Sharon E. O'HAra

Introduction We investigated whether greater concentrations of on- and off-sale alcohol outlets were associated with crime and whether this association was moderated by COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders (SIP) that restricted on-premises consumption of alcohol.Methods Crimes (2019-2020) and addresses of licenced alcohol outlets in a medium-sized California city were geocoded within census block groups (N = 61). On- and off-sale alcohol outlet density was calculated as licenced outlets/2.59 km(2) (1 square mile). Multilevel negative binomial regression analyses were conducted to examine associations between alcohol outlet density and crime, and possible moderating effects of SIP, controlling for block group demographic characteristics and density of other retail businesses.Results On-sale outlet density was positively associated with total crimes and Part 2 crimes, while off-sale outlet density was inversely associated with total crime and Part 2 crimes. Overall, SIP was not significantly associated with crime, but moderated the associations of on-sale density with total crime and Part 1 crimes such that reductions in crime during SIP were observed in higher density areas. The association of off-sale outlets with crime was not moderated by SIP policies.Discussion and Conclusion On-sale outlet density, but not off-sale density, appears to be associated with increased crime. The results further indicate that restrictions in hours and service imposed by SIP policies reduced crime in high on-sale outlet density areas. These findings reinforce the importance of regulating alcohol outlet density and hours of service, especially for on-sale outlets, as a crime reduction strategy.

Issues: Policy enforcement is crucial to achieve impacts on alcohol‐related harm. It is not clear what level of enforcement intensity or ‘dosage’ is necessary for addressing drink driving and related harms. Given competing enforcement demands and agencies' resource constraints, understanding how much enforcement is sufficient to deter drink driving is critical.Approach: This systematic literature review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis Protocols (PRISMA) guidelines to examine research about dosage effects of enforcement and related visibility on drink‐driving outcomes, including motor vehicle crashes and fatalities. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Effective Practice and Organization of Care tool and the JBI checklist.Key Findings: The 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review differed in measures of enforcement dosage and outcomes, making it difficult to synthesise results across studies and draw conclusions about a threshold or optimal level of enforcement. Although most included studies found that sustained enforcement was associated with reductions in drink driving or related harms, only two studies tested an optimal dosage. Due to study design limitations, a substantial percentage of these studies must be considered with caution.Implications: Additional research with rigorous study designs with appropriate controls is needed to determine an optimal high visibility enforcement dosage level to help law enforcement agencies make realistic decisions about allocating enforcement resources to address drink driving.Conclusion: Consistent evidence about a drink‐driving enforcement dosage threshold is lacking, partly due to an insufficient number of well‐designed studies. Addressing challenges of conducting rigorous studies in community settings is crucial.

Genome editing has opened up the possibility of heritable alteration of the human germline. The potential of this powerful tool has spurred a call for establishing robust regulatory frameworks to outline permissible uses of genome editing and to map a rational and ethical course. In response, major national scientific bodies and international organizations have convened and released comprehensive reports outlining recommendations for ethical regulatory frameworks. Significantly, these include an emphasis on public participation and the development of principles to guide future applications of genome editing. While essential, public input and principles are not sufficient to ensure ethical uses of this technology. We propose an approach that relies not only on agreed-upon principles and a democratic process but requires a Human Rights Impact Assessment to evaluate the potential burdens that such biomedical interventions may place on human rights.