Naloxone, which reverses the effects of opioids, was synthesized in 1960, though the hunt for opioid antagonists began a half-century earlier. The history of this quest reveals how cultural and medical attitudes toward opioids have been marked by a polarization of discourse that belies a keen ambivalence. From 1915 to 1960, researchers were stymied in seeking a “pure” antidote to opioids, discovering instead numerous opioid molecules of mixed or paradoxical properties. At the same time, the quest for a dominant explanatory and therapeutic model for addiction was likewise unsettled. After naloxone’s discovery, new dichotomizing language arose in the “War on Drugs,” in increasingly divergent views between addiction medicine and palliative care, and in public debates about layperson naloxone access. Naloxone, one of the emblematic drugs of our time, highlights the ambivalence latent in public and biomedical discussions of opioids as agents of risk and relief.

Conflict of interest (COI) is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced and compromised by a secondary interest. It might arise in clinical practice, research, and education, and might include individuals and institutions. Primary interests include the pursuit of well-being of patients, ensuring the independence of medical education, and protecting the objectivity and integrity of medical research. Secondary interests might involve financial interests, pursuit of recognition and professional career advancement. COI might result from the multiple roles of physicians in patient care, research, administration, provision of expert opinion and policy advice, and consultancy to commercial organizations. The purpose of the COI policy is to protect the interests of the patients, strengthen the integrity of the profession, and preserve public trust in medicine and psychiatry. The aim of the guidance is to eventually prevent these conflicts from arising rather than remediate them ex post. It is desirable to identify factors that might lead to their occurrence, offer a framework for their recognition and assessment, introduce the principles and standards of their disclosure, and provide recommendations for their transparent resolution.

In 1984, Hrubec and Robinette published what was arguably the first review of the role of twins in medical research. The authors acknowledged a growing distinction between two categories of twin studies: those aimed at assessing genetic contributions to disease and those aimed at assessing environmental contributions while controlling for genetic variation. They concluded with a brief section on recently founded twin registries that had begun to provide unprecedented access to twins for medical research. Here we offer an overview of the twin research that, in our estimation, best represents the field has progress since 1984. We start by summarizing what we know about twinning. We then focus on the value of twin study designs to differentiate between genetic and environmental influences on health and on emerging applications of twins in multiple areas of medical research. We finish by describing how twin registries and networks are accelerating twin research worldwide.

This paper outlines some of the ethical and practical dilemmas of securing true informed consent in resuscitation research in the prehospital or emergency department setting. Possible substitutes to such consent are discussed and evaluated. The Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement guidelines for emergency medicine research are compared to the US Food and Drug Administration rules, and the former are assessed and critiqued. Modifications to the current Tri-Council guidelines are suggested.