No abstract

Geographically mobile populations are notoriously difficult to survey, especially in a crosscultural context. In broad terms, it is difficult to ensure that respondents are representative of the underlying population, can be relocated, and that data obtained are relevant to them. At a practical level, the problem can be as basic as not having any well-formed notion of what defines a household. Consequently, the resulting analysis of households is at best imprecise and, at worst, conceptually confused. This article documents the lessons for the design and conduct of longitudinal data collection from three recent surveys of an exceptionally mobile population, Indigenous Australians. There appears to be a trade-off between cultural relevance, data quality, response rates and survey costs. The use of Indigenous interviewers does not, in itself, guarantee that response rates will be acceptable.

An international expert group which includes 30 organisations (pharmaceutical companies, contract research organisations, academic institutions and regulatory bodies) has shared data on the use of recovery animals in the assessment of pharmaceutical safety for early development. These data have been used as an evidence-base to make recommendations on the inclusion of recovery animals in toxicology studies to achieve scientific objectives, while reducing animal use. Recovery animals are used in pharmaceutical development to provide information on the potential for a toxic effect to translate into long-term human risk. They are included on toxicology studies to assess whether effects observed during dosing persist or reverse once treatment ends. The group devised a questionnaire to collect information on the use of recovery animals in general regulatory toxicology studies to support first-in-human studies. Questions focused on study design, the rationale behind inclusion or exclusion and the impact this had on internal and regulatory decisions. Data on 137 compounds (including 53 biologicals and 78 small molecules) from 259 studies showed wide variation in where, when and why recovery animals were included. An analysis of individual study and programme design shows that there are opportunities to reduce the use of recovery animals without impacting drug development.

The paper presents an analysis o/the economic status 0/indigenous families relati\'e to other Australian/am flies. An innovative combination ofeconomic ana1.l'Sis ofcurrent census data and ethnographic research is used in the papel: and reveals that indigenous/amities are experiencing substantial and multipleforms ofeconomic burden in comparison to other Australian families. and display sign!ficantly different characteristics, They are more likely to be sole po rent/am ilies and have on average, a larger numbCl' of children and larger households. The adults are .voungeJ~have lower levels of educatiOIl and are less likely to be in employment than other Austra fians , The poor economic position ofindigenous sole parents is highlighted, and the economic role o/the aged, mam/ocalfamilies, young adults and children are cOl1Slsdered. The paper concludes h.)' examining the important poliC\' and program implications raised h.)' the research, and argues the need/or an increased/ocus 011 the particular socio-economic and locational circumstances ofindigenous families. 356 Aus!ralwn Journal 01 Sucial JSSW:.I II)!. 31 :Vo, 4 -,V(il'en/her J')')6 behaviours and values. A major limitation is that the research is invariably focused at the local level, making comparison across communities, regions or States difficult, if not impossible. Ethnographic research reveals significant cultural diversity within the Aboriginal population in tenns of their kinship structures, key aspects of social and economic organisation; with distinctive local identities and cultural priorities being emphasised. In 1991, Aboriginal Australians numbered 238,576, constituting 1.6 per cent of the total Australian population The Aboriginal population is relatively remote in geographic terms -close to one-third live in rural localities of less than 1,000 persons. But it is also extremely dispersed: Aboriginal families reside at a wide variety of localities, from remote settlements, outstations and pastoral excisions, to rural towns, old mission stations and city suburbs. Not surprisingly, family circumstances and types vary significantly across these locations. At the same time, there are important continuities that create an Aboriginal commonality across Australia (Sansom 1982). This sharedAboriginal identity is based, amongst other things, on the continuing significance of kinship ties and the prominent ethic of demand sharing, common socialisation practices, the continuing use by some ofAboriginal languages and by others of distinctive fonns ofAboriginal English, and by patterns of mobility within extended social nehvorks. Also common is the focus on a land-based identity grounded within a religious framework and Common residential histories (see Becket! 1988; Keen 1988;Langton 1982).Family -that is, the elementary structure of mother, father and their children -is a central ordering principle within Aboriginal society. It lies at the heart of Aboriginal social and economic organisation and of ceremonial life. But the nuclear family is not necessarily th...

No abstract