliberations, the term "human research participant protection program" was substituted for "human research review program" as the former term better reflected the system of oversight that the committee hopes will result from its recommendations.
For more information see http://www.iom.edu/hrrp.
semantic difficulties, which are related to substantive and theoretical differences. Three questions regarding terminology are addressed below: (1) what should individuals who volunteer to be part of a research study be called? (2) what elements and research contexts should be included in an HRPPP? and (3) what is accreditation?
Subject or Participant?
The committee received disparate, sometimes directly contradictory advice about what to call those individuals who participate in research but who are not investigators. Those studied in human research have been called "subjects," "participants," "patients," "respondents," "partners," "interviewees," "probands," "volunteers," and other terms. More recently, additional consideration has been given to the status of individuals who are identified by virtue of their relationship to the person who is the subject of the research, either because of biological or familial ties or because of membership in the same social, ethnic, or racial group. However, some of the terms apply only in a particular research context.
Federal regulations and international guidelines refer to "human subjects" of research. The reason for this language is to distinguish the person being studied from the investigator, to make clear who is the object of study, and to signal a power asymmetry. The framework underlying the regulations is to "protect" the rights and interests of subjects, with the underlying premise being that those being studied are vulnerable when their interests conflict with those of science or investigators. The regulations are intended to make clear that when such conflicts arise, the human rights of subjects trump the scientific interests of investigators and their institutions.
As discussed earlier, the initial framework for HRPPPs grew out of reaction against studies that put humans at risk for the benefit of science, particularly against their will or without their informed consent. It was natural to classify them as "human subjects," to emphasize the power and information asymmetries, but without intending to imply a passive or demeaning role. This concept was further extended by focusing on "vulnerable" populations especially prone to coercion or at higher risk, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, and those with diminished mental capacities. The "human subject" framework was fully intended to pit individual rights against collective interests, and therein lay its value.
This framework of protection conflicts, however, with an alternative framework that sees research as a good in itself. Advocates (including prospective "human subjects") have come to regard access to research as a right. AIDS activists argued for "drugs into bodies" and fundamentally reframed the debate about the role of individuals in research participation (Epstein, 1996). The same shift has spilled over into debates about women in health research, breast cancer research, and research on ethnic groups, minorities, and underserved populations (Batt, 1994; IOM, 1994, 1999; Love, 1995; Merkatz and Summers, 1997).
Involvement in research is a topic of special sensitivity to at least some members of minority populations; and what to call those who volunteer for research is a matter of serious debate, but no consensus has been reached. At the committee's public forum, one African-American speaker strongly urged the committee to abandon the term "human subject " because it was demeaning, locked into place a policy framework that emphasizes powerlessness and passivity, and cast the discussion in the penumbra of the Tuskegee Study (Ashe, 2001). Advocates concerned about American Indians, breast cancer, and mental illness have reiterated this recommendation to the committee. Yet, it was an African-American legal scholar who argued for use of the word "subject" because it rightly emphasizes real-world vulnerabilities and comports with established regulatory language.
Debates about words reflect not just differences in referents but also differences in rhetorical purposes. The term "subject" highlights the reality of information and power imbalances, whereas the term "participants " or "partners" reflects a moral aspiration. One expresses subjects' need to be protected, but the other expresses the regard for participants ' direct contribution and involvement in an ideal research system.
Underlying practical differences exist beyond these political and moral differences. A human subject in one study may be a seriously ill patient deciding among experimental treatments under the guidance of a health care professional. Yet the same regulations that cover the seriously ill patient cover a student of journalism interviewing prominent business figures, in which the "subject" may be considerably more powerful than the investigator, as well as those who respond to a survey (if it contains personal identifiers) and have only glancing contact with any investigator. Even within the confines of clinical trials for drugs, a person participating in the trial may truly be the healthy "subject" in whom a prospective drug is being tested for dose and toxicity, may be someone choosing among small twigs of an elaborate and extensive decision tree, or may be a desperately ill patient choosing among options that are all risky and experimental. Thus, no one word can fit snugly into all these situations.
NBAC devotes a section of its forthcoming oversight report to its choice of a term. In the end it has chosen to use the neutral word "participant" because it avoids some sensitivities and is unlikely to be confused with investigators in context. This choice has a cost in that it diverges from formal regulatory language and loses the immediate sense of vulnerability that the regulatory language was intended to signal. Most members of the present IOM committee nonetheless concur with NBAC's choice, "participant," primarily because many of the committee's recommendations reinforce the aspiration to involve participants more directly in research and its oversight. The committee will therefore refer to "participants" except in contexts in which a more precise term is preferred.
What Is a Human Research Participant Protection Program?
The current framework for HRPPPs grew out of research conducted by a single investigator at a single institution that could assign protocol review to a single IRB. With the expansion of the scope and scale of research and particularly the expansion of privately funded research, a growing fraction of research falls outside this research institution framework. If the research design comes from a central sponsor—whether it is an agency gathering statistical data on the national population, an NIH institute, or a private firm testing a drug or a device—the participants in a trial may be drawn from dozens or even hundreds of places. In addition, the study may involve many research institutions and go outside traditional research sites into clinics and community hospitals or even (as in the case of surveys) into the general population. The power of each individual institution and its associated IRBs is limited to that institution. Under the current system, each IRB makes a separate and distinct determination that results in approval, disapproval, or modification of a research study. Collectively, the IRB rulings for the same protocol may result in disparate or even contradictory findings.
The committee's first task was to make recommendations about accreditation standards for "human research participant protection programs," a term by implication (tautologically) defined to be the unit of accreditation. As discussed in Chapter 3, the proposed NCQA and PRIM&R standards essentially assume the unit of accreditation to be
VA facilities to be accredited by NCQA; or
research institutions that conduct biomedical research and that have one or more IRBs.
This committee uses the term to embrace a set of functions and institutions somewhat wider than those contemplated in the draft standards to include boards that monitor the safety of clinical trials or that report serious and unexpected adverse events that arise from research and also to include research organizations not configured as academic research institutions (Figure 1-1). The key components of HRPPPs are
the organizational units responsible for designing, overseeing, and conducting research (which, for some research, includes research sponsors);
the IRB reviewing that research;
the investigators carrying out the research;
monitoring bodies (including data safety and monitoring boards; ombudsman programs; data collection centers; and reporting mechanisms for adverse events, complaints, and concerns); and
the participants involved in the research.
The term HRPPP and the various contexts in which it applies are further discussed below in an effort to clarify the scope of the committee 's findings and recommendations.
The Centrality of Informed Consent
The first sentence of the Nuremberg Code is "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential " (Nuremberg Code, 1949). To achieve this goal, the legal doctrine of informed consent was imported into research and medical care. The 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments made informed consent part of U.S. law by mandating that experimental drugs be used only if physicians obtained informed consent.10 Informed consent relies on the triad of (1) a voluntary (uncoerced) choice (2) made by a person (or a formally designated surrogate) competent to do so and (3) informed by understanding of risks and potential benefits (Faden and Beauchamp, 1986). Informed consent is the centerpiece of the Common Rule and the focus of one of FDA 's two main human subject protection regulations (21 CFR 50). IRBs spend more time and effort examining informed-consent documents than any other function (Bell et al, 1998), and the process of informed consent, to ensure that the three criteria above are met, is even more important than ensuring that informed-consent forms are clearly worded, signed, and archived. Informed consent is the bedrock for the ethical conduct of research.
Informed consent is therefore also the heart of HRPPPs. It is directly pertinent to accreditation standards and their use in the accreditation process because many of the most detailed aspects of federal regulations —and, consequently, of both NCQA and PRIM&R standards—deal with the documentation of informed consent. This is an area in which the standards may be most onerous and in which a shift to the use of performance measures—ways of getting and documenting genuine informed consent that do not rely as heavily on formal written, signed documents, as current practice does—would be most welcome. The current formal, "contractual" practice is one of the most alien to investigators and study participants in many foreign countries (Marshall, forthcoming), and documentation is one of the most nettlesome issues that breeds conflict between investigators and IRBs despite nearly universal acceptance of the underlying ethical principle.
The empirical literature about the informed-consent process, cultural variations in how to interpret the ethical conduct of research, and diverse methods for obtaining and documenting informed consent will be reviewed in the committee's subsequent report. Even before that report appears, however, the committee notes that retrieval and documentation of informed consent are essential and are required by federal regulations, but accreditation bodies should strive to permit and even encourage experimentation with alternative methods to ensure informed consent within the parameters of current regulations. The waiver authority already present in the regulations for research involving minimal risk to participants (45 CFR 46.117(c)) could be used to accumulate experience, with an eye to developing less
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. P.L. No. 75-717, 52, Stat. 1040, as amended 21 U.S.C. 31 et seq.
intrusive but equally valid methods for obtaining informed consent for research involving more than minimal risk. Such methods could, in turn, produce measures of informed consent that are more effective and less bureaucratic and that might eventually enable a shift in accreditation standards from documentation to assessment of genuine informed consent.
The Rise of Clinical Trials and Privately Funded Research
Clinical trials constitute only a subset of research, but they are an important subset. Clinical trials comprise a sizeable fraction of the studies that entail medical risks to participants and are a large and growing fraction of medical research. Also, on the basis of the growth of organizations dedicated to managing clinical trials and other evidence, it appears that the number of privately financed clinical trials has grown dramatically over the past decade (Rettig, 2000). Those trials conducted at a research institution with an HRPPP can be accommodated by attending explicitly to the roles and responsibilities of research sponsors. Many trials, however, are "multicenter trials " involving participants drawn from academic medical centers, private physicians' practices, community hospitals, clinics, and other institutions. Some of these may, in fact, lack an IRB.
In some cases, organizations that manage multicenter trials have developed, and these present a particular challenge to determination of the appropriate HRPPP unit. In cancer research, for example, several "oncology cooperative groups" have existed for decades to organize such trials, so that today 1,400 institutions participate. Community hospitals are also engaged in research through the Community Clinical Oncology Program, which includes 52 centers in 30 states (NCI, 1997). The National Cancer Institute is forming a central IRB and is revamping its support structure for clinical trials. This is driven in large part by the need to increase the scope and scale of clinical trials (NCI, 2001).
For multicenter trials, research sponsors are often very large organizations for which clinical trials are only a small fraction of their work (e.g., pharmaceutical firms or NIH institutes), and so the sponsor may not be the appropriate unit for HRPPP accreditation. When large organizations sponsor and conduct trials, however, they have organizational units that are responsible for trial oversight and that could apply for accreditation. In large multicenter trials, individual research institutions are at too low a level for meaningful accreditation because many such institutions are involved in the trial and none has meaningful control over the study design and overall safety. The appropriate locus of accreditation for multicenter clinical trials might prove to be different from that for research in general and might be focused on the organizations that have developed to manage the research, such as contract research organizations for privately funded trials or cooperative groups for both private and publicly funded trials. Accreditation bodies might devise a special set or subset of standards for such organizations.
Another option for multicenter trials is to focus on the IRB review step specifically. A research sponsor may pay for review by an IRB, constituted in compliance with FDA regulations for research involving human subjects but not affiliated with any particular research institution and not in control of the investigators, who are accountable instead to the research sponsor. Such organizations are discussed in further detail below.
Nonbiomedical Research
The committee heard about the potential problems of applying an oversight system designed to ensure the ethical conduct of clinical trials in medical research to other research methods. The United States requires review of federally funded research in disciplines outside medicine, but many other countries review only medical research. Although the principles of informed consent and the importance of oversight apply to all research, the principles will be applied in different ways when the risks are social rather than medical and when the goals of research may not be prevention, detection, or treatment of disease. Therefore, the risks and benefits of such projects will be analyzed differently from those of clinical trials, and such projects will require different kinds of expertise and sensitivities to different categories of research participants.
Research in anthropology, sociology, journalism, law, and economics, for example, requires distinct methods. Further, distinct methods and issues apply to the gathering and analysis of data for national statistical databases. Student projects at a college or graduate school or even a high school education research initiative do not map neatly to IRB review mechanisms at an academic medical center. Interviews, surveys, oral histories, and other methods common to the social sciences must be reviewed in light of expertise in relevant fields.
In response to the committee's call for public comments, the committee did not hear pleas to exempt nonmedical research from oversight, but several groups expressed concern that the draft accreditation standards (in this case, the PRIM&R standards) would require elaboration of formal policies and documentation that would be irrelevant for IRBs primarily reviewing social science, behavioral research, anthropology, sociology, oral history, epidemiology, and population studies (Levine, 2001; Overbey, 2001; Shopes, 2001). The committee did hear suggestions to reduce paperwork, to develop criteria sensitive to social and behavioral research, and to expand the categories of research exempt from review when the risks of nonmedical research are inherently low and informed consent can be "presumed" (e.g., by returning a survey form or answering questions in an interview) (Erickson, 2001; Rubin, 2001; Rudder, 2001).
Many of the policy options are relevant to the committee's subsequent report on the overall system of research oversight, but nonmedical research does raise some questions relevant to accreditation specifically. The American Association of University Professors has prepared a white paper on this topic
(AAUP, forthcoming), and the Committee on National Statistics, collaborating with the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences (National Research Council), is commencing a study of research oversight for the social and behavioral sciences that should inform the present IOM committee's subsequent report. The committee believes that in the meantime it will be important that emerging accreditation standards and the accreditation bodies that use them take this diversity of research into account and clearly indicate those mainly or solely applicable to clinical research (see further discussion in Chapter 2 and Recommendation 5).
Independent IRBs
The mandates and functions of independent IRBs are similar in scope to those of IRBs housed within an institution. Both types of review bodies and their administrative staffs function within a prescribed set of FDA regulations and according to guidance documents requiring initial review and protocol approval. Thereafter, ongoing review activities include monitoring of adverse events, oversight of recruitment activities, and review and approval of protocol amendments. The trend over the past decade has been for industry sponsors to conduct more multicenter studies outside of the institutional framework, thereby shifting the jurisdictional locus from the IRBs of individual institutions to independent (central) IRBs. Such boards review a growing fraction of research both in the United States and abroad. Thus, accreditation bodies need to develop standards or a subset of standards that embrace the independent IRB model.
Independent IRBs can stop a trial, but they do not employ investigators or have authority over them in the same way that the faculty at an academic health center does. The sections of the NCQA and PRIM& R draft standards on "research institutions" and "investigators" therefore do not apply directly to independent IRBs (Isidor, 2001). The operations of IRBs could, however, be accredited, and given their growing importance, independent IRBs should be included in any credible accreditation system. An independent IRB or group of IRBs administered by a single organization might be accredited, perhaps by using the subset of standards applicable to IRBs only, with oversight of investigators and the actual conduct of research performed through mechanisms other than accreditation (e.g., by FDA or OHRP review of sponsors and investigators). Accreditation of independent IRBs could be made contingent, for example, on ensuring that the sponsors from whom they accept work meet specific criteria. Sponsors should disclose whether a protocol has previously been disapproved by any IRB.
Most research reviewed by independent IRBs consists of clinical trials for drugs, devices, and biologics. Guidelines for the ethical conduct of such clinical trials already exist, however. These are the International Conference on Harmonisation Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) which apply to
any research conducted under an investigational new drug application (IND) subject to FDA approval. If sponsors are operating under an IND or otherwise agree to abide by ICH-GCP guidelines, particularly if those guidelines were strengthened to ensure a stronger voice for research participants, independent IRBs could be accredited for their capacity to do a thorough review, leaving oversight of research sponsors and investigators to FDA under existing regulations. Independent IRBs would be accredited only if they made their review contingent on the sponsors' agreement to ensure the ethical conduct of research under the sponsors' direct control, including the use of investigators who agree to abide by accepted standards.
To accredit HRPPPs as a system representing the complement of necessary activities that ensure the protection of human research participants, the responsibilities of research sponsors must also be included within the accreditation structure. Although existing FDA regulations, for example, assign the ultimate accountability for ensuring the management of ethical research to the sponsor, this does not alleviate the need for organizations seeking to run an HRPPP from incorporating this responsibility into their programs. In instances of clinical research involving drugs, devices, and other products under the purview of FDA regulations, the FDA would continue to be the locus of enforcement. Another option would be to consider organizational units within sponsoring organizations as the unit for accreditation, but this would be an entirely new strategy and would entail the use of accreditation strategies drastically different from those used in the accreditation models that the committee considered.
The Role of the Research Participant
Those in the best position to judge the interests of individuals participating in research are the participants themselves or informed representatives of participant perspectives. This is both a moral principle and a practical fact. The central tenet of the Nuremberg Code and the first principle of The Belmont Report center on individual autonomy, honoring Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative to "Act so that you treat humanity, whether your own person or another, always as an end and never as a means only" (Kant, 1999, p. 566). Those participating in research are also in the best position to appreciate their wants and needs as a practical matter, and the principle of autonomy suggests that their wishes should be respected (Faden and Beauchamp, 1986). Although participants are often not in a position to judge the scientific value of a protocol, participant perspectives can improve the study design, review of protocols, and oversight of ongoing research. They may identify procedures that add only marginal technical value but that cause serious inconvenience or increase the risk to participants. Study designs
that accommodate participant needs can improve recruitment and retention of participants and thereby strengthen the study. The presence of representatives of study participants on study design and oversight panels also adds credibility to the review and monitoring processes among participants.11
Those developing accreditation standards would do well to directly involve focus groups, consent monitors, and participant representatives (e.g., those who themselves have been involved in past studies and who represent a genuine constituency) in specifying the desired outcomes to be incorporated into accreditation standards. In his book on accreditation, Michael Hamm cited the example of groups representing people with disabling conditions who were able to list desirable attributes of buildings that would permit access (Hamm, 1997). Participant involvement includes participation with the study design and representation on IRBs, monitoring bodies, and oversight and advisory bodies for research institutions.
Research Monitoring
Research monitoring was foremost among the problems identified by DHHS OIG (DHHS OIG, 1998a,b,c,d,e, 2000b,c,d). The main function of IRBs has been and will remain the review of protocols for proposed research to ensure that the research design is sound, that participants give their informed consent, and that selection of subjects is fair. IRBs are already busy with their current responsibilities, and research monitoring is an additional duty. IRBs therefore may not be the unit best able to carry out the monitoring of research. The committee believes that research monitoring—including adverse event reporting, data safety and monitoring boards, ombudsman programs, reporting mechanisms for concerns or complaints, and consent monitoring programs —should be defined as part of an HRPPP but not laid solely at the feet of the IRB component of an HRPPP.
The significant role of research monitoring is evident through the many elements of the ICH-GCP guidelines that relate to reporting of adverse events and other aspects of research monitoring. Research under an FDA IND must comply with strict reporting requirements for adverse events, and the federal code requires reporting of "unanticipated problems posing risks to subjects.".12 Research monitoring is incorporated into NCQA standards but is not a central theme of the proposed PRIM&R standards, in which it is mentioned in only one documentation standard. The committee believes that adverse event reporting and research moni-
Involvement of the National Breast Cancer Coalition was instrumental, for example, in clinical trials of the drug herceptin, when early clinical trials were having difficulty recruiting participants. The National Breast Cancer Coalition became involved, however, only when it could directly participate in trial design and oversight (Bazell, 1998).
45 CFR 46.103 (b)(5).
toring should be central elements of the system as a whole and, hence, also of any accreditation process intended to improve that system.
Accreditation Versus Certification
The committee uses the term "accreditation" to refer to a process described in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3. That process is centered on an organization rather than individuals. The committee uses the term "certification" to refer to an individual. The National Association of IRB Managers, for example, has offered a certification examination since 1995, and the Applied Research Ethics National Association recently has launched a certification program for individuals who staff or chair IRBs (National Association of IRB Managers, 2001; PRIM&R, 2001a).
Certification is offered only to those with demonstrated experience and entails passing a test of knowledge about protection of human research participants. Certification has been discussed for investigators who conduct research involving human participants. For example, the government of the United Kingdom licenses those doing animal research and research on in vitro fertilization and embryo research. In the United States, however, no structure to carry out national certification of U.S. investigators exists. NIH and several universities (e.g., Case Western Reserve University and the University of Rochester), for example, have recently adopted requirements that investigators take a World Wide Web-based interactive test that demonstrates knowledge of human research protections before they can seek IRB approval of a protocol (Case Western Reserve University, 2001; Chadwick and Liders, 2000; Office of Human Subjects Research, National Institutes of Health, 2001). A national certification requirement for investigators, however, would be a major step entailing the development of a substantial infrastructure. For this reason, the committee does not consider the issue of certification in this report.


text:
Showing stores near change
- • Exclusive Offers
- • Order History
- • Faster Checkout
Monday-Sunday: 8am-9pm CST
Moorish Tile Rug - Teal
White Glove In-Home DeliveryUnlimited number of qualifying items delivered for one low fee in 14 days or less. Learn more here >
PLATINUM TUESDAY is OCTOBER 6
Pier 1 Platinum Rewards cardmembers
save 10% ALL DAY.*
Details >
Offer does not apply to the following: Taxes, home delivery and shipping charges, service charges, price adjustments on prior purchases, or purchases of Gift Cards, UNICEF merchandise, or any other non-discountable merchandise. Offer is not valid in combination with any other offer or discount and is not valid at store closing sales. The Pier 1 Rewards Program is provided by Pier 1 Imports and administered by Alliance Data Systems, Inc. Pier 1 Imports may change the terms of the Program at any time. Pier 1 Imports Credit Card Accounts are issued by Comenity Bank. View Program Terms.
Offer valid at pier1.com from 12:00 am CT on Oct. 6 , 2015, through 11:59 pm CT on Oct. 6 2015. Enter offer code 2812 at checkout.
Details & Dimensions
Inspired by Andalusian architecture, with its horseshoe arches and zellige tilework, our wool-blend rug is hand-loomed to create a unique but subtle pattern. An exotic and far-flung backstory for an area rug, we know. But one that will make sense as soon as you set eyes and feet on it.
- Teal
- Wool, nylon
- Hand-tufted
- Professional rug cleaning recommended
- The use of a rug pad is recommended
- Sold separately


text:
The Fire & Explosive Investigation Section consists of thirty-two Massachusetts State Police officers who make up the Fire Investigation Unit and the State Police Bomb Squad. Each unit has a self-contained command and control structure and a specific jurisdiction to serve. Many of the investigators have been cross-trained to assist the other sections in time of need.
Specially trained Massachusetts State Police detectives have functioned as State Fire Marshal investigators for more than fifty years. The Fire Investigation Unit has 17 members assigned to four regional teams: North, South Central and West. This includes six nationally certified accelerant detection canine teams (handlers and dogs).
By law, the local fire department is responsible for determining the origin and cause of each fire or explosion in its jurisdiction. The State Fire Marshal is mandated to investigate fires and explosions where local fire authorities are unable to determine the cause, where a violation of law exists, or when the fire or explosion is or may be incendiary nature.
The Fire Investigation Unit uses a witness-driven protocol based on the National Fire Protection Association Standard (NFPA) 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. Key to the protocol is a team concept of fire investigation where local fire and police, state police and sometimes federal investigators work together.
The State Police Bomb Squad has 12 bomb technicians, including nine nationally certified explosive detection canine teams (dogs and handlers). These teams are deployed regionally across the state. The F&EIS has many specialized resources available to assist municipal fire and police to conduct fire or explosion investigations. The state's Bomb Squad has always been in the State Fire Marshals' office, but has grown from two civilians to the 11 specially trained State Police officers today.
The office for the Fire & Explosion Investigation Section is located in the Department of Fire Services, State Road, Stow, MA 01775.
Contact the Fire and Explosion Investigation Section
24-Hour Emergency Activation : 508-820-2121
Business Hours: 978- 567-3310
Arson Hotline: 1-800-682-9229
Main Fax: 978-567-3119
Upcoming Fire Investigation Training
Advanced Fire Investigation
The MFA is offering the 6-day Advanced Fire Investigation Course October 13-15 and 26-28, 2015. This rigorous professional training provides fire, and state and local police officers with the advanced skills in cause and origin determination and solid case development and concludes with a mock trial. Completion of the Basic Fire Investigation course is a pre-requisite. Deadline to register is September 8.
Fire Investigation and Prosecution Conference
The Fire and Explosion Investigation & Prosecution Conference. It will be held on October 27-28, 2015. The keynote presentation will be on the Boston Marathon Bombing Response. For information or to register go to: www.NoFIRESjfis.com
Fire Investigator Certification
Fire investigator certification in Massachusetts is provided to stimulate the professional development of public safety fire investigators in Massachusetts by allowing eligible members a means to demonstrate their ability to meet professional qualification standards through an objective measure of their professional knowledge, skills, and abilities. The Massachusetts Public Safety Fire Investigator Certification Coalition is authorized by the Secretary of Public Safety to provide public safety fire investigator certification for the Commonwealth. The Coalition is made from representatives of the Massachusetts Fire Training Council, The Massachusetts Municipal Police Committee and the Massachusetts State Police. For more information read the Frequently Asked Questions on the process.


text:
GigaomStreamed music chart has short long tail, more Rihanna than Rita
The UK's current best-selling single is nowhere to be seen in the first ever dedicated streaming music chart – but, elsewhere, anomalies are harder to spot. Read more »
The UK's current best-selling single is nowhere to be seen in the first ever dedicated streaming music chart – but, elsewhere, anomalies are harder to spot. Read more »
Netflix (NSDQ: NFLX) isn't alone in changing its subscription media pricing but the response to this one is likely to be a lot less vocal, i… Read more »
Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) will no longer make new versions of the Zune device, ending a four-plus year effort to challenge the dominance of App… Read more »
Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) appears ready to take more of its Zune services outside the U.S. for the first time, using Windows Phone 7 as a beach… Read more »
Buried in yesterday's onslaught of Bing announcements was news that Microsoft's Zune service was launching a new MP3 store. Microsoft (NSDQ:… Read more »
If the music business's last decade was all about a transition from physical products to digital ownership of music, the current one could well be about a shift from owning song… Read more »
Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) takes a major step closer to a cross-platform entertainment experience with today's launch of the Zune HD, Zune 4.0 s… Read more »
Updated: Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) is betting the pot on the soon-to-launch Zune HD — at least when it comes its own devices. Read more »
After weeks of leaks and sneak peeks, the Zune HD has an official launch date: Sept. 15. Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) will sell two Zune HD models… Read more »
With Staci D. Kramer: Yes, Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) is moving ahead with plans to take its Zune business international. No, Microsoft isn't gi… Read more »


text:
Carry all of your essential dog walking items in one convenient carrying case. Read more
Funding Unsuccessful
This project's funding goal was not reached on May 22, 2013.
About this project
Dear ShaPooPee-ites!
While our kickstarter campaign was not successful, I am determined to bring the product to market. As such we will be reviewing other avenues. Click here for updates as to when you can get your ShaPooPee!!
How many times have you gone out of the house and realized, "Uh…I forgot my poop bags", or "my flashlight" or worse "my house keys". Well, I solved the problem and want to bring it to the masses!
I wanted something which I could take with me every time and use it every day, for years and not just another poorly made throwaway pet product. It needed to be something that would allow me to carry all of the essential items on me in one simple carrying utility and not in a fanny pack! It also needed to be something sturdy, well balanced, clean looking and high quality and so, ShaPooPeeTM was born!
The Design- I have taken the design of ShaPooPeeTM very seriously and have literally made about a hundred prototypes. I don't think there is a drawer in my home that doesn't have one of these versions knocking around in it.
I have put in 9+ months of development time into designing the perfect dog walking tool. Every aspect of the design has been scrutinized from weight, to ergonomics to ease of use. I know you will love it, just as I do!
The Features
1) Super Bright White LED flashlight to light your way or ummm… poop at night. Some words on the tech part! ShaPooPeeTM Sports a single super bright white 7150 mcd (milli-candella) LED, powered by a super-efficient lighting engine which slowly sips power from the replaceable 1.5V battery.
2) Built in spare Key/Money holder- Oh yeah I went there! Have you ever took your little guy or gal out in a hurry because he/she is doing the pee-pee spinning thingy. Just screaming "I can't hold it much longer mom or dad!" So you just grab your furry kid, leash, a poop bag and close the door behind you. Only to return after your walk and realize you are locked out??? Don't worry furry parent, we have all been there. I've even made the key storage compartment a wee bit over sized so you could fit up to 3 keys or 1 key and a few dollars. You never know when your walk may be a bit long and you need to buy yourself or your little guy/gal a drink.
3) Built In training treat storage area- Avoid losing out on training opportunities by always having training treats at hand. I've included an extra deep storage area for training treats when your on your walk or just out for a quick potty break.
The Doggy Poop Bag Issues...
Current dog waste bag holding dispensers all suffer from the same issues which are: tearing off a single bag, seeing how may bags are left and pinching the bags through a small hole. Lets look at how ShaPooPee fixes it all!
4) "I just want to rip off a bag easily"- I wanted a way to rip off the perforated bags easily, one at a time. Which isn't so easy when your little guy is wrapping the leash around your legs in anticipation of a treat. So I've added a way to tear the bags easily!
5) "Umm.. How many bags are left?" Have you ever taken your furry kid for a walk thinking that you have enough bags because you can see at least one coming out of the container? Only to find out mid-walk that you were actually looking at the last bag in the canister and now you're out? What if you live in an area which fines you if you don't pick up after your pet? I've seen people resort to some pretty "unique" ways of dealing with being out of bags and ummm... none of them are pretty. I fixed this by adding a unique way of telling just how many bags are left!
6) The bag loading conundrum- Current dog waste bag holders require you to load the fully rolled bags into the canister and pinch out the first one through a very small whole. This isn't always the fastest thing to do when the "pee-pee, poo-poo dance" is in full swing.
I've fixed this too!!
7) How do I carry it? ShaPooPeeTM is small and light enough to be carried via a wrist strap. So you can walk your dog with one hand and carry ShaPooPee TM with the other.
So Why do I need Kickstarter?
All parts thus far have been printed on my own 3D printer to allow for fast development time.
While my prototypes look and work great, they are not mass producible. Just one ShaPooPeeTM takes me about 8 hours to print and assemble!.
Now that the design is complete, I am ready to move to the next stage and create Injection molded parts! This is where your help comes in. In order to make my dream come true of bringing it to the masses, I need help and not just any help but Kickstarter help! Your Help!
The money raised will be used as follows:
1)Kickstarter and Amazon fees. I couldn't be happier to have to pay these fees; after all if it weren't for Kickstarter, I wouldn't have this opportunity. So thank you kickstarter for providing the platform and Amazon payments for processing.
2)Rewards which consist of the following costs:
- Molds, Molds, Molds- The most expensive piece of the process.
-ShaPooPeeTM individual plastic units created from the molds in ABS solid plastic.
-Electronics- ShaPooPeeTM has a high efficiency white led lighting engine which requires some special circuitry to pull every watt of power out of the battery.
- Assembly Costs and Giving back to America. I have contracted with a reliable mold manufacturer (Proto Labs) who are based in the US. Yes, it's more expensive but I am hoping that you feel that paying a slight premium for a product is worth supporting American jobs.
-Packaging- I want to minimize my footprint on the environment and as such have decided on a minimalist approach to packaging. I am using biodegradable peanuts in the appropriately sized shipping container.
-Shipping costs
Time Frames: Upon successful funding the following time line will be used to manufacture ShaPooPee TM.
1) Files Sent to Proto Labs for immediate mold manufacturing.
Mid June 2013
2) Actual Fabricated Units shipped from Proto Labs to Me for assembly
Early July 2013
3) Individual ShaPooPee TM units are assembled, tested and packaged by a small team of "ShaPooPee-ites".
Late July 2013
4) Packaging and Shipping
Late August 2013
Risks and challenges
ShaPooPeeTM consists of only four molds and one extremely simple circuit, as such there is very little in the way of risks. I have placed a huge amount of effort in making ShaPooPeeTM simple from both design and manufacturing perspectives. Every single aspect of the design has been streamlined, tested and retested. There is however one item which could pose a small risk (if at all) which lies in the translation from a 3d printed part to an injection molded part. Before even having started the kickstarter endeavor I worked diligently for months with the molding manufacture to identify any issues which may have existed in this translation. At this point all identifiable issues have been resolved and retested. The only thing left to do is make the molds.
If I do hit some unexpected speed bumps (which I fully expect) I am confident in my abilities to overcome them. I am no stranger to the manufacturing world as I have been working in the industry for over 10 years. I am intimately familiar with the unique challenges which arise from engineering. Speeds bumps to me are just that, a speed bump, it may slow me down but will not prevent the product from getting into the hands of my loyal ShaPooPee-ites!
YES, ShaPooPee is patent pending!!!
Select this reward
Pledge $1 or more
About $1.00 USD
0 backers
Honorable mention on our website as a "ShaPooPee-ite" contributor, THANK YOU!LessEstimated delivery:Manage your pledge
Select this reward
Pledge $3 or more
About $3 USD
1 backer
Be part of the exclusive club and share in our journey as we breath life into ShaPooPee. By selecting this reward, you will receive backer only updates!!LessEstimated delivery:Manage your pledge
Select this reward
Pledge $5 or more
About $5 USD
0 backers
Come on show your ShaPooPee pride! By selecting this reward you will receive not one but two luxury limited edition ShaPooPee TM stickers. Let everyone know that you, yes you helped back a super unique product. These aren't just any stickers, these are super high quality, 3 Mil, waterproof, vinyl stickers.Less
All gone!
Pledge $10 or more
About $10 USD
32 backers All gone!
EARLY BIRD SPECIAL #1. One ShaPooPee Black, very snazzy! MSRP $30. Shipping in the US included.Less
Select this reward
Pledge $15 or more
About $15 USD
4 backers Limited (146 left of 150)
EARLY BIRD SPECIAL #2. One ShaPooPee Black, very, very snazzy! MSRP $30. Shipping in the US included.Less
Select this reward
Pledge $20 or more
About $20 USD
2 backers Limited (148 left of 150)
LAST CALL EARLY BIRDS! One more shot for ShaPooPee goodness, one ShaPooPee BLACK. MSRP $30. Shipping in the US included.Hurry, this wont last!Less
Select this reward
Pledge $25 or more
About $25 USD
4 backers
OPEN CALL for all ShaPooPee-ites. Guarantee yourself a ShaPooPee BLACK! MSRP $30.00 Shipping in the US included.Less
Select this reward
Pledge $30 or more
About $30 USD
1 backer
ShaPooPee White! Shipping in the US Included.Less
Select this reward
Pledge $35 or more
About $35 USD
3 backers
THE PRO OPTION. ShaPooPee BLACK with your little guy/gals name on a premium quality, waterproof sticker. ONLY OFFERED ON KICKSTARTER! Shipping in the US Included.Less
Select this reward
Pledge $40 or more
About $40 USD
2 backers Limited (248 left of 250)
THE PREMIUM OPTION. One ShaPooPee BLACK with any picture YOU desire emblazoned with their name on a waterproof sticker made for ShaPooPee. ONLY OFFERED ON KICKSTARTER! Shipping in the US Included.Less
Select this reward
Pledge $45 or more
About $45 USD
0 backers
THE COLOR OPTION- Select from ShaPooPee BLUE,ORANGE or YELLOW. Shipping in US included.Less
Select this reward
Pledge $50 or more
About $50 USD
5 backers Limited (245 left of 250)
THE ULTIMATE OPTION! Choice of Colors (Blue, Orange, Yellow) AND your furry kids name, complete with your own picture. Shipping in US included.Less
Select this reward
Pledge $75 or more
About $75 USD
0 backers Limited (15 left of 15)
THE HENRY FORD OPTION- Like Henry Ford's model T, it took many, many iterations to get ShaPooPee just right! So for your contribution you will receive one portion of the early models which just didn't make the cut framed in a shadow box. Think of this as a one of a kind piece, never to be reproduced piece of art! You will also receive a signed letter written to you and your special little guy or girl. In the letter I will describe what I was attempting to accomplish with that particular piece of ShaPooPee and why it just did not make it. ADD $15 for shipping.Less
Select this reward
Pledge $125 or more
About $125 USD
0 backers Limited (5 left of 5)
3D PRINTED OPTION. For those who crave something really unique and special. You will receive a custom ShaPooPee unit printed on my 3D printer, complete with your pets name embossed. ONLY OFFERED ON KICKSTARTER. Shipping in US included.Less
Select this reward
Pledge $200 or more
About $200 USD
0 backers Limited (35 left of 35)
SELECT A COLOR! Yep, you and I will work together on selecting a color from a preset color pallet (lots of choices). Shipping in the US included.Less
Select this reward
Pledge $500 or more
About $500 USD
0 backers
FRONT OF THE LINE! For your very generous pledge you will be upgraded to receive the first units off the production line. With priority shipping of course!Less
Funding period
- (30 days)


text:
Did you know????
Sweet potatoes aren't potatoes: they belong to the morning glory family and are loaded with beta carotene!
What's your favorite way to eat them?
All ways possible! I love sweet potatoes.
Sweet potato pie. It's my son's favorite. I made two last night. One for him to take home with him and one for us to have after dinner. I was stuffed then, but just had a piece a little while ago.
My family likes my sweet potatoe casserole
Yup...we love sweet potatoes. Even the girls! I generally make a casserole with Thanksgiving dinner and the girls will occasionally ask for casserole at other times. We also just bake them and top with cinnamon and butter. Oh, and fries. YUM! :)


text:
There are a handful of geography apps that I love (StrataLogica, TapQuiz, Experience America HD, 3D Atlas) and Geography Duel is another option for students. This app lets users quiz their knowledge of US states and countries. It has a single player and multiplayer mode that lets students compete with a partner. This is a great app game for students who want to boost their knowledge of geography whether they play with a classmate or independently.
Check out Geography Duel in the Apple App Store for iOS devices!
Visit my Syllabuy page to view lots of tech-friendly lessons


text:
RJR.John Rocha Designer blue striped fleece gown
Item No.0980101150
Item No.0980101150
70% Off - Save a total of £42.00
This blue gown from the designer RJR.John Rocha has a super soft fleece effect with a striped design.
UK Home Delivery Free (UK orders over £30) or £3.49
Delivered within 5 working days
Next or Named Day Delivery
7 days a week between 8am - 6pm
Sunday to Friday - order by 9pm - £3.99
Saturday - order by 6pm - £3.99
Next or Named Evening Delivery
7 days a week between 6pm - 10pm
Monday to Sunday - order by Midnight - £6.99
Collect from store the next day - FREE
Order before 9pm for next day collection after 12pm midday
Show participating stores
Show full delivery details
Subject to exceptions, Debenhams is happy to exchange or refund your purchase within 28 days of delivery. Please check here for more details on our returns policy and exceptions.


text:
Just like the title says - what's your coffee order?
Or, do you not drink coffee? In that case, tell me what you'd rather drink.
My coffee order usually depends on the day - if I'm feeling kinda self-conscious about myself (haha) I go for a Skinny/Non-fat milk Latte.
But if I'm craving something sweet I go for either a Caramel Machiatto, a Caramel Latte, or maybe a Mocha.
I have low toleration to cold temperatures, so I will normally have a hot beverage, even if it's warm outside. It has to be summer for me to ask for a cold drink - but I stay away from Iced Coffee, I don't like it that much. I'll have cold Chocolate Milk instead, hehe.
What about you guys?


text:
Enough said. G2 hopes the newswomen don't quit their day jobs, but Fox News anchor Bret Baier graciously offered congratulations to his network competitors, tongue firmly in cheek: "To be fair and balanced, let's all give them a hand."
Transitioning from country to disco, Team Fox (featuring Mr. Baier, Major Garrett, Megyn Kelly, Molly Henneberg and James Rosen) sang Barry Manilow's hit "Copacabana."
It should be noted that before they took to the stage, Mr. Baier and Mr. Garrett enjoyed a stiff drink to fortify themselves.
We asked Mr. Garrett whether he did much of this sort of thing in college. "I never drank or went to karaoke bars in college," he said with a wink.
Toward the end of the Team Fox disco routine, the music abruptly stopped, prompting Mr. Rosen to say, "Keith Olbermann did it," referring to the MSNBC host famous for his jabs at the network.
Emcee Rebecca Cooper of ABC 7, in an attempt stir the pot, quipped, "That was great, but the CNN team says they did that one three years ago."
To which Mr. Rosen responded, "Yeah, and we're sure both people watching it really enjoyed it."
As for Ms. Kelly, she gamely pranced around onstage and glad-handed with the best of them despite being gloriously round, as she is expecting her first child in October. Mr. Baier and Mr. Garrett told us they are suggesting Bret, Major and Garrett as great ideas for boys' names.
"People keep giving me these books on what to expect when you're expecting, but I really want advice on how to raise a child after it's born," Ms. Kelly said.
Umbrellas in hand, Pamela Brown and company from ABC News Channel 8 belted out "It's Raining Men," but NBC's Norah O'Donnell and Andrea Mitchell must have taken a rain check, because they never showed.
• To contact Stephanie Green and Elizabeth Glover, e-mail email@example.com.


text: Supercut Of Pro Wrestlers Breathing Heavily [Video] By Michael Scott October 16, 2012 9:25 AM Share on Facebook Share on Twitter don't think I have any words to add to this really. It's fun to see these old school wrestlers doing what they do best…breathing heavily. Filed Under: funny sports | funny video | Pro Wrestling Category: Funny | Videos Share on Facebook Share on Twitter More Leave a comment Send to a friend! Print this page Pin it! Reddit This! Share on Tumblr! Best of 97.3 The Dawg Recommended For You Best of the Web


text:
William Lawrence Keating
Position: DT-G
Height: 6-2 Weight: 242 lbs.
Born: November 22, 1944 in Chicago, IL
Died: January 1, 2015 in Denver, CO
High School: St. Patrick
College: Michigan (school history)
Weighted Career AV (100-95-...): 6 (8606th overall since 1950)
Promote your website or business by sponsoring this page for $5 on Pro-Football-Reference.com. Your message will replace this ad.


text:
About this iReport
Washington, District of Columbia
Washington, District of Columbia
More from Hmick79
Iran Cyber Army Hacks into Websites of US-Based Human Rights Organization
This hacking attempt includes website of Iran Briefing (www.Iranbriefing.net) a non-profit human rights organization registered in the United States. Over the past two years, this organization has brought out several scams, corruptions, and human rights violations to the light and published several reports on its website. Interestingly, a month ago, the website of General Inspection Office of the Islamic Republic of Iran had illegally published investigative reports copied from Iran Briefing without any permission. While the Organization is still considering its ways to sue the Iranian government for infringing its copyright, On Friday, the main website of Iran Briefing (www.iranbriefing.net) including its sub-domains and other subsidiary websites have been hacked and defaced by the Iranian Cyber Army leaving a message claiming them to be more powerful. cyberattack_080812The Organization has filed a complaint with Internet Crime Complaint Center before restoring its website. The hacking attempt is more likely to be related to current presidential elections. To continue reading...Click Here (http://iranbriefing.net/iran-cyber-army-hacks-into-websites-of-us-based-human-rights-organization/)
What do you think of this story?
Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
Be and editor! Choose an option below:
iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.


text:
WHO: Panelists:
ŌĆó Former U.S. Rep. Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma
ŌĆó Feather Houstoun, senior adviser to the Wyncote Foundation
ŌĆó Ted Gaebler, bestselling author who worked on the Clinton administrationŌĆÖs mandate to ŌĆ£reinvent governmentŌĆØ
ŌĆó Joseph Torsella, U.S. representative to the United Nations for U.N. management and seform, former National Constitution Center President and CEO
ŌĆó Moderator -- Sophie Reid, BBC News and NPR correspondent
WHAT: ŌĆ£Reforming Government, Locally to GloballyŌĆØ Panel Discussion
WHEN: Monday, Nov. 19, ŌĆ©6:30 p.m.
WHERE: National Constitution Center, 525 Arch St. in Independence Mall
Health care, same-sex marriage, jobs, foreign policy ŌĆō how will the outcome of the recent presidential election impact the day-to-day life of U.S. citizens? Will it force Washington to change the way it conducts its business? Using the election as a jumping-off point, a panel of experts who have served in every level of state and federal government will discuss what must happen in order to reform government.
This event is the final program in a series of public conversations titled ŌĆ£Practically Speaking,ŌĆØ in honor of the Fels Institute of GovernmentŌĆÖs 75th anniversary. The ŌĆ£Practically SpeakingŌĆØ series is supported by David Seltzer and Poor RichardŌĆÖs Charitable Trust.
The panel discussion is free for Penn students and 1787 members, $7 each for NCC members, students and teachers and $10 each for members of the general public. Reservations are recommended: 215-409-6700 or online.


text:
Police make arrest in old hit and runMay 04,2013Police arrest man
in old hit and run
HARTLAND Vermont State Police have made an arrest in a five-month-old hit and run that seriously injured a man who was struck while putting gas in his truck on Route 5 in Hartland.
Police said that after months of investigation David Hook, 25, of Hartland admitted driving the vehicle that hit Dean Mason, 56, of Meredith, N.H.
Hook was arrested Thursday.
At the time of the crash, police said Mason suffered significant injuries, including a compound leg fracture and head injuries. Police did not update Masons condition following Hooks arrest.
Hook was charged with felony leaving the scene of an accident and negligent operation. He is due in court in July.MORE IN This Just InKABUL, Afghanistan Confusion reigned in the wake of the deadly bombing Saturday of a hospital... Full StorySPRINGFIELD A fast-moving fire destroyed a freestanding two-bay garage on 432 South St. Full StoryIt will be a busy week in gubernatorial politics with two candidates holding formal campaign... Full Story
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed


text:
Photo by Jonny Valiant
Leave a Review
So delicious! Light but satisfying. I cut back on the salt just a tad, as per the other reviewers.flag if inappropriate
First time eat Bulgur - served it with the Prosciutto Chicken dish also from this issue of Gourmet. I felt it complimented the chicken dish very well. I didn't as as nearly as much salt as it requested (as advised by everyone). Delicious... and I love the texture - reminded me of quinoa. Defiantly going to experiment with this grain in the future.flag if inappropriate
This is wonderful. I was dubious about the amount of herbs but they were perfect. I agree that the salt was a bit much. Go with half at first and the add as needed.flag if inappropriate
My grocery store was out of bulgur, so I used baked organic brown rice instead. It was delicious, a nice combination of flavors. I'm sure it's wonderful made with bulgur, too.flag if inappropriate
I've never had Bulgur or Tabbouleh before and I was a little skeptical as to whether or not I would enjoy this but I was pleasantly surprised. This is a delightful little dish that I think I'll be making regularly.flag if inappropriate
Cut the recipe in half for 2 and it turned out great, a great healthy alternative to rice.flag if inappropriate
A nice twist on tabbouleh. Quick and delicious! Only comment: too much salt! -- I would halve the amount called for.flag if inappropriate


text:
(AUDIO) Mark Cook from Pewter Report on a Potential Contract Extension for Gerald McCoy
July 29, 2014 4:02 PM
Buccaneers CentralShop for Bucs Gear
NFL Scoreboard
NFL Standings
Team STATS
Team Schedule
Team Roster
Team Injuries
Mark Cook from Pewter Report joined Booger and guest host Greg Linnelli of the Greg Linnelli Show to discuss Gerald McCoy getting a contract extension.
Gerald McCoy is looking for a contract extension and Mark Cook said that the Buccaneers would like to get it done but McCoy is likely waiting on Ndamukong Suh and his agents. Cook said whoever gets the deal done first will likely end up with a little less money.
Cook said he doesn't think the Bucs will ever let him walk. He's going to be a Buccaneer.