instruction:
Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
question:
But one theory about the epic undertaking reserves a special place for a nearby river, now known as the Frome, that may have served as a conduit for ferrying some of the smaller megaliths toward the site on rafts. Today, the placid waterway is once again playing a supporting role in a grand vision, albeit one its architects want to etch in the statute books, not in stone. Frome, a market town in the county of Somerset, is petitioning the British government to grant the River Frome “legal personhood” – in effect, giving it human rights. In throwing down this gauntlet, the town has joined a global “rights of nature” movement linking river basins in New Zealand to rainforests in South America and towns in the U.S. Midwest. In each case, communities are reimagining ways to harness the law to defend the Earth’s living tissues, and the places they call home. Some have dubbed it Mother Earth’s MeToo moment. In practical terms, supporters hope that granting the Frome rights will give lawyers a new avenue to seek redress whenever its waters are sullied by runoff from pig and dairy farms or overflowing sewers. Last month, one of the River Frome’s tributaries turned an unnatural shade of neon blue – highlighting wider concerns over water quality in British rivers. But Peter Macfadyen, an undertaker who redrew Frome’s political map by leading a band of independent candidates to take over the town council, wants to do more than protect one river. In an era of accelerating climate change, Macfadyen and his allies see their quest as part of a struggle to reset the balance between nature and the modern world. “This is much bigger than just wanting to punish people for doing something wrong,” said Macfadyen, who also served as Frome’s mayor. “It’s about trying to change a mindset about the environment in which we live.”   Supporters of the nature’s rights movement see Frome as the first test case for the concept in Europe. Nevertheless, the town has been waiting for months for the government to respond. And just as critics have questioned the effectiveness of campaigns in other countries, some in Frome have their doubts. Neil Howlett, a lawyer who lives by the river in Frome, says he backs many of the community-building steps taken by Macfadyen and other independent local politicians. But he sees the council’s vision for a “river’s rights” bylaw as a distraction. “Having a law which is completely outside the cultural basis of the society in which you pass the law doesn’t make for law that works,” Howlett said. “It’s lovely as an idea. But it’s only lovely as an idea.”   “PROGRAMMED FOR SELF-DESTRUCTION”   Although indigenous peoples have long shared the intuition that rivers, mountains and lakes are in some sense living, sentient beings, American legal scholar Christopher Stone framed the idea in contemporary legal terms. In his 1972 book, “Should Trees Have Standing?”, Stone argued that voiceless natural features would be best protected by granting them the kinds of legal protections and access to courts usually reserved for two-legged plaintiffs. The argument was a novel twist on the long-established principle in the United States that companies can enjoy “legal personality” to distinguish their legal obligations from those of their directors and shareholders. The idea is starting to spread. Campaigners won what is hailed as the first “rights of nature” courtroom victory in Ecuador in 2011 when judges stopped a road-widening project from dumping gravel in the Vilcabamba River. Around the same time, Bolivia enshrined a far-reaching vision of nature’s rights in a statute known as “The Law of the Rights of Mother Earth.”  In 2017, New Zealand’s parliament became the first legislature to acknowledge a river’s legal personhood when it passed a bill recognising the rights of the Whanganui River as an “indivisible and living whole.”  That same year, a high court in India declared the Ganga and Yamuna rivers legal entities – along with two Himalayan glaciers and their meadows, waterfalls and forests. Colombia’s constitutional court made a similar move for the Atrato River basin, where riparian communities face illegal gold mining and paramilitary violence. This summer, Bangladesh recognised the rights of all its rivers. Although legal systems in many developing countries were implanted during colonial times, nature’s rights campaigns in Europe and North America represents a role reversal in which “eco-cratic” indigenous worldviews are enjoying a revival. Advocates see this new “Earth jurisprudence” as a skeleton key to unlock a shift away from the endless pursuit of economic growth, regardless of the ecological consequences. “The current system is programmed for self-destruction, and the legal system is the enabler,” said Mumta Ito, a lawyer and founder of Nature’s Rights, a Scotland-based advocacy group, which is advising Frome town council. “The only way we’ll be able to change things is by creating a new operating system with nature’s rights at its core.”  Although the quest to win legal personhood for the River Frome was started barely a year ago, the roots of the campaign stretch back to a meeting at the Griffin pub in Frome one evening in 2011. Fed up with party divisions hobbling the town council, Macfadyen and a group of like-minded collaborators resolved to stand as independents at the next elections. Nestling in a shallow bowl of hills and noted for picturesque cobbled lanes, Frome has long been a magnet for free thinkers. But in a town of almost 27,000 people, the mavericks had never attempted a takeover. Surprising even themselves, the Independents for Frome movement won 10 seats on the 17-seat council with their model of a new participatory form of decision-making. In 2015, the Independents swept all 17 seats, prompting the Frome Times to dub the town “The People’s Republic of Frome.” In elections this May, independents won almost 80% of the vote. On a recent afternoon, Macfadyen led Reuters on a tour of some council-backed projects grouped loosely along the river, whose green-brown waters curve gently through the town. Wildflowers, nettles and brambles had been deliberately allowed to run riot on its steep, shaded banks. Near the bridge in the town centre, Frome’s “share shop” allows people to rent items such as power tools, musical instruments or camping gear at low rates. Nearby, a community fridge means nobody’s excess fresh vegetables need go to waste. The town council also backed a new renewable energy cooperative, which raised £300,000 from locals to put solar panels on buildings such as the health centre and football club. Macfadyen laid out step-by step instructions for running a town council in his book “Flatpack Democracy” – a play on the idea that thriving localism could be replicated at scale like  self-assembly furniture. Inspired by Frome’s example, independents have taken over more than 20 other town councils and have strong representation on another 20, Macfadyen says. Jamie Kelsey Fry, a contributing editor at the New Internationalist magazine, co-founded a similar initiative in the neighbouring county of Devon. He sees the campaigns as part of a “new municipalism” movement reshaping politics in cities as diverse as Barcelona in Spain, Jackson in Mississippi and Valparaiso in Chile – their organisers often driven at least in part by concerns over climate change. “These groups are going to become exceptionally valuable, because as society functioning in its normal, business-as-usual way begins to collapse, we’re going to have to be in a position to look after ourselves,” Kelsey Fry said. Although the rights of nature movement is growing fast, turning its aspirations into effective restraints on commercial interests remains a challenge. In the United States, the city of Toledo, Ohio, voted in February to amend its charter to state that the giant Lake Erie, plagued by toxic algae blooms, had a right to “exist, flourish, and naturally evolve.” This summer, state lawmakers quashed the move, saying nature did not have appropriate standing. In the case of Frome, legal practitioners would be astonished if the government approves the town’s draft bylaw, partly because there are already laws protecting the river. For example, in 2017, a court in the nearby city of Bath fined a Somerset farmer £22,000 for allowing slurry to spill into the water. The contamination had turned the River Frome brown and foul-smelling and killed at least 1,700 fish. Frome town council said the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government informed it last week that a decision on its application was still pending. The ministry did not respond to a request for comment. With the world’s water bodies facing growing pressure from the extremes of heat, drought and rainfall driven by climate change, Macfadyen argues that any initiative that helps people to look at nature with fresh eyes is worthwhile. “We’re in the situation we’re in because we’ve misunderstood our position in the ecosystem,” Macfadyen said. “And unfortunately, we were wrong. We can’t do what we like. If we pour poison over everything, it comes back to bite us.”
answer:
Mother Earth's MeToo moment: English town joins campaign for 'nature's rights'.


question:
"The article doesn't mention costs of angioplasty or costs of medications, which presumably must be taken for the rest of one's life. The article does mention that angioplasty is expensive, but does not provide real numbers or comparisons. The story provides absolute numbers of the primary endpoint over a 4-year period — ""17 percent of those given angioplasty and drugs and nearly 16 percent of those given drugs alone had either died, suffered another heart attack or developed heart failure — results considered to be statistically the same."" The story states that there was a worrisome trend toward more heart attacks in people who received late angioplasty compared to those who received just medications, although the story also tells readers that this could have been a statistical fluke or due to chance. However, other harms of the procedure were not discussed, including risks of the procedure itself, including bleeding, infection, or emotional distress/anxiety. The article also does not discuss risks of the alternative, e.g. medications, which have side effects, costs, or inconvenience. But, the story does discuss the main harm found in the study, e.g. a trend toward increased heart attacks. The research is important because it is a randomized controlled trial and the first such trial to be conducted for the clinical situation of late angioplasty in people with few to no symptoms after their heart attack. The story tells readers that enrollment of patients was delayed because ""doctors were unwilling to risk randomly assigning patients to drug treatment alone,"" indirectly stating that the study was a randomized trial. While an astute reader could probably pick up that this was a randomized trial, this fact could have been clearer. In addition, there is little context around this being the first randomized trial for this clinical situation (as opposed to retrospective observational studies), although the story does tell readers that the results were surprising and that they could change guidelines. The story appropriately describes a heart attack, and more importantly, reinforces that early opening of the artery to restore blood flow to the heart after heart attack is still beneficial and that these results don't apply to that population or indeed the majority of people receiving angioplasties. No obvious disease mongering. The article provides an independent source of information from the chairman of the American Heart Association program committee that reviewed the research. The story also provides information from the director of the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but tells readers that this organization largely funded the research, therefore disclosing potential conflicts of interest. The story tells readers that the alternative that was tested in the latest research was medications, including those to lower blood pressure and cholesterol, aspirin, and anti-clotting drugs. The story could have mentioned beta-blockers specifically, since the protective effect of drug treatment may come from this family of drugs, although this is not yet proven. And the story could have been clearer about the course of treatment, e.g. that these medications are generally taken for the rest of one's life. The story tells readers that the usual treatment for people suffering a heart attack is angioplasty, even for a subset of people who weren't treated right away (the study population)/  The article also tells readers that the tendency to perform angioplasty electively (3 to 28 days after the event) was so strong, that recruitment to the study was prolonged in order to find enough patients (and their doctors) willing to participate in the study. It's widely understood that angioplasty and standard drug therapy after heart attack are not new. The article provides independent sources of information not included in the press release."
answer:
Study says late angioplasty futile


question:
While the story looks at genetic tests for prescribing psychiatric drugs broadly, it also uses one test in particular as a focal point. The story notes that this test, called GeneSight, cost one patient $3,800. The story also notes that GeneSight is covered by Medicare. Those are great points to make in a story like this one. However, since the story also notes that there are a lot of other, similar tests on the market, it would have been good to tell readers a little bit more about cost. Is $3,800 about average for testing costs? Is there a range that these tests fall into? Do other insurers pay for GeneSight? The story would have been stronger if it had touched on these issues. We would have liked to see more detail about the company-funded studies mentioned, especially sample size and the odds ratios or degree of benefit. It is easy and tempting to discredit studies because they are company-funded, but this does not necessarily mean they are wrong — simply that we should proceed with caution in interpreting them. And it’s true that in many cases, the company is the only group interested in investing the time/money to do the necessary research. With that being said, the story does note that “Finding a test to more precisely target treatment could help troubled people find help more quickly, cut down on side effects, and save money.” And, when discussing GeneSight in particular, the story points to “company-funded studies showing that when [patients with depression] took the medications recommended by the test, they had fewer symptoms after eight weeks compared with patients who did not use the test.” We’ll award a Satisfactory and leave the suggestions for next time. This area could have been stronger. The story begins with an anecdote about a patient who was prescribed a drug based in part on the results of a genetic test. That patient became suicidal within three weeks and checked himself into a mental hospital. That sort of story tells readers very little about risks associated with these genetic tests, precisely because it is anecdotal — and there was very little else in the story about potential harms. For example, the story quotes one researcher as saying that claims about such genetic tests are “not harmless and may be quite dangerous.” But the story doesn’t tell us what that means. Why aren’t these claims harmless? Why may they be dangerous? We suspect that the biggest harm here is in the high cost of the test. But what if the test is wrong? It might also cause delays in finding the “right” drug for patients — especially if the genetic test takes time to run and if doctors weigh the test results over clinical judgment or other factors, leading to poorer decisions. The focus of the story is on quality of evidence. It emphasizes the lack of independently-funded studies that have evaluated the efficacy of these genetic tests. Based on a review by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, “virtually all the evidence that these psychiatric tests work is based on limited studies funded by the companies themselves or researchers they fund, including all five studies used to promote GeneSight on the company’s website.” It would have been good to put some numbers there — “virtually all the evidence” is a somewhat vague description — but we think it does address the Quality of Evidence question in a meaningful way. Worth noting: an annotated version of this story that appeared on the New England Center for Investigative Reporting’s site includes links to supporting information that is of interest. It would have been good if the version of the story that appeared in the Globe had let readers know that the annotated version (and supporting documents) were available. No disease mongering here. A very strong point for the story. It quotes multiple industry and expert sources, with industry sources clearly identified. The story looks at the field of genetic testing to identify psychiatric drugs most likely to be effective to treat specific mental conditions in a given patient. The alternative to using such testing is for psychiatrists to prescribe drugs based on their diagnosis, which is often determined by symptoms. The story doesn’t state this explicitly, and that would have been useful. But the story does note that psychiatry does have “a lack of definitive tests for conditions and treatments alike,” and that doctors often take a “trial-and-error approach to medications.” We think the story did enough here to earn a Satisfactory rating. The story makes clear that many of these tests are currently available. The story notes that “Genetic tests to identify the most effective psychiatric drugs are the hot new technology in the race to create personalized treatments based on people’s DNA” and that “[m]ore than 600,000 of these tests have likely been administered in the last three years.” While it may have been nice to mention that genetic testing is done in some other fields (eg. to determine breast cancer risk) to provide context, the story does enough to earn a Satisfactory rating. This work doesn’t appear to be based on a news release at all — and even if it were, it clearly goes far beyond anything a news release might include.
answer:

Genetic tests for psychiatric drugs spur hope, doubts