Secretly taken photographs of livestock production systems, representing animal welfare violations, regularly appear in the media and initiate discussions as to the legitimacy of overriding legal regulations in order to document animal welfare standards. This paper focuses on the public perspective and compares different forms of undercover investigation, weighing animal welfare against the invasion of farmers’ privacy. For this purpose, an exploratory online survey was conducted in Germany (n = 292). Participants were carefully selected to ensure that age range, education level and sex reflected the distribution of the society as a whole. In a split-sample survey, each participant was confronted with three scenarios. The scenarios were mapped using pictures showing various levels of farm conditions combined with small information segments describing the invasion of farmers’ privacy. Participants evaluated the scenarios for their perceived legitimacy and whether entering the premises should be punished. All forms of undercover investigation were perceived as legitimate by most respondents. Perceived legitimacy was considerably higher when obvious animal abuse was uncovered. Apart from where damage to property was involved, which was mostly considered as unacceptable, harsher punishment for animal welfare organisations generally obtained little social approval. The public's increasing awareness of farm animal welfare overruled social norms regarding farmers’ privacy, and thereby demonstrated the importance of animal welfare in society. Approval of undercover investigations indicated that changes in housing and handling conditions as well as improvement in control mechanisms are necessary to increase animal welfare and thus public acceptance of livestock production.

The actuary has played a role in regulation in the United Kingdom since 1819. More recently, in 1974, the Appointed Actuary system was introduced for life insurance companies, backed by strong professional guidance. Derivatives of the Appointed Actuary concept have been implemented in a number of other countries. Meanwhile, in the UK, defined benefit occupational pension schemes are now required to appoint a Scheme Actuary, who has a statutory whistle-blowing role under the Pensions Act 1995. A number of statutory roles for pension actuaries were in place prior to this. In general insurance, Lloyd's syndicates are now required to obtain an actuarial opinion on the end of year provisions, as part of the Lloyd's market regulatory structure, and friendly societies must obtain an actuarial opinion on their technical provisions once every three years. This paper reviews some of the different regulatory roles of the actuary in the UK, draws some comparisons with the situation in other countries, considers the strengths and weaknesses of the present situation and invites debate and discussion on the way forward in order to optimise the contribution which the profession can make to the public interest in the field of regulation.

Presidential Addresses are an opportunity to survey the actuarial landscape, and this one is no exception. The pace of change and scope of work undertaken by actuaries since the President qualified is commented upon. Many of the current and future issues are also aired, from bonus rates and pensions mis-selling to stakeholder pensions and long-term care. Regulation, in a number of areas, is also reviewed. The regular topics of education, examinations and continuous professional development also feature.

The behavioral sciences have come under attack for writings and speech that affront sensitivities. At such times, academic freedom and tenure are invoked to forestall efforts to censure and terminate jobs. We review the history and controversy surrounding academic freedom and tenure, and explore their meaning across different fields, at different institutions, and at different ranks. In a multifactoral experimental survey, 1,004 randomly selected faculty members from top-ranked institutions were asked how colleagues would typically respond when confronted with dilemmas concerning teaching, research, and wrong-doing. Full professors were perceived as being more likely to insist on having the academic freedom to teach unpopular courses, research controversial topics, and whistle-blow wrong-doing than were lower-ranked professors (even associate professors with tenure). Everyone thought that others were more likely to exercise academic freedom than they themselves were, and that promotion to full professor was a better predictor of who would exercise academic freedom than was the awarding of tenure. Few differences emerged related either to gender or type of institution, and behavioral scientists' beliefs were similar to scholars from other fields. In addition, no support was found for glib celebrations of tenure's sanctification of broadly defined academic freedoms. These findings challenge the assumption that tenure can be justified on the basis of fostering academic freedom, suggesting the need for a re-examination of the philosophical foundation and practical implications of tenure in today's academy.