Coffee or tea? One of founders of an emerging field that combines economics and brain science reports new insights into decisions in which two choices are equally appealing.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Bowman v. Monsanto holds that farmers who lawfully obtain Monsanto’s patented, genetically modified soybeans do not have a right to plant those soybeans and grow a new crop of soybeans without Monsanto’s permission. “The Court closed a potential loophole in Monsanto’s long-standing business model, prevents Monsanto’s customers from setting up ‘farm-factories’ for producing soybeans that could be sold in competition with Monsanto’s soybeans, and it enables Monsanto to continue to earn a reasonable profit on its patented technology,” says Kevin Collins, JD, patent law expert and professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis
GibsonWhen the U.S. Supreme Court issues its much-awaited decision on the constitutionality of the controversial McCain-Feingold campaign reform legislation, its arguments may hinge on testimony regarding the validity of a political advertising database used to push for the legislation. Supporters of the legislation claim the database provides clear and compelling evidence that McCain-Feingold reforms do not infringe upon free speech, but this is far from the truth, according to James L. Gibson, a Washington University political scientist who served as expert witness when the case was heard in a lower court. His analysis found the database to be “riddled with internal errors and inconsistencies.”