Svirlag

January 6th, 2009

Svirlag, SvirLAG (Svirskiy Lager’ - Svir Concentration-Camp, Russian: ???????, also ???????? / ??????? - ???????? ??????????????? ???????? ??????) was a Soviet forced labour camp run by NKVD’s GULAG Directorate. It was located on the river Svir (hence the name Svirskiy in Russian) in the forests by the town Lodeynoye Pole, 244 km north-east of Saint Petersburg, in Saint Petersburg region (Leningrad oblast, Vepsland - the land of the Vepses), operated in the 1930s (Joseph Stalin’s time) and onwards. SvirLAG concentration camp was supplier of wood to Moscow and Saint Petersburg.

The number of those who died or were killed in Svirlag in 1930 s (the times of the most numerous and heavy executions that took place in SvirLAG seem to be 1931–1937) is measured in thousands of victims. In 1935, 36.500 inmates were kept in this camp.

The concentration camp was located in the medieval buildings of once Alexander-Svirsky Monastery (after 16-th century Saint Alexander Svirsky who being one of two only with Abraham who had a vision of Trinity, died in 1533). Bolsheviks closed and vandalized the monastery in 1918 (it finally ceased in 1925). The holy relics were removed, monks partly executed and partly expelled. The chief of the monastery archimandrite Evgeniy Trofimov was executed on October 23, 1918 along with 5 monks behind the monastery walls. The monastery buildings were turned into prisons, barracks, and mental asylum. On September 22, 1998 Ministry of Culture of Russia and Russian Ministry of State Property signed decree about delivery of monastery back to Saint Petersburg parish of Russian Orthodox Church.

Svirlag compared in GULAG system

“The situation review” of GULAG for October 1935 presents the average composition of the camp population as for October 1934 - 694.100 persons, as for October 1935 - 828.800 persons and of these 36.500 were concentrated in SvirLAG - 6 th by size along with Bamlag (the biggest with 190.300 inmates in Svobodnyi, Amur Oblast), Dmitlag (193.300 inmates), Volgolag on Volga, Belbaltlag (82.000 inmates) and Ukhtpechlag in Ukhta, Temlag (21.100 inmates), Dallag (70.200 inmates), Siblag (Siberian concentration camp 74.600 inmates), Sazlag, Karlag (34.100 inmates), Prorvlag, Sarlag, Vetlag, Sevvostlag (47.700 inmates), Vaygach, Norilsklag in Norilsk.

Convicts and victims

Political and church convicts were kept there. Only 1 of 4 was a criminal.

Among the tortures applied by the camp administration was leaving bound inmates in cellar with hungry rats that were accustomed to human meat, inmates had been eaten alive by rats. Many never returned alive.

The administration of the camp was based in Svirstroy (Svir Construction Directorate) on the Svir River. The convicted inmates worked in mines extracting mica, stone and clay.

Sampson Sievers - hieromonk (born of English mother) of Saint Petersburg’s Alexander Nevsky Lavra was imprisoned and tortured in this camp (from 1932, what is witnessed by archival documents and personal testimonies), though survived.

Among other inmates who were imprisoned or executed in SvirLAG were:

  • Archbishop Augustine (Alexander Belayev) (inprisoned in SvirLAG in 1931–1934, executed November 23, 1937), Russian Orthodox archbishop.
  • Vladimir Vorobyev (b. in 1876 in Russia’s Saratov Region, sat in SvirLAG in 1931–1932, died in Kuybyshev prison in 1940 from heart paralysis) - archeologist and Russian Orthodox parish priest.
  • Stepan Rudnytskyi - Ukrainian geographer, founder of Ukrainian geography (born in Tarnopol in 1877, then Austro-Hungary), sat in SvirLAG in 1933–1937 where he was also executed in 1937 .
  • Yulian Shpol (literary name, in life: Mykhaylo Yalovyi - Ukrainian writer (born in Poltava region), arrested in 1933 and May 11, 1934 with special convoy sent to SvirLAG, 2,5 years later executed in SvirLAG November 3, 1937.
  • Magzhan Zhumabayev - Kazakh poet, arrested by Soviet authorities in 1929, sent to Svirlag were he was imprisoned until June 2, 1934. Arrested again in 1935 in Alma-Ata, March 1938 he was executed by organs of NKVD.

Archival statistics tells that only in one year of 1932 1.569 died or were executed in Svirlag and in 1935 3.887 inmates more died or were killed in Svirlag, this makes total of 5.456 victims just in two years of 1932 and 1935.

dvd duplicator

Halurgia

January 6th, 2009

Halurgia
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Lepidoptera
Family: Arctiidae
Genus: Halurgia

Halurgia is a genus of moth in the family Arctiidae.

used football

Tinfoil barb

January 5th, 2009

Tinfoil Barb

Conservation status
aquarium fish
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Actinopterygii
Order: Cypriniformes
Family: Cyprinidae
Genus: Barbonymus
Species: B. schwanenfeldii
Binomial name
Barbonymus schwanenfeldii
(Bleeker, 1853)

The tinfoil barb (Barbonymus schwanenfeldii) is a tropical freshwater fish belonging to the Barbonymus genus of the Cyprinidae family. Originating in the Mekong and Chao Phraya basins of Thailand, and Sumatra, Borneo, and Malayan peninsula. This species was originally named Barbus schwanenfeldii by Pieter Bleeker in 1853, and has also been referred to as Puntius schwanenfeldii, Barbodes schwanenfeldii, and the specific epithet has also been referred to as schwanefeldii.

It is distinguishable from other species of the genus in having a red dorsal fin with a black blotch at the tip, red pectoral, pelvic and anal fins, red caudal fin with white margin and a black submarginal stripe along each lobe, and 8 scale rows between dorsal-fin origin and lateral line. Large individuals are silvery or golden yellow while alive with its dorsal fin red and caudal fin orange or blood-red. It grows up to 14 inches (35 cm) in length. Tinfoil Barbs have a lifespan of 8 to 10 years.

The tinfoil barb is found in rivers, streams, canals, and ditches. It also enters flooded fields. Its natural habitat is in water with a 6.5–7.0 pH, a water hardness of up to 10 dGH, and a temperature range of 72–77 °F (22–25 °C). In Indonesia, a temperature range of 20.4°C to 33.7°C was recorded for this species. It is largely herbivorous, consuming aquatic macrophytes and submerged land plants, as well as filamentous algae and occasionally insects. It also feeds on small fishes, worms, and crustaceans.

The tinfoil barb is commercially important in the aquarium hobby trade, as well as commercial aquaculture, subsistence farming, and occasionally as bait. It is usually marketed fresh.

There are no obvious distinguishing characteristics used to determine the sex of the fish. They reproduce by egg scattering of several thousand eggs per spawning. They are not often bred in captivity for the aquarium trade due to their large size.

In the aquarium


A school of tinfoil barbs

The tinfoil barb is a schooling species that prefers to be placed with a number of its own species. It prefers living in water with strong currents similar to those found in their native streams. It is also recommended that they be kept with fish of similar size or larger. Many unwary aquarists buy young specimens and find out too late how large the tinfoil barb can grow. The tinfoil barb is often seen in large aquaria as companions to large cichlids e.g. the oscar cichlid, Astronotus ocellatus. The presence of groups of active fish like the tinfoil barb, sometimes known as dither fish, helps mitigate aggression in more intolerant companions.

The tinfoil barb is an active, peaceful species that spends most of its time in the mid-level and bottom of the water. A greedy eater, it will attempt to fill its mouth with as much food as possible during feedings. In captivity, it will eat almost anything provided to it.

See also

  • List of freshwater aquarium fish species

live adult tv

John Carroll (VC)

January 5th, 2009

John Carroll
16 August 1891 – 4 October 1971
solid #aaa; line-height: 1.5em;”>
John Carroll VC, in London, August 1918, shortly before returning to Australia.
Place of birth Brisbane, Queensland
Place of death Perth, Western Australia
Allegiance Flag of Australia Australia
Service/branch First Australian Imperial Force
Years of service 1916 - 1918
Rank Private
Battles/wars World War I

  • Western Front
  • Battle of Messines
Awards Victoria Cross

John Carroll VC (16 August 1891 – 4 October 1971) was an Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

Born in Brisbane, Queensland to Irish parents, he moved to Western Australia while still a child. He worked as a labourer and railway guard before enlisting in the Australian Imperial Force as a private in April 1916. Joining the Australian 3rd Division, Carroll was originally a reinforcement for the 44th (Western Australia) Battalion before moving to the 33rd (New South Wales) Battalion in November 1916.

On 7–12 June 1917 at St. Yves, Belgium, during the Battle of Messines, Private Carroll rushed the enemy’s trench and bayoneted four of the occupants. He then noticed a comrade in difficulty and went to his assistance, killing another of the enemy. Next, he single-handedly attacked a machine-gun team, killing three of them and capturing the gun. Later, two of his comrades were buried by a shell; in spite of heavy shelling and machine-gun fire, he managed to rescue them.

It has been claimed that Carroll failed on three occasions to appear at Buckingham Palace for his Victoria Cross award ceremony and when he did turn up on the fourth occasion he took advantage of one of the entitlements of VC recipients to call out the Palace Guard. These stories first appeared in the Perth Daily News on 2 November 1927 and the source of the story would seem to be Carroll himself. He was in hospital after an industrial accident in which one of his feet was amputated. Just out of surgery and still in pain he was interviewed by a reporter who does not seemed to have checked the veracity of the stories. Carroll was severely wounded at Passchendaele in October 1917. His rehabilitation was successful but after briefly returning to his unit, the Australian Prime Minister William Hughes, then in England, arranged for furlough to Australia for VC recipients to help recruiting in Australia.

He died on 4 October 1971, at the age of 80, and is buried in Karrakatta Cemetery, Perth, Western Australia. His Victoria Cross is displayed at the Australian War Memorial, Canberra, Australia.

buy bmf wheels

Peter Lambeck

January 5th, 2009

Peter Lambeck was a German historian and librarian. He was born in Hamburg on April 13, 1628.

In 1644 he entered in the gymnasium where he came under the influence of his mother’s brother, Lucas Holstenius, the most distinguished philologian, antiquarian, and critic of his time. The latter had early recognized his nephew’s gifts, and entered into a lively correspondence with the lad of barely twelve. On his recommendation, Lambeck went to Holland in 1645 to continue his studies, and at the University of Amsterdam, came in contact with many scholars, especially the philologian Gerhard Johann Vossius. He later left the Netherlands at his uncle’s wish and went to Paris, where his relationship with the celebrated Holstenius, as well as his own abilities, secured him access to the most distinguished savants of his time. He here received the degree of Doctor of Laws.

After finishing his studies, Lambeck made a tour through France, Liguria, and Etruria, and spent two years in Rome, where under the special direction of his uncle, who had become papal librarian, he undertook classical and historical researches. When barely nineteen, his learned work had already brought him the approval of the learned public of Paris.

On his return to Hamburg in 1652, he was made professor of history at the gymnasium, and in 1664 became rector. He had many enemies on account of his success, and, being accused of atheism, decided to give up his position. He was confirmed by his marriage in his decision to leave the country and return to Rome. Here he soon won the favor of Alexander VII. Queen Christina of Sweden, then resident at Rome, also exercised a great influence over him, and soon he entered the Catholic Church. To secure a permanent position he went to Vienna, where Emperor Leopold appointed him librarian and court historiographer. In this position he performed great services by his arrangement of the library, and especially by his catalogues of its treasures. These catalogues are even of value today, being especially important for the numerous contributions they contain to our knowledge of the Old German language and literature. Of great importance for the history of literature is his Prodromus Historiae literariae, of which a second enlarged edition was issued by J. A. Fabricius with a biographical sketch of the author, published separately at Hamburg in 1724. The Prodromus was the first comprehensive history of literature, chronologically arranged. Among other works, Lambeck also published a history of his native town, and researches into the history of the Byzantine Empire.

He died in Vienna on April 4, 1680.

Works

  • Commentariorum de augustissima bibliotheca Caesarea Vindobonensi liber 1-4. Vienna, 1665-1671.
  • Petri Lambecii Hamburgensis Commentariorum de Augustissima Bibliotheca Caesarea Vindobonensi. Vienna, 1766-1782. 8 volumes, edited and annotated by Adam F. Kollár.

Notes

  1. ^ Generally called Petrus Lambecius or Lambeccius.

black nib

Uroplatus henkeli

January 5th, 2009

Henkel’s Leaf-tailed Gecko (Uroplatus henkeli)

Conservation status

Vulnerable (IUCN 2.3)
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Reptilia
Order: Squamata
Suborder: Sauria
Family: Gekkonidae
Genus: Uroplatus
Species: U. henkeli
Binomial name
Uroplatus henkeli
Böhme & Ibisch, 1990

Henkel’s Leaf-tailed Gecko (Uroplatus henkeli), is a gecko that is found on the island Nosy Bé near Madagascar, as well as on the mainland Madagascar itself, in the region of Ankaranafantsika. These geckos live an arboreal lifestyle, often venturing down to the ground only to lay eggs in soft soil and leaflitter. There are two different morphs of these geckos; the Nosy Bé form, and the mainland Madagascar form, and they can be distinguished by their colouration patterns, though these are not always reliable. Reaching a total length of 280 mm, this is one of largest species in the genus. These geckos are insectivores, but will also eat snails if they are found.

Etymology

The generic name, Uroplatus, is a Latinization of two Greek words: “ourá” (????) meaning “tail” and “platys” (??????) meaning “flat”. Its specific name henkeli is a Latinization of herpetologist Friedrich-Wilhelm Henkel’s last name.

Threats

Habitat destruction and deforestation in Madagascar is the primary threat to this animal’s future as well as collection for the pet trade. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) lists all of the Uroplatus species on their “Top ten most wanted species list” of animals threatened by illegal wildlife trade, because of it “being captured and sold at alarming rates for the international pet trade”. It is a CITES Appendix 2 protected animal.


Two U. henkeli hanging head-down from a glass wall of a display in the Museum of Science, Boston


Ideal Height And Weight For Men

BT Group

January 5th, 2009

British Telecommunications Group plc
Type Public (LSE: BT.A
NYSE: BT)
Founded 1 October 1981
Headquarters London, England, UK
Area served Flag of the United Kingdom United Kingdom
Key people Sir Michael Rake, Chairman
Ian Livingston, Chief Executive
Industry Telecommunications
Products Retail and Wholesale local, national and international telecommunications products and services,
Broadband and internet products and services,
IT and Network Solutions,
Mobile service as a Molo
Revenue £ 20,704 million (2008)
Operating income £ 2,713 million (2007)
Net income £ 2,852 million (2007)
Employees 104,399 (2005-06)
Website www.btplc.com

British Telecommunications Group plc which trades as BT (sometimes known as British Telecom and still occasionally referred to by that name), is the privatised UK state telecommunications operator. It is the dominant fixed line telecommunications and broadband Internet provider in the United Kingdom. BT operates in more than 170 countries and almost a third of its revenue now comes from its Global Services division.

BT Group is the largest communications service provider in the United Kingdom. It is also one of the largest communication companies in the world. The Company is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index.

Contents

  • 1 History
    • 1.1 Early years
    • 1.2 Formation of British Telecom
    • 1.3 Privatisation
    • 1.4 BT’s attempted global alliances
      • 1.4.1 MCI
      • 1.4.2 AT&T
    • 1.5 BT Ireland
    • 1.6 2001 debt crisis
    • 1.7 Europe’s largest rights issue
    • 1.8 Sale of Yell Group, and the demerger of O2
    • 1.9 Aftermath
    • 1.10 BT’s recent developments
  • 2 Operations
  • 3 Financial performance
    • 3.1 Finance director success
      • 3.1.1 Sources
  • 4 Environment
  • 5 Market position and power
  • 6 Recent and future plans
  • 7 BT’s “Web patent”
  • 8 Controversy
    • 8.1 Behavioural Targeting
  • 9 See also
  • 10 References
  • 11 External links
    • 11.1 Data
    • 11.2 Other

History

Early years


Prior to the formation of British Telecom, telecommunications were handled by the General Post Office


British Telecom “T” symbol, 1980–1991


British Telecom logotype, 1980–1991


BT “piper” logo, 1991–2003. This logo can still be seen on some public telephone boxes in the UK


BT “Connected World” logo, 2003–present

A number of privately owned telegraph companies operated in Britain from 1846 onwards. Among them were

  • The Electric Telegraph Company,
  • British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company,
  • British Telegraph Company,
  • London District Telegraph Company,
  • and the United Kingdom Telegraph Company

The Telegraph Act of 1868 passed the control of all these to the newly formed GPO (General Post Office)’s “Postal Telegraphs Department”

With the invention of the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876 the GPO began to provide telephone services from some of its telegraph exchanges. However in 1882 the Postmaster-General, Henry Fawcett started to issue licences to operate a telephone service to private businesses and the telephone system grew under the GPO in some areas and private ownership in others. The GPO’s main competitor the National Telephone Company emerged in this market by absorbing other private telephone companies, prior to its absorption into the GPO in 1912.

The trunk network was unified under GPO control in 1896 and the local distribution network in 1912. A few municipally-owned services remained outside of GPO control. These were Kingston upon Hull, Portsmouth and Guernsey. Hull still retains an independent operator, Kingston Communications, though it is no longer municipally controlled.

In 1969 the GPO, a government department, became the Post Office, a nationalised industry separate from government. Post Office Telecommunications was one of the divisions.

Formation of British Telecom

The British Telecom brand was introduced in 1980. On 1 October 1981, this became the official name of Post Office Telecommunications, which became a state-owned corporation independent of the Post Office. In 1982 BT’s monopoly on telecommunications was broken, with the granting of a licence to Mercury Communications.

Privatisation

The privatisation took place in 1984, with the sale of 50.2% of the shares in the company (incorporated in 1984 as British Telecommunications plc) to the public in November.

The company changed its trading name to ‘BT’ on 2 April 1991. The remaining state holdings in the company were sold in 1991 and 1993. In 1996 Peter Bonfield was appointed CEO and Chairman of the Executive Committee, promising a “rollercoaster ride.”

In the 1990s, BT entered the Irish telecommunications market through a joint venture with the Electricity Supply Board, the Irish state owned power provider. This venture, entitled Ocean, found its main success through the launch of Ireland’s first subscription-free dial-up ISP, oceanfree.net. As a telecoms company it found much less success, mainly targeting corporate customers. BT acquired 100% of this venture in 1999.

BT’s attempted global alliances

MCI

In June 1994 BT and MCI launched Concert Communications Services which was a $1 billion joint venture between the two companies. Its aim was to build a network which would provide easy global connectivity to multinational corporations.

This alliance progressed further on 3 November 1996 when the two companies announcement that they had entered into a full merger agreement to create a global telecommunications company to be called Concert plc, which would be incorporated in the UK with headquarters in both London and Washington DC. This would have given BT an entry into the US market and MCI a global reach. The merger proposition gained approval from the European Commission, the US Department of Justice and the US Federal Communications Commission and looked set to proceed.

However, in light of pressure from investors reacting to the slide in BT’s share price on the London Stock Exchange, BT reduced its bid price for MCI, releasing MCI from its exclusivity clause and allowing it to speak to other interested parties. On 1 October 1997, Worldcom made a rival bid for MCI which was followed by a counter-bid from GTE. Because MCI used its stock to leverage its purchase, as opposed to cash (used by BT), it was able to outbid BT. MCI accepted the Worldcom bid and BT pulled out of its deal with a generous severance fee of $465 million.

BT made even more money when it sold its stake in MCI to Worldcom in 1998 for £4,159 million on which it made an exceptional pre-tax profit of £1,133 million. As part of the deal, BT also bought out from MCI its 24.9% interest in Concert Communications, thereby making Concert a wholly-owned part of BT.

The reaction to the failure of the deal in the City of London was critical to the future of then Chairman Iain Vallance and CEO Peter Bonfield, and the lack of confidence from the failed merger would ultimately lead to their removal.

AT&T

As BT now owned Concert, and still wanted access to the North American market, it needed a new partner. An AT&T/BT option had been mooted in the past, but stopped on regulatory grounds due to their individual virtual monopolies in their home markets. By 1996, this had receded to the point where a deal was possible. However, the former monopolies clashed in management and culture – and the alliance never really worked from the start. Also, during the proposed MCI merger position, BT/MCI had placed a series of nominated customers inside Concert to overcome regulatory issues, leaving Concert with a sales force. On merger with AT&T, it was reversion to delivery of a series of Global products, and two competing owners – which robbed Concert of revenues and left its management disillusioned.

At its height, the Concert managed network directly reached more than 800 cities in 52 countries, and interlinked to about 240 other networks to extend access to 1,300 cities in 130 countries. Although Concert continued signing customers, its rate of revenue growth slowed, so that in 1999 David Dorman was made CEO with a brief to revive it.

In late 2000 the BT and AT&T boards fell-out – partly due to each partner’s excess debt, and the resulting board room clear-outs – partly due to Concert’s $800 million annual losses. AT&T recognized that Concert was a threat to its ambitions if left intact, and so negotiated a deal where Concert was split in two in 2001: North America and Eastern Asia went to AT&T, the rest of the world and $400M to BT. BT’s remaining Concert assets were merged into its BT Ignite, later BT Global Solutions group .

BT Ireland

In 2000, BT acquired Esat Telecom Group plc, and all its subsidiary companies, and Ireland On Line. It also purchased Telenor’s minority shareholding in Esat Digifone. The Esat Telecom Group was split in two: the landline and internet operations were combined with Ocean and became part of BT Ignite. Esat Group was renamed Esat BT in July 2002, and eventually BT Ireland in April 2005. Esat Digifone became part of BT Wireless before being spun off into a separate independent company mmo2 plc (now Telefónica Europe). EsatBT installed the first DSL lines in Ireland, to try and compete heavily with former state telecoms company Eircom and operate one exchange, in Limerick. They are the second largest fixed line telecommunications company in Ireland behind incumbent Eircom.

2001 debt crisis

By 2001, BT had a debt of £30 billion, much of which was acquired during the bidding round for the 3rd generation mobile telephony (commonly known as 3G) licences. It had also failed in its series of proposed global mergers, and the funds flowing from its then virtual monopoly of the UK market place had been largely removed. It was also headed by two executives who had little support from the London Stock Exchange, particularly in light of a 60% drop in share price in sixteen months.

The first manoeuvre was to create confidence in the management team. Philip Hampton joined as CFO, and in April 2001 Sir Iain Vallance was replaced as Chairman by recognised turn around expert Sir Christopher Bland. The company then began to sell off or sell and lease back a large part of its assets.

Europe’s largest rights issue

In May 2001 BT carried out corporate Europe’s largest ever rights issue, allowing it to raise £5.9 billion. A few days before, it also sold stakes in Japan Telecom, in mobile operator J-Phone Communications, and in Airtel of Spain to Vodafone.

Sale of Yell Group, and the demerger of O2

In June 2001 BT’s directory business was sold as Yell Group to a combination of private equity firms Apax Partners and Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst for £2.1 billion.

A large demerger followed in November 2001, when the former mobile telecommunications business of BT, BT Cellnet, was hived off as a separate business named “mmO2″. This included BT owned or operated networks in other countries, including BT Cellnet (UK), Esat Digifone (Ireland), and Viag Interkom (Germany). All networks now owned or operated by mmO2 (except Manx Telecom) were renamed as O2. The de-merger was accomplished via a share-swap, all British Telecommunications plc shareholders received one mmO2 plc and one BT Group plc (of which British Telecommunications is now a wholly owned subsidiary) share for each share they owned. British Telecommunications plc was de-listed on 16 November, and the two new companies started trading on 19 November.

Aftermath

At the end of the series of sales, in October 2001 Sir Peter Bonfield resigned, and was replaced by former Lucent CEO Ben Verwaayen.

Having promised a “rollercoaster ride”, during Bonfield’s tenure the share price went from £4 to £15, and back again to £5. Bonfield’s salary to 31 March 2001, was a basic of £780,000 (increasing to £820,000) plus a £481,000 bonus and £50,000 of other benefits including pension. He also received a deferred bonus, payable in shares three years’ later, of £481,000, and additional bonuses of £3.3 million. Andreas Whittam Smith writing in The Independent newspaper called Bonfield, Chairman Vallance and Deputy Chairman Lord King “The men who broke the bank at British Telecom”.

mmO2 plc was replaced by O2 plc in a further share-swap in 2005, and subsequently bought in an agreed takeover by Telefónica for £18 billion and delisted.

BT’s recent developments

In February 2005, BT acquired El Segundo, California-based telecoms giant Infonet (now re-branded BT Infonet), giving BT access to new geographies. In April 2005, it bought Radianz (now rebranded as BT Radianz), which expanded BT’s coverage, provided BT with more buying power in certain countries and importantly gave access to the financial markets.

BT Openreach was announced in September 2005 at the instigation of Ofcom to provide an open and equal service of provision and repair in the “last mile” of copper wire. This business was formed from 25,000 engineers previously employed by BT’s Retail and Wholesale divisions. It is designed to ensure that other communications providers (CPs) have exactly the same operational conditions as parts of the BT group. It opened for business on 11 January 2006.

In August 2006 BT acquired online electrical retailer Dabs.com for £30.6 million. The BT Home Hub was also launched in June 2006.

In October 2006 BT confirmed that it would be investing 75% of its total capital spending, put at £10 billion over five years, in its new Internet Protocol (IP) based 21st century network (21CN). Annual savings of £1 billion per annum are expected when the transition to the new network is complete in 2010, with over 50% of its customers transferred by 2008. That month BT took a major step forward when the actual process that will be used to transfer the first customers on to 21CN was successfully tested at Adastral Park in Suffolk.

In January 2007, BT acquired Sheffield based ISP, PlusNet plc, adding an additional 200,000 customers. BT have stated that PlusNet will continue to operate separately out of their Sheffield head-office.

On 1 February 2007 BT announced it had agreed terms to acquire International Network Services Inc. (“INS”), a leading global provider of IT consulting and software solutions. This professional services acquisition will increase BT’s presence in North America and will significantly enhance BT’s consulting capabilities.

On 20 February 2007 BT announced that Sir Michael Rake, then chairman of accountancy firm KPMG International, would succeed Sir Christopher Bland, who stepped down in September of that year.

On 20 April 2007 BT announced the acquisition of Comsat International which provides network services to the South American corporate market.

BT acquired Wire One Communications in June 2008 and folded them into BT Conferencing, their existing conferencing unit as a new video business unit. BT Conferencing is now the global leader in video conferencing services and solutions.

On 28 July 2008, BT announced the acquisition of Ribbit, of Mountain View, California, “Silicon Valley’s First Phone Company.” Ribbit provides Adobe Flash/Flex APIs, allowing web developers to incorporate telephony features into their Software as a Service (SaaS) applications.

Operations

British Telecommunications plc (BT) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BT Group plc and encompasses virtually all businesses and assets of the BT Group. BT Group plc is listed on stock exchanges in London and New York.

BT runs the telephone exchanges, trunk network and local loop connections for the vast majority of British fixed-line telephones. Currently BT is responsible for approximately 28 million telephone lines in the UK. Apart from Kingston Communications, which serves Kingston-upon-Hull, BT is the only UK telecoms operator to have a Universal Service Obligation (USO) which means it must provide a fixed telephone line to any address in the UK. It is also obliged to provide public call boxes.

BT’s businesses are operated under special government regulation by the British telecoms regulator Ofcom (formerly Oftel). BT has been found to have Significant Market Power in some markets following Market Reviews by Ofcom. In these markets, BT is required to comply with additional obligations such as meeting reasonable requests to supply services and not to discriminate.

As well as continuing to provide service in those traditional areas in which BT has an obligation to provide services or is closely regulated, BT has expanded into more profitable products and services where there is less regulation. These are principally, broadband internet service and bespoke solutions in telecommunications and information technology.

BT Group is organised into the following business divisions:

  • BT Retail: Retail telecoms services to consumers
  • BT Wholesale: Wholesale telecoms core trunk network
  • Openreach: fenced-off wholesale division, tasked with ensuring that all rival operators have equality of access to BT’s own local network
  • BT Global Services: Business services and solutions (formerly BT Ignite and BT Syntegra)
  • BT Exact / One IT: used to handle consultancy and internal IT. Now been replaced by BT Design.
  • Group operations: handles security, research and development, and other functions for BT Group Plc such as legal services

From 1 July 2007 two additional divisions were put in place:-

  • BT Operate took responsibility from BT Wholesale for the roll-out and maintenance of the group’s new IP based fixed-line network, known as 21st Century Network (21C).
  • BT Design pulled together IT designers from BT Retail, BT Wholesale, BT Global Services and OneIT to design services on the 21C network.

Financial performance

Year ended Turnover (£m) Profit/(loss) before tax (£m) Net profit/(loss) (£m) Basic eps (p)
31 March 2008 20,704 1,976 1,738 21.5
31 March 2007 20,223 2,484 2,852 34.4
31 March 2006 19,514 2,633 1,644 19.5
31 March 2005 18,429 2,693 1,539 18.1
31 March 2004 18,519 1,945 1,414 16.4
31 March 2003 18,727 3,157 2,702 31.4
31 March 2002 18,447 1,461 1,008 12.1
31 March 2001 17,141 (1,031) (1,875) (25.8)
31 March 2000 18,715 2,942 2,055 31.7
31 March 1999 16,953 4,295 2,983 46.3
31 March 1998 15,640 3,214 1,702 26.6
31 March 1997 14,935 3,203 2,077 32.8
31 March 1996 14,446 3,019 1,986 31.6
31 March 1995 13,893 2,662 1,731 27.8
31 March 1994 13,675 2,756 1,767 28.5
31 March 1993 13,242 1,972 1,220 19.8
31 March 1992 13,337 3,073 2,044 33.2

Finance director success

After a pay rise of over 40% last year, BT’s chief financial officer, Hanif Lalani, has become one of the very few UK financial directors whose annual remuneration exceeds £1 million.

In recent years, the strategy of BT plc has been to reduce its dependence on traditional voice revenues and instead obtain an increasing portion of its turnover from so-called New Wave revenues. At the heart of this strategy is BT Global Services, which has won many significant contracts in the commercial and public sectors, in part through its portrayal as a “momentum story”.

There is, however, increasing disquiet among analysts that the annual growth of the Global Services business has been unimpressive, and that BT has been using prior year adjustments to achieve favourable growth figures.

Take the quarter ended 30 September 2005, for example. At the time, BT said the external revenues of its Global Services division were £1,740m. However, a year later, BT revised this figure downwards to £1,703m. This enabled BT to claim growth of 3.5%, instead of the dismal 1.3% it would have been forced to announce if it hadn’t adjusted the prior year’s figures.

BT has made a habit of adjusting the previous year’s revenue figure every quarter. Only once in the past year has BT adjusted the figure upwards rather than downwards.

Sources

  1. Financial Director
  2. Google spreadsheet based on BT’s quarterly financial reports

Environment

In 2004, the BT Group signed the world’s largest renewable energy deal with npower and British Gas, and now all of their exchanges, satellite networks and offices are powered by renewable energy. BT is a member of the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change. They signed a letter urging the government to do more to tackle this problem. Janet Blake, head of global corporate social responsibility (CSR) at BT, says that she would like to see incentives that find ways of awarding those companies that focus on climate change by making investments in green business models.

BT has made it clear that they have an ambitious plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Their strategy includes steps to reduce the customer’s, supplier’s, employee’s, and their own footprints. BT has actually pledged to achieve an 80% reduction by the year 2016, which will require further efficiency improvements.

Market position and power

In 1984 the Telecommunications Act set the framework for a competitive market for telecoms services by abolishing BT’s exclusive right to provide services. In the early 1990s the market was opened up and a number of new national Public Telecommunications Operators (PTOs) were given licences. This ended the duopoly that had existed in the 1980s when only BT and Mercury were licensed to provide fixed line telecom networks in the UK.

Recent and future plans

  • BT’s 21st Century Network (21CN) is a network transformation project which will see the UK’s telephone network move from the present AXE 10/System X Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) to an IP/MPLS system. BT envisages annual savings of £1 billion when the transition to the new network is complete. Capital expenditure is put at £10 billion.
  • In April 2007, BT launched a new online service called BT Tradespace. According to BT the new service is a “social media platform dedicated to small businesses.”
  • In December 2006, BT launched BT Vision, a broadband Television service with the ability to watch programmes from previous weeks or months. According to BT PLC Today, companies including BBC Worldwide, Paramount, Warner Music Group, Cartoon Network and the National Geographic Channel, have already signed deals with BT Vision. Microsoft announced on 9 January 2008 that BT Vision services will shortly be made available on the Xbox 360.
  • In May 2008, BT launched BT Total Broadband Anywhere, an all-inclusive package which offers a free, internet-capable smartphone – the BT ToGo and BT’s Total Broadband service in the home.

BT’s “Web patent”

In 2001 BT discovered it owned a patent (U.S. Patent 4,873,662 ) which it believed gave it patent rights on the use of hyperlink technology on the World Wide Web. The corresponding UK patent had already expired, but the US patent was valid until 2006. Opponents of BT’s claim held that the patent had never been valid, due to prior art by both Douglas Engelbart and Ted Nelson’s Project Xanadu. Nevertheless on 11 February 2002, BT began a court case relating to its claims in a US federal court against the Internet service provider Prodigy Communications Corporation. The U.S. court ruled on 22 August 2002 that the BT patent was not applicable to Web technology, and granted Prodigy’s request for summary judgement. The issue of prior art was thus not addressed.

Controversy

Behavioural Targeting

Main article: Data pimping

In early 2008 it was announced that BT had entered into a contract (along with Virgin Media and Talk Talk) with the spyware company Phorm (responsible under their 121Media guise for the Apropos rootkit) to intercept and analyse their users’ click-stream data, and sell the anonymised aggregate information as part of Phorm’s OIX advertising service. The practice, known as “behavioural targeting” and condemned by critics as “data pimping”, came under intense fire from various internet communities and other interested-parties who believe that the interception of data without users’, or web sites, consent is illegal under UK law (RIPA). At a more fundamental level, many have argued that the ISPs and Phorm have no right to sell a commodity (a user’s data, and the copyright content of web sites) to which they have no claim of ownership. In response to questions about Phorm and the interception of data by the Webwise system Sir Tim Berners-Lee is quoted as saying:

“It’s mine - you can’t have it. If you want to use it for something, then you have to negotiate with me.” - Sir Tim Berners-Lee: 2008

See also

  • Beatrice Bellman
  • British Telecom microwave network
  • British Telecom Tower (Birmingham)
  • BT Archives
  • BT Centre
  • BT Ireland
  • BT Italy
  • BT Mobile
  • BT Research
  • BT site engineering code
  • BT Spain
  • BT Tower
  • BT Vision
  • Buzby
  • Customer Service System
  • Telefónica Europe (formerly O2 plc, and formerly BT Wireless)
  • Prestel
  • Telecom Gold
  • Telecomsoft
  • UK telephone area codes (STD codes)

References

  1. ^ a b BBC News | BUSINESS | Sir Peter Bonfield: A profile
  2. ^ MCI to weigh WorldCom bid as BT merger process grinds on
  3. ^ GTE Plans a $25 Billion Cash Bid to Make It a 3-Way Fight : Battle to Acquire MCI Heats Up - International Herald Tribune
  4. ^ MCI and WorldCom - How British Telecom Fell Short at Competitive Intelligence
  5. ^ Articles
  6. ^ BT beats conflict of interest by buying both sides
  7. ^ BBC News | BUSINESS | BT attacks debt mountain
  8. ^ BBC News | BUSINESS | Vallance resigns from BT
  9. ^ BT wraps up share sale
  10. ^ BT retreats from Japan and Spain
  11. ^ BT sells Yell for £2.1 billion
  12. ^ Shareholders give thumbs up to BT wireless spin-off
  13. ^ BBC News | BUSINESS | BT chief quits early
  14. ^ BBC News | BUSINESS | BT lures Lucent boss with £7m package
  15. ^ BT’s Sir Peter Bonfield stands to gain extra £3.3m in share bonuses
  16. ^ Andreas Whittam Smith: The men who broke the bank at British Telecom
  17. ^ BBC NEWS | Business | Telefonica bids £18bn for UK’s O2
  18. ^ BT goes home
  19. ^ BT’s Openreach could have to list separately
  20. ^ BT buys on-line retailer Dabs.com
  21. ^ Thomson ships BT home hub
  22. ^ BT transfers first customer lines to 21CN network
  23. ^ Bt buys PlusNet for CRM system
  24. ^ BT buys former Lucent division INS
  25. ^ Datamonitor ComputerWire - BT Appoints New Chairman to Replace Bland
  26. ^ BT buys Comsat
  27. ^ BT buys Wire One
  28. ^ BT buys Ribbit for $105m
  29. ^ “Two new BT businesses after a radical shake-up”, Financial Times (25 April 2007). Retrieved on 25 April 2007. 
  30. ^ Interview: CSR delivers £2.2bn for BT - 30 Oct 2006 - IT Week
  31. ^ Climate change
  32. ^ Climate change - BT’s Vision and Strategy
  33. ^ BT’s 21CN website
  34. ^ BT’s corporate website
  35. ^ BBC NEWS | Technology | Xbox will host BT’s TV service
  36. ^ Laura Bundock (2008-05-08). “Go Online Anywhere: BT’s New Service”. Sky News.
  37. ^ BT’s “Hyperlinking” Patent Litigation Fails
  38. ^ F-Secure Spyware Information Pages: Apropos
  39. ^ F-Secure Spyware Information Pages: PeopleOnPage
  40. ^ ISP data deal with former ’spyware’ boss triggers privacy fears
  41. ^ How Phorm plans to tap your internet connection
  42. ^ Web users angry at ISPs’ spyware tie-up
  43. ^ Data pimping: surveillance expert raises illegal wiretap worries
  44. ^ Net think thank: Phorm is illegal
  45. ^ The Phorm “Webwise” System - a Legal Analysis
  46. ^ Web creator rejects net tracking

External links

  • BT advert
  • BT Group home page
    • BT Business
    • 21st Century Network
    • BT At Home
    • BT Bigger Thinking
    • BT Total Broadband
    • BT Broadband Speed test
    • BT Ireland
    • BT Italy
    • BT Business Store
    • BT Conferencing
    • BT Convergent Solutions
    • BT Digital Networked Economy
    • BT Fusion
    • BT Innovation
    • BT Media and Broadcast
    • BT Mobile
    • BT Movio
    • BT Vision (IPTV)
    • BT Digital Vault
    • Web21C SDK
    • BT Wholesale
    • BT Shop
    • Archive for BT and its predecessors
    • BT Global Services home page
      • BT France
      • BT Deutschland
      • BT España
      • BT Nederland
      • BT Business Collaboration
      • BT Counterpane home page
      • BT Infonet home page
      • BT INS home page
    • Openreach home page

Data

  • Yahoo! - BT Group plc Company Profile
  • BT Group plc stock chart at Gstock

yellow jacket lcd vacuum gauge

Declaration of Helsinki

January 5th, 2009

The Declaration of Helsinki, was developed by the World Medical Association (WMA), as a set of ethical principles for the medical community regarding human experimentation. It is widely regarded as the cornerstone document of human research ethics (WMA 2000, Bošnjak 2001, Tyebkhan 2003), although it is not a legally binding instrument in international law. It draws its authority from the degree to which it has been codified in, or influenced national or regional legislation and regulations (Human and Fluss 2001). However codes and guidelines impact on practice in both symbolic and instrumental roles. Its role was described by a Brazilian forum in 2000 in these words “Even though the Declaration of Helsinki is the responsibility of the World Medical Association, the document should be considered the property of all humanity” (Human and Fluss 2001).

Contents

  • 1 History
    • 1.1 First revision (1975)
    • 1.2 Second to Fourth revisions (1975-2000)
      • 1.2.1 Second and Third Revisions (1983, 1989)
      • 1.2.2 Fourth revision (1996)
        • 1.2.2.1 Background
        • 1.2.2.2 Fourth revision
    • 1.3 Fifth revision (2000)
      • 1.3.1 Background
      • 1.3.2 Fifth revision
      • 1.3.3 Aftermath
    • 1.4 Clarifications of Articles 29, 30 (2002-2004)
    • 1.5 Sixth revision (2008)
  • 2 Principles
    • 2.1 Basic principles
    • 2.2 Operational principles
    • 2.3 Additional guidelines or regulations
  • 3 Future
  • 4 Timeline (WMA meetings)
  • 5 References
  • 6 Training
  • 7 Bibliography
    • 7.1 Articles
      • 7.1.1 1964-1989
      • 7.1.2 1990-1999
      • 7.1.3 2000-2008
    • 7.2 WMA
  • 8 Related topics
  • 9 Other codes and regulations
  • 10 External links

History

The Declaration was originally adopted in June 1964 in Helsinki, Finland, and has since undergone six revisions ( the most recent at the General Assembly in October 2008)and two clarifications, growing considerably in length from 11 to 32 paragraphs. The Declaration is an important document in the history of research ethics as the first significant effort of the medical community to regulate research itself, and forms the basis of most subsequent documents. Prior to the 1947 Nuremberg Code there was no generally accepted code of conduct governing the ethical aspects of human research, although some countries, notably Germany and Russia, had national policies . The Declaration developed the ten principles first stated in the Nuremberg Code, and tied them to the Declaration of Geneva (1948), a statement of physician’s ethical duties. The Declaration more specifically addressed clinical research, reflecting changes in medical practice from the term ‘Human Experimentation’ used in the Nuremberg Code. A notable change from the Nuremberg Code was a relaxation of the conditions of consent, which was ‘absolutely essential’ under Nuremberg. Now doctors were asked to obtain consent ‘if at all possible’ and research was allowed without consent where a proxy consent, such as a legal guardian, was available (Article II.1).

First revision (1975)

The 1975 revision was almost twice the length of the original, and introduced the concept of oversight by an ‘independent committee’ (Article I.2) which became a system of Institutional Review Boards (IRB) in the US, and research ethics committees or ethical review boards in other countries (Riis 1977). In the United States regulations governing IRBs came into effect in 1981 and are now encapsulated in the Common Rule. Informed consent was developed further, made more prescriptive and partly moved from ‘Medical Research Combined with Professional Care’ into the first section (Basic Principles), with the burden of proof for not requiring consent being placed on the investigator to justify to the committee. ‘Legal guardian’ was replaced with ‘responsible relative’. The duty to the individual was given primacy over that to society (Article I.5), and concepts of publication ethics were introduced (Article I.8). Any experimental manoeuvre was to be compared to the best available care as a comparator (Article II.2), and access to such care was assured (Article I.3). The document was also made gender neutral and provisions were made for safeguarding animals. Protocols now had to state explicitly that they adhered to the Declaration (Article I.12).

Second to Fourth revisions (1975-2000)

Subsequent revisions between 1975 and 2000 were relatively minor, so the 1975 version was effectively that which governed research over a quarter of a century of relative stability.

Second and Third Revisions (1983, 1989)

The second revision (1983) included seeking the consent of minors where possible. The third revision (1989) dealt further with the function and structure of the independent committee. However from 1982 onwards, the Declaration was not alone as a universal guide since CIOMS and the World Health Organization (WHO) had also developed their International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects.

Fourth revision (1996)

Background

The AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) Study 076 of Zidovudine in maternal-infant transmission of HIV had been published in 1994 (Connor et al 1994). This was a placebo controlled trial which showed a reduction of nearly 70% in the risk of transmission, and Zidovudine became a de facto standard of care. The subsequent initiation of further placebo controlled trials in developing countries and funded by the United States Center for Disease Control or National Institutes of Health raised considerable concern when it was learned that US patients in trials had essentially unrestricted access to the drug, but not in developing countries. Justification was provided by a 1994 WHO group in Geneva which concluded “Placebo-controlled trials offer the best option for a rapid and scientifically valid assessment of alternative antiretroviral drug regimens to prevent transmission of HIV“. These trials appeared to be in direct conflict with recently published guidelines (Levine 1993) for international research by CIOMS, which stated “The ethical standards applied should be no less exacting than they would be in the case of research carried out in country“, referring to the sponsoring or initiating country. In fact a schism between ethical universalism and ethical pluralism was already apparent before the 1993 revision of the CIOMS guidelines (Levine 1993).

Fourth revision

In retrospect, this was one of the most significant revisions because it added the phrase “This does not exclude the use of inert placebo in studies of where no proven diagnostic or therapeutic method exists” to Article II.3. This led to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ignoring this and all subsequent revisions. The European Union , however, is citing the 1996 version in the EU Clinical Trials Directive published in 2001.

Fifth revision (2000)

Background

Following the fourth revision in 1996 pressure began to build almost immediately for a more fundamental approach to revising the declaration (Levine 1999). In 1997 Lurie and Wolfe published their seminal paper on HIV trials, raising awareness of a number of central issues. These included the claims that the continuing trials in developing countries were unethical, and pointing out a fundamental discrepancy in decisions to change the study design in Thailand but not Africa. The issue of the use of placebo in turn raised questions about the standard of care in developing counties and whether, as Marcia Angell wrote “Human subjects in any part of the world should be protected by an irreducible set of ethical standards” (1988). The American Medical Association put forward a proposed revision in November that year, and a proposed revision (17.C/Rev1/99) was circulated the following year, causing considerable debate and resulting in a number of symposia and conferences. Recommendations included limiting the document to basic guiding principles. Many editorials and commentaries were published reflecting a variety of views including concerns that the Declaration was being weakened by a shift towards efficiency-based and utilitarian standards (Stockhausen 2000, Loff and Black 2000, Zion, Gillam and Loff 2000, Brennan 1999, Rothman, Michaels and Baum 2000), and an entire issue of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics was devoted to the debate. Others saw it as an example of Angell’s ‘Ethical Imperialism’, an imposition of US needs on the developing world, and resisted any but the most minor changes, or even a partitioned document with firm principles and commentaries, as used by CIOMS. Brennan summarises this by stating “The principles exemplified by the current Declaration of Helsinki represent a delicate compromise that we should modify only after careful deliberation“. Nevertheless, what had started as a controversy around a specific series of trials and their designs in Sub-Saharan Africa, now had potential implications for all research.

Fifth revision

We do not outline every detail of the textual changes, since only three of the 32 paragraphs are completely unchanged, while eight are completely new . Also, since our focus is on the text of the Declaration, the events surrounding the eventual Edinburgh (2000) amendment are not reviewed here. They are described in detail by Human and Fluss in documents readily accessed at the WMA website and the interested reader is directed there .

We single out for comment the revised structure of the document, the most controversial of the new paragraphs –19, 29 and 30 – and four other paragraphs (1, 6, 9, 27) which, although they have not yet given rise to significant debate in the literature, are striking changes in the way the document addresses aspects of medical research ethics. The text of the DoH, Edinburgh (2000) revision is appended to this paper (Appendix 3). Since we have described above all of the (very minor) changes that took place in 1983, 1989 and 1996, the interested reader can, by referring to these and the two full versions appended, see all of the changes in the Edinburgh (2000) revision. In all versions up to the 2000 revision the following structure applied to the document: there was an Introduction (where the paragraphs were not numbered) followed by numbered paragraphs under the headings of ‘Basic Principles’, ‘Medical Research Combined with Professional Care (Clinical Research)’ and ‘Non-therapeutic Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects (Non-clinical Biomedical Research)’ (see Appendix 2; the 1975 version of DoH illustrates this structure).

The 2000 version of the DoH is completely restructured. There is now a section headed ‘Introduction’ comprising paragraphs 1–9 which sets out the scope of the document and some of the underlying principles. Although many of the statements in the ‘Introduction’ were present in previous versions of the Declaration, they have been re-ordered to present a more logical sequence of reasoning. Arguably one of the most important statements is the requirement in paragraph 5 that ‘In medical research on human subjects, considerations related to the well-being of the human subject should take preference over the interests of science and society’. By the end of the ‘Introduction’ the document has very clearly set up the dilemma that gives rise to the need for clear thinking about research ethics. On the one hand, it would be unethical not to challenge current methods in medical practice (paragraph 6) through research. On the other hand, it is wrong to simply use people as a means to an end (paragraph 5), particularly vulnerable people (paragraph 8). Having described this ethical tension in the ‘Introduction’, the DoH then seeks in the next two sections to articulate the guiding principles for deciding what research meets the ethical standards required and what does not.

After the ‘Introduction’, there follow paragraphs 10–27 under the all-encompassing heading ‘Basic Principles for All Medical Research’. Finally, there are an additional five paragraphs (28–32) under the heading ‘Additional Principles for Medical Research Combined with Medical Care’. It is in this section that we find the controversial paragraphs 29 and 30.

This is a major logical re-framing of how the DoH categorizes different types of research involving human subjects. The pre-2000 versions of the Declaration effectively dichotomized research into therapeutic (potentially benefiting the subject directly) and nontherapeutic (no direct benefit to subject). In the Edinburgh (2000) revision the new category of ‘Medical Research Combined with Medical Care’ is recognized as a subset of ‘all medical research involving human subjects’.

There is no longer any specific section dealing with ‘Non-therapeutic’ research, which is often viewed as synonymous with ‘healthy volunteer’ research. There is specific reference to ‘healthy volunteers’ in three paragraphs of the Edinburgh (2000) revision. Paragraph 16 explicitly states that participation of healthy volunteers as research subjects is permissible. Were this not stated, then a certain way of interpreting paragraph 19 may lead to the conclusion that such research was now proscribed. In paragraph 18 healthy volunteers are identified as a group where the importance of prior weighing of the importance of research against its risks and burdens is especially important. Finally, Paragraph 8 in the ‘Introduction’ lists ‘those who will not benefit personally from the research’ among those groups that are vulnerable and in need of special protection.

This revision of how research is categorized has been strongly supported by Levine as removing a previously illogical distinction. It must be of concern, however, that there is no longer a section of the DoH dealing with research where there is no potential benefit to the participants. Such groups do present some differences in methods of recruitment and such participants are often paid for their participation in research. These issues need further consideration and debate.

Paragraph 29: The benefits, risks, burdens and effectiveness of a new method should be tested against those of the best current prophylactic, diagnostic, and therapeutic methods. This does not exclude the use of placebo, or no treatment, in studies where no proven prophylactic, diagnostic or therapeutic method exists (See Appendix 3for Note of Clarification). As already mentioned, the 1996 version of the DoH is the first version of the DoH to mention specifically the use of placebo in trials. Paragraph II.2 from the 1996 version stated ‘The potential benefits, hazards and discomfort of a new method should be weighed against the best current diagnostic and therapeutic methods’. This has been changed to the wording seen in the first sentence of paragraph 29 (above). The sentence which then followed in the 1996 version (and which formed the first sentence of paragraph II.3) stated ‘In any medical study, every patient – including those of a control group, if any – must be assured of the best proven diagnostic and therapeutic method’ has been eliminated. Finally, in the 2000 revision very little is changed in the actual sentence referring to placebo which is the second sentence in paragraph 29 (above); the words ‘inert placebo’ from the 1996 version are changed to ‘placebo, or no treatment’. In a careful reading of the two versions, however, it appears that very little has changed in the overall ethical guidance with respect to placebo use. Therefore, what is surprising is that the outcry following the 2000 revision far exceeded the response to the 1996 revision.

The overall effect of paragraph 29 would seem to rule out use of placebo wherever proven treatment exists. As mentioned, this raised such a cry of protest that the WMA took the unprecedented step of issuing, in 2001, a Note of Clarification to Paragraph 29. The Note of Clarification was formally adopted as part of the DoH in 2002, although the WMA has not described this as a ‘revision’ since the actual text has not been modified – only ‘clarified’!

However, the Note of Clarification certainly seems to modify the requirements and represents the first occasion where the WMA have issued explanatory text indicating the intent behind a specific paragraph. One of the best summaries with respect to placebo use in trials is that of Emanuel and Miller , who define three broad positions: placebo orthodoxy, active-control orthodoxy and the ‘middle ground’ (see Table 2 for definitions). It would appear that the Note of Clarification moves the stance of the DoH from what appears to be active-control orthodoxy towards the ‘middle ground’. The debate in the literature over the ethics of placebo controls has raged for at least the past decade between the proponents of ‘active-control orthodoxy’ such as Rothman, Michels and Weijer and those supporting ‘placebo orthodoxy’ such as Levine and Temple .

Aftermath

Given the lack of consensus on many issues prior to the fifth revision it is no surprise that the debates continued unabated (Macklin 2001, Williams 2004). The debate over these and related issues also revealed differences in perspectives between developed and developing countries (Loff 2000, Schuklenk 2001; CMAJ 2003). Zion and colleagues (Zion 2000, Loff and Black 2000, Loff 2000) have attempted to frame the debate more carefully, exploring the broader social and ethical issues and the lived realities of potential subjects lives as well as acknowledging the limitations of absolute universality in a diverse world, particularly those framed in a context that might be considered elitist and structured by gender and geographic identity. As Macklin (2001) points out, both sides may be right, since justice “is not an unambiguous concept“.

Clarifications of Articles 29, 30 (2002-2004)

Eventually Notes of Clarification (footnotes) to articles 29 and 30 were added in 2002 and 2004 respectively, predominantly under pressure from the US (CMAJ 2003, Blackmer 2005). The 2002 clarification to Article 29 was in response to many concerns about WMA’s apparent position on placebos. As WMA states in the note, there appeared to be ‘diverse interpretations and possibly confusion’. It then outlined circumstances in which a placebo might be ‘ethically acceptable’, namely ‘compelling…methodological reasons’, or ‘minor conditions’ where the ‘risk of serious or irreversible harm’ was considered low. Effectively this shifted the WMA position to what has been considered a ‘middle ground’ (Emmanuel 2001, Huston 2001). Given the previous lack of consensus, this merely shifted the ground of debate, which now extended to the use of the ‘or’ connector. For this reason the footnote indicates that the wording must be interpreted in the light of all the other principles of the Declaration.

Article 30 was debated further at the 2003 meeting, with another proposed clarification (CMAJ 2003) but did not result in any convergence of thought, and so decisions were postponed for another year (De Roy 2004, WMA 2003), but again a commitment was made to protecting the vulnerable. A new working group examined article 30, and recommended not amending it in January 2004. Later that year the American Medical Association proposed a further note of clarification that was incorporated (Blackmer 2005). In this clarification the issue of post trial care now became something to consider, not an absolute assurance.

Despite these changes, as Macklin predicted, consensus was no closer and the Declaration was considered by some to be out of touch with contemporary thinking (Lie 2004), and even the question of the future of the Declaration became a matter for conjecture (Wolinsky 2006).

Sixth revision (2008)

The sixth revision cycle commenced in May 2007. This consisted of a call for submissions, completed in August 2007. The terms of reference included only a limited revision compared to 2000. In November 2007 a draft revision was issued for consultation till February 2008, and led to a workshop in Helsinki in March. Those comments were then incorporated into a second draft in May. Further workshops were held in Cairo and São Paulo and the comments collated in August 2008. A final text was then developed by the Working Group for consideration by the Ethics Committee and finally the General Assembly, which approved it on October 18. Public debate was relatively slight compared to previous cycles, and in general supportive. Input was received from a wide number of sources, some of which have been published, such as Feminist Approaches to Bioethics. Others include CIOMS and the US Government.

Principles

The Declaration is morally binding on physicians, and that obligation overrides any national or local laws or regulations, if the Declaration provides for a higher standard of protection of humans than the latter. Investigators still have to abide by local legislation but will be held to the higher standard.

Basic principles

The fundamental principle is respect for the individual (Article 8), their right to self determination and the right to make informed decisions (Articles 20, 21 and 22) regarding participation in research, both initially and during the course of the research. The investigator’s duty is solely to the patient (Articles 2, 3 and 10) or volunteer (Articles 16, 18), and while there is always a need for research (Article 6), the subject’s welfare must always take precedence over the interests of science and society (Article 5), and ethical considerations must always take precedence over laws and regulations (Article 9).

The recognition of the increased vulnerability of individuals and groups calls for special vigilance (Article 8). It is recognised that when the research participant is incompetent, physically or mentally incapable of giving consent, or is a minor (Articles 23, 24), then allowance should be considered for surrogate consent by an individual acting in the subject’s best interest. In which case their assent should still be obtained if it all possible (Article 25).

Operational principles

Research should be based on a thorough knowledge of the scientific background (Article 11), a careful assessment of risks and benefits (Articles 16, 17), have a reasonable likelihood of benefit to the population studied (Article 19) and be conducted by suitably trained investigators (Article 15) using approved protocols, subject to independent ethical review and oversight by a properly convened committee (Article 13). The protocol should address the ethical issues and indicate that it is in compliance with the Declaration (Article 14). Studies should be discontinued if the available information indicates that the original considerations are no longer satisfied (Article 17). Information regarding the study should be publicly available (Article 16). Ethical publications extend to publication of the results and consideration of any potential conflict of interest (Article 27). Experimental investigations should always be compared against the best methods, but under certain circumstances a placebo or no treatment group may be utilised (Article 29). The interests of the subject after the study is completed should be part of the overall ethical assessment, including assuring their access to the best proven care (Article 30). Wherever possible unproven methods should be tested in the context of research where there is reasonable belief of possible benefit (Article 32).

Additional guidelines or regulations

Investigators often find themselves in the position of having to follow several different codes or guidelines, and are therefore required to understand the differences between them. One of these is Good Clinical Practice (GCP), an international guide, while each country may also have local regulations such as the Common Rule in the US, in addition to the requirements of the FDA and Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) in that country. There are a number of available tools which compare these. Other countries have guides with similar roles, such as the Tri-Council Policy Statement in Canada. Additional international guidelines include those of the CIOMS, Nuffield Council and UNESCO.

Future

The controversies and national divisions over the text have continued. The US FDA rejected the 2000 and subsequent revisions, only recognizing the third (1989) revision (Wolinsky 2006), and in 2006 announced it would eliminate all reference to the Declaration. After consultation, which included expressions of concern, a final rule was issued on April 28 2008 replacing the Declaration of Helsinki with Good Clinical Practice effective October 2008. This has raised a number of concerns regarding the apparent weakening of protections for research subjects outside the United States. The NIH training in human subject research participant protection no longer refers to the Declaration of Helsinki. The European Commission refers to the fourth (1996) revision.

While the Declaration has been a central document guiding research practice, its future has been called into question. Challenges include the apparent conflict between guides, such as the CIOMS and Nuffield Council documents. Another is whether it should concentrate on basic principles as opposed to being more prescriptive, and hence controversial. It has continually grown and faced more frequent revisions (Carlson 2004). The recent controversies undermine the authority of the document, as does the apparent desertion by major bodies, and any rewording must embrace deeply and widely held values, since continual shifts in the text do not imply authority.

Carlson raises the question as to whether the document’s utility should be more formally evaluated, rather than just relying on tradition.

Timeline (WMA meetings)

  • 1964: Original version. 18th Meeting, Helsinki
  • 1975: First revision. 29th Meeting, Tokyo
  • 1983: Second revision. 35th Meeting, Venice
  • 1989: Third revision. 41st Meeting, Hong Kong
  • 1996: Fourth revision. 48th Meeting, Somerset West (SA)
  • 2000: Fifth revision. 52nd Meeting, Edinburgh
  • 2002: First clarification, Washington
  • 2004: Second clarification, Tokyo
  • 2008: Sixth revision, 59th Meeting, Seoul

References

  1. ^ Mayors of the World for a Global Cities Dialogue on the Information Society
  2. ^ Declaration of Helsinki - Current (2000) version
  3. ^ World Medical Association
  4. ^ Recommendations from the meeting on mother-to-infant transmission of HIV by use of antretrovirals. Geneva, WHO June 23-5, 1994 (Unpublished)
  5. ^ CIOMS. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva 1993. Guideline 11
  6. ^ Angell M. Ethical imperialism? Ethics in international collaborative clinical research. NEJM 1988 319: 1081-3
  7. ^ Barry M. Ethical considerations of human investigations in developing countries: the AIDS dilemma. NEJM 1988 319: 1083-5
  8. ^ Temple R. Impact of the Declaration of Helsinki on medical research from a regulatory perspective. Address to the Scientific Session, World Medical Association General Assembly, September 2003.
  9. ^ General Assembly WMA Hamburg, Germany 1997
  10. ^ Americans want to water down Helsinki Declaration. Bull Med Ethics 1998 Mar;No. 136:3-4
  11. ^ World Medical Association. Proposed revision of the Declaration of Helsinki Document 17.C/Rev1/99
  12. ^ Proposed revision of the Declaration of Helsinki Bull Med Ethics 1999 Apr;No. 147:18-22]
  13. ^ Revising the Declaration of Helsinki: A fresh start. Report of a workshop held at the Royal Society of Medicine, London 3 & 4 September 1999. Bull Med Ethics 1999 Oct;No. 151:13-7
  14. ^ WMA Medical Ethics Committee. Updating the WMA Declaration of Helsinki. Wld Med J 1999 45: 11-13
  15. ^ Deutsch E, Taupitz J. Göttingen Report. Freedom and control of biomedical research- the planned revision of the Declaration of Helsinki. Wld Med J 1999 45: 40-41
  16. ^ Nicholson RH. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Hastings Centre Report 2000 Jan/Feb 30: 1
  17. ^ Macklin R. Future challenges for the Declaration of Helsinki: Maintaining credibility in the face of ethical controversies. Address to Scientific Session, World Medical Association General Assembly, September 2003, Helsinki
  18. ^ Workgroup report on the revision of paragraph 30 of the Declaration of Helsinki 5 January 2004
  19. ^ WMA Ethics Unit Invitation of Submissions
  20. ^ Schmidt H, Schulz-Baldes A. The 2007 draft Declaration of Helsinki - Plus ça change? Bioethics Forum November 28 2007
  21. ^ Draft revision Nov 2007
  22. ^ Second draft revision May 2008
  23. ^ Williams J. The Declaration of Helsinki and public health. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation 86(8) 2008
  24. ^ APPI endorses proposed updates to Declaration of Helsinki APPI 22 July 2008
  25. ^ Eckenwiler L, Feinholz D, Ells C, Schonfeld T. The Declaration of Helsinki through a feminist lens. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics Spring 2008, Vol. 1, No. 1: Pages 161-177
  26. ^ Michael D E Goodyear, Lisa A Eckenwiler, and Carolyn Ells. Fresh thinking about the Declaration of Helsinki. BMJ 2008; 337: a2128
  27. ^ Comparison of Common Rule, Declaration of Helsinki and GCP
  28. ^ Lurie P, Greco DB. US exceptionalism comes to research ethics. Lancet. 2005 Mar 26-Apr 1;365(9465):1117-9.
  29. ^ DHHS FDA 21 CFR part 312 Human Subject Protection: Foreign clinical studies not conducted under an investigational new drug application. Final Rule April 28 2008, effective October 27 2008
  30. ^ Obasogie O. Goozner on the FDA and the Declaration of Helsinki. Biopolitical Times. Center for Genetics and Society May 15th 2008
  31. ^ FDA abandons Declaration of Helsinki for international clinical trials. Social Medicine Portal June 1st 2008
  32. ^ Rennie S. The FDA ditches the Declaration of Helsinki. Global Bioethics Blog May 6 2008.
  33. ^ Shah S. FDA Puts Medical Test Subjects in Danger. The Nation May 19, 2008
  34. ^ Editorial: Trials on trial: The Food and Drug Administration should rethink its rejection of the Declaration of Helsinki. Nature. 2008 May 22;453(7194):427-8.
  35. ^ FDA scraps Helsinki Declaration on protecting human subjects. Integrity in Science May 5 2008
  36. ^ The FDA decision to shelve the Helsinki Declaration: Ethical considerations. Silvia Camporesi ecancermedicalscience, 10 June 2008

Training

  • U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) - Protecting Human Subject Research Participants

Bibliography

Articles

1964-1989

  • Riis P. Planning of scientific-ethical committees. BMJ 1977 2: 173-4

1990-1999

1993

  • Levine RJ. New international ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects. Ann Intern Med. 1993 Aug 15;119(4):339-41.

1994

  • Connor EM, Sperling RS, Gelber R et al. Reduction of maternal-infant transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 with zidovudine treatment. Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 076 Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1994 Nov 3;331(18):1173-80
  • Rothman KJ, Michels KB. The continuing unethical use of placebo controls. N Engl J Med. 1994 Aug 11;331(6):394-8. (password required)

1995

  • Elander G, Hermerén G. Placebo effect and randomized clinical trials. Theoretical Medicine 1995 16: 171-182 (password required)

1996

  • Freedman B, Weijer C, Glass KC. Placebo orthodoxy in clinical research. I: Empirical and methodological myths. J Law Med Ethics. 1996 Fall;24(3):243-51.; II: Ethical, legal, and regulatory myths. J Law Med Ethics. 1996 Fall;24(3):252-9.

1997

  • Lurie P, Wolfe SM. Unethical Trials of Interventions to Reduce Perinatal Transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Developing Countries. N Engl J Med. 1997 Sep 18;337(12):853-6 (password required)

1998

  • Studdert DM, Brennan TA. Clinical trials in developing countries: scientific and ethical issues. MJA 1998; 169: 545-548
  • McNeill PM. Should research ethics change at the border? MJA 1998; 169: 509-510

1999

  • Levine RJ. The need to revise the Declaration of Helsinki. N Engl J Med. 1999 Aug 12;341(7):531-4 (password required)
  • Brennan, TA. Proposed Revisions to the Declaration of Helsinki — Will They Weaken the Ethical Principles Underlying Human Research? N Engl J Med. 1999 Dec 9;341(24):1852-3 (password required)

2000-2008

2000

Prior to fifth revision

  • Levine RJ. Some recent developments in the international guidelines on the ethics of research involving human subjects. Ann NY Acad Sci 2000 918: 170-7
  • Temple R, Ellenberg SS. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Ann Intern Med 2000 I. Ethical and scientific issues 133: 456-64; II. Practical issues and specific cases 133: 464-70
  • Zion D, Gillam L, Loff B. The Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS and the ethics of research on vulnerable populations. Nature Medicine 2000 6(6): 615 - 617 (password required)
  • Loff B, Black J. The declaration of Helsinki and research in vulnerable populations. Medical Journal of Australia 2000 March 20 172: 292-295
  • Stockhausen K. Editorial. The Declaration of Helsinki : Revising ethical research guidelines for the 21st century. Medical Journal of Australia 2000 March 20 172: 252-3
  • Loff B. Violence in research. Lancet 2000 355(9217) May 20 1806 (password required)
  • Rothman KJ, Michels K, Baum M. For and Against: Declaration of Helsinki should be strengthened. BMJ August 12 2000

Following fifth revision

  • Vastag B. Helsinki Discord? A Controversial Declaration. JAMA 2000 Dec 20 284:2983-2985 (password required)
  • Riis P. Perspectives on the fifth revision of the Declaration of Helsinki. JAMA 2000 Dec 20 284(23): 3045-6

2001

  • Human D, Fluss S. The World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki: Historical and contemporary perspectives. 5th draft. WMA 2001

(References)

  • Bošnjak S. The Declaration of Helsinki - the cornerstone of research ethics. Arch Oncol 2001 9(3): 179-84
  • Schuklenk U. Helsinki Declaration revisions. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics. Jan-Mar 2001 9(1)
  • Singer P, Benatar S. Beyond Helsinki: a vision for global health ethics. BMJ 2001 March 31 322:747-748
  • Benatar SR. Distributive justice and clinical trials in the third world. Theoretical Medicine 2001 22: 169-76
  • Macklin R. After Helsinki: Unresolved issues in international research. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2001 11(1): 17-36 (password required)
  • Emmanuel EJ, Miller FG. The ethics of placebo-controlled trials - a middle ground. NEJM 2001 345 Sept 20 345: 915-9
  • Huston P, Peterson R. Withholding proven treatment in clinical research. NEJM 2001 Sept 20 345: 912-4

2002

  • Lewis JA, Jonsson B, Kreutz G, Sampaio C, van Zwieten-Boot B. Placebo-controlled trials and the Declaration of Helsinki. Lancet. 2002 Apr 13;359(9314):1337-40.

2003

  • Editorial. Dismantling the Helsinki declaration. CMAJ 2003 November 11 169(10):997
  • News: WMA postpones decision to amend Declaration of Helsinki. Lancet 2003 362 Sept 20 963 (requires registration)
  • Macklin R. Bioethics, vulnerability, and protection. Bioethics 2003 17(5-6): 472-86 (password required)
  • Tyebkhan G. The Declaration of Helsinki: The ethical cornerstone of human clinical research. Indian Journal of Dermatology 2003 69(3): 245
  • Zion D. Justice as equitable power relations: beyond the “standard of care” debate and the Declaration of Helsinki. Am J Bioeth. 2003 Spring;3(2):W12

2004

  • Lie RK, Emanuel E, Grady C, Wendler D. The standard of care debate: the Declaration of Helsinki versus the international consensus opinion. J Med Ethics 2004 30:190-193 (password required)
  • Schüklenk U. The standard of care debate: against the myth of an”international consensus opinion” J Med Ethics 2004 30:194-197 (password required)
  • Carlson RV, Boyd KM, Webb DJ. The revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: past, present and future. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004 Jun;57(6):695-713.
  • De Roy PG. Helsinki and the Declaration of Helsinki; Benatar SR. Linking moral progress to medical progress. World Medical Journal 2004 50(1): 9-11, 11-13
  • Williams R. The promise and limits of international bioethics: Lessons from the recent revision of the Declaration of Helsinki. Int J Bioethics 2004 15(1): 31-42

2005

  • Blackmer J, Haddad H. The Declaration of Helsinki: an update on paragraph 30. CMAJ. 2005 Oct 25;173(9):1052-3.

2006

  • Williams JR. The Physician’s Role in the Protection of Human Research Subjects. Science and Engineering Ethics 2006; 12: 5-12
  • Wolinsky H. The Battle of Helsinki. Nature (EMBO) 7, 7, 670–672 (2006)

2007

  • Carlson RV, van Ginneken NH, Pettigrew LM, Davies A, Boyd KM, Webb DJ. The three official language versions of the Declaration of Helsinki: what’s lost in translation? J Med Ethics 2007; 33: 545-548
  • S Frewer A, Schmidt U, eds. History and theory of human experimentation: the Declaration of Helsinki and modern medical ethics. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2007.
  • Editorial: The Declaration of Helsinki. BMJ 29 September 2007

WMA

  • WMA Press Release: WMA revises the Declaration of Helsinki. 9 October 2000
  • WMA Press Release: WMA to continue discussion on Declaration of Helsinki. 14 September 2003
  • International response to Helsinki VI (2000). WMA 2001

Related topics

  • Informed consent
  • Medical ethics
  • Clinical trial

Other codes and regulations

  • Nuremberg Code
  • Declaration of Geneva
  • Belmont Report
  • CIOMS
  • Good clinical practice (GCP)
  • International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use
  • Code of Federal Regulations

Not Losing Weight

Mendocino County, California

January 4th, 2009

Mendocino County, California
Seal of Mendocino County, California
Map
Map of California highlighting Mendocino County
Location in the state of California
Map of the U.S. highlighting California
California’s location in the U.S.
Statistics
Founded 1850
Seat Ukiah
Largest city Ukiah
Area
 - Total
 - Land
 - Water
3,878 sq mi (10,044 km²)
3,509 sq mi (9,088 km²)
369 sq mi (956 km²), 9.52%
Population
 - (2000)
 - Density
86,265
23/sq mi (9/km²)
Website: www.co.mendocino.ca.us

Mendocino County is a county located on the north coast of the U.S. state of California, north of the greater San Francisco Bay Area and west of the Central Valley. As of 2000, the population was 86,265. The county seat is Ukiah.

The county is noted for its distinctive Pacific Ocean coastline, Redwood forests, wine production and liberal views on marijuana.

The notable historic and recreational attraction of the “Skunk Train” connects Fort Bragg with Willits in Mendocino County via steam-locomotive trains and other vehicles.

Contents

  • 1 History
  • 2 Geography
    • 2.1 Cities and towns
    • 2.2 Adjacent counties
  • 3 Transportation infrastructure
    • 3.1 Major highways
    • 3.2 Public transportation
    • 3.3 Airports
  • 4 Demographics
  • 5 Government
  • 6 Politics
  • 7 Rivers
  • 8 Beaches
  • 9 Parks, reserves and related places
  • 10 Education
  • 11 References
  • 12 External links

History

Mendocino County was one of the original counties of California, created in 1850 at the time of statehood. Due to an initially low population, it did not have a separate government until 1859 and was under the administration of Sonoma County prior to that. The county contains several of the original Spanish land grants of Alta California including the Sanel Rancho in Hopland, and the Yokayo Rancho that forms the majority of the Ukiah Valley.

The county derives its name from Cape Mendocino, which was probably named in honor of either Antonio de Mendoza, Viceroy of New Spain, 1535–1542 (who sent the Juan Cabrillo Expedition to this coast in 1542), or Lorenzo Suárez de Mendoza, Viceroy from 1580 to 1583. Mendocino is the adjectival form of the family name of Mendoza.

In the 19th century, the county witnessed many of the most serious atrocities in the extermination of the Californian Native American tribes who originally lived in the area, like the Yuki, the Pomo and the Wintun. The systematic occupation of their lands, the reduction of many of their members into slavery and the raids against their settlements led to the Mendocino War in 1859, where hundreds of Indians were killed. The segregation continued well into the 20th century; and today the local Native Americans are fighting for land rights, to obtain gaming operations and against widespread poverty.

Geography

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 3,878 square miles (10,044 km²), of which, 3,509 square miles (9,088 km²) of it is land and 369 square miles (956 km²) of it (9.52%) is water.

Cities and towns

  • Albion
  • Anchor Bay
  • Boonville
  • Branscomb
  • Calpella
  • Caspar
  • Cleone
  • Comptche
  • Covelo
  • Dos Rios
  • Elk
  • Fort Bragg
  • Gualala
  • Hopland
  • Inglenook
  • Laytonville