To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. Ever since generative artificial intelligence("AI") technologies have been adopted ona large scale by both businesses and private users in 2023,regulators appear to have increased the speed and intensity oftheir efforts to propose regulations targeted at the developmentand use of AI. Certainly, the public eye has never been morefocused on the topic than is the case currently. In this article, we provide a status update on these efforts,both in Canada and abroad. Clearly, there is profound andwidespread agreement that AI requires specific regulation, butthere is also significant divergence regarding how it should applyto, for example, foundational models (e.g. ChatGPT), what types ofsystems are "high impact," and whether certainapplications should be prohibited altogether. CANADA'S ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND DATA ACT
Canada's proposed Artificial Intelligence and DataAct ("AIDA") was introduced as partof the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022("Bill C-27"), to provide guardrails forthe responsible design, development, and deployment of AI systemsin Canada. Since its introduction, AIDA has been under significant scrutinyfor a number of reasons, notably that 1) it purports to regulate"high impact systems," without actually defining whatthose systems would encompass, 2) it was drafted without thenecessary public consultation, and 3) it does not cover uses of AIby government agencies or law enforcement. In recent meetings of the Standing Committee on Industry andTechnology (the"Committee")1, it was alsopointed out that the definition of "artificial intelligencesystem" in AIDA may not be perfectly aligned with definitionsin other jurisdictions and contexts. The below demonstrates thedifferent definitions of AI system in Canada and the EU:
Canada's AIDA: "Artificialintelligence system" means a technological system thatautonomously or partly autonomously, processes data related tohuman activities through the use of a genetic algorithm, a neuralnetwork, machine learning or another technique in order to generatecontent or make decisions, recommendations or predictions. EU AI Act: "Artificial intelligencesystem" (AI system) means software that is developed with oneor more techniques and approaches listed in Annex I and can, for agiven set of human-defined objectives, generate outputs such ascontent, predictions, recommendations or decisions influencing theenvironments they interact with. While the EU AI Act does not limit the definition in respect ofdegree of autonomy, AIDA only applies to technological systemswhich process data autonomously or partly autonomously. Due to the cross-border development and use of AI systems it isimportant that what is deemed "AI" in Canada isconsistent with the US and EU, in particular. It was also notedthat given that the regulation of AI spans broadly across manydisciplines and actors in the economy, there should be anindependent regulator of AI in Canada, as opposed to mere oversightby the Ministry. On October 3, 2023, the Minister of Innovation, Science andIndustry of Canada, François-Philippe Champagne wrote to theCommittee suggesting amendments to Bill C-27.2 Thesuggestions included the following amendments specificallypertaining to AIDA:
defining classes of systems that would be considered highimpact, including seven classes of systems in respect of mattersrelated to:
determinations in respect of employment;
determinations as to whether to provide an individual withservices, the cost for those services and the prioritization ofservices;
using biometric information in respect of identityauthentication or determinations of one's behaviour or state ofmind;
moderation of, or presentation of, content to individuals;
health care;
the exercise and performance of law enforcement powers, dutiesand functions. specifying distinct obligations for generative general-purposeAI systems, like ChatGPT, such that, before placing the system onthe market or putting into service: impact assessments would beconducted; measures to mitigate the risk of bias be put in place,which measures are to be tested to ensure effectiveness;plain-language descriptions of the capabilities and limitations ofthe system and risk and mitigation measures are prepared;compliance with regulations are to be ensured;
clearly differentiating roles and obligations for actors in theAI value chain including in relation to the high-impact classesoutlined above;
strengthening and clarifying the role of the proposed AI andData Commissioner; and
aligning with the EU AI Act as well as other advanced economiesby making changes to key definitions such as AI and enumeratingfurther responsibilities and accountability frameworks on personsdeveloping/marketing/managing large languagemodels.3
From these proposed amendments, it is clear that more changesare required before the AIDA is enacted. CANADA'S VOLUNTARY AI CODE OF CONDUCT
As we have previously reported, the Canadian governmentrecognized the need for some guidance and foundational principlesin the interim period between widespread use of generative AI andthe coming into force of AIDA. With that, the "VoluntaryCode of Conduct on the Responsible Development and Management ofAdvanced Generative AI Systems" (the "Codeof Conduct") was published.4
The Code of Conduct sets voluntary commitments that industrystakeholders can implement to demonstrate responsible developmentand management of generative AI systems. It outlines six core principles including:
Accountability: Organizations will implement aclear risk management framework proportionate to the scale andimpact of their activities. Safety: Organizations will perform impactassessments and take steps to mitigate risks to safety, includingaddressing malicious or inappropriate uses. Fairness and equity: Organizations will assessand test systems for biases throughout the lifecycle. Transparency: Organizations will publishinformation on systems and ensure that AI systems and AI-generatedcontent can be identified. Human oversight and monitoring: Organizationswill ensure that systems are monitored and that incidents arereported and acted on. Validity and robustness: Organizations willconduct testing to ensure that systems operate effectively and areappropriately secured against attacks.5
The Code of Conduct provides a temporary solution for thecurrent lack of legislation governing AI. It remains to be seen howthe Code of Conduct is perceived by key stakeholders and whether itreceives substantial adoption. UK'S AI SAFETY SUMMIT – "THE BLETCHLEYDECLARATION"
On November 1, 2023, a number of international governments,leading AI companies, civil society groups and AI researchers, metat the AI Safety Summit to consider the risks of AI and discuss howsuch risks could be mitigated by the international community. On the opening day of the summit, a declaration was signed by 28countries (including, Canada, China, the US and the UK) and the EU.The declaration, which is being referred to as the "BletchleyDeclaration," establishes collaboration between these nationsto take a common approach to AI and provides an agenda foraddressing AI risk which consists of two action items:
identifying AI safety risks of shared concern, building ashared scientific and evidence-based understanding of these risks,and sustaining that understanding as capabilities continue toincrease, in the context of a wider global approach tounderstanding the impact of AI in our societies; and
building respective risk-based policies across our countries toensure safety in light of such risks, collaborating as appropriatewhile recognising our approaches may differ based on nationalcircumstances and applicable legal frameworks. This includes,alongside increased transparency by private actors developingfrontier AI capabilities, appropriate evaluation metrics, tools forsafety testing, and developing relevant public sector capabilityand scientific research.6
The Bletchley Declaration shows a commitment to tackling AI asan international challenge at the outset and provides a promisingpath towards an internationally-harmonized approach to regulatingAI. EU AI ACT
In April 2021, the European Commission introduced the inauguralregulator framework for regulating AI in the form of the EU AI Act.The proposal entails the assessment and categorization of AIsystems applicable across various uses, based on the potentialrisks they present to users. The varying levels of risk willdetermine the extent of regulatory measures imposed. The EU AI Act would classify AI systems by risk and mandatevarious development and use requirements. Its focus is onstrengthening rules around data quality, transparency andaccountability. Initially, it appeared that the EU would be the firstjurisdiction to govern AI. However, in June of this year,amendments to the draft AI Act7 raised concerns. Inparticular, the June changes included a ban on the use of AI forbiometric surveillance, and, more controversially, for generativeAI systems (like ChatGPT) to disclose AI-generatedcontent.8 As a result, the EU's AI Act negotiationsare in a deadlock as large EU countries, including France, Germany,and Italy, seek to retract the proposed approach for regulatingfoundation models in AI.9 Foundation models, such asOpenAI's GPT-4, have become a focal point in the late stages ofthe legislative process. A tiered approach for regulating thesemodels, with stricter rules for more powerful ones, was initiallyconsidered but is now contested by some large European nations.Opposition is driven by concerns from companies like Mistral inFrance and Aleph Alpha in Germany, fearing potential disadvantagesagainst US and Chinese competitors.10
The next meeting is set for December 6, 2023 which is asignificant deadline given upcoming European elections.11 If a resolution is not reached, the entire AI Act ispotentially at risk. US EXECUTIVE ORDER
On October 30, 2023, the White House enacted an Executive Order("EO") focusing on the safe andresponsible use of AI in the United States.12 The EOmandates key executive departments develop standards, practices,and potential regulations within three to twelve months, coveringthe entire AI lifecycle. While immediate regulatory changes arelimited, the order urges federal regulators to utilize existingauthority to assess AI system security, prevent discrimination,address employment issues, counteract foreign threats, andalleviate talent shortages. The federal government has committedresources and authority to ensure the ethical use of AI in varioussectors, with anticipated developments in guidelines and rules overthe next year likely leading to significant new requirements. Building on voluntary commitments ushered in by the USgovernment in July,13 the EO moves the US closer tocomprehensive AI legislation. In particular, unlike prior effortsto govern AI, the EO creates tangible obligations for bothgovernmental bodies and technologies companies rather than simplyproviding general principles and guidelines. In particular, itrequires that developers of AI systems share safety test resultswith the government. Footnotes
1. Minutes of Proceedings dated November 7, 2023,Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/INDU/meeting-95/minutes . 2. Office of the Minister of Innovation Science andIndustry, letter from the Honourable Francois-Phillipe Champagne toMr. Joel Lightbound, online(pdf): https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/441/INDU/WebDoc/WD12600809/12600809/MinisterOfInnovationScienceAndIndustry-2023-10-03-e.pdf
3. Ibid. 4. Government of Canada, "Minister Champagnelaunches voluntary code of conduct relating to advanced generativeAI systems," News Release (September 27, 2023) online: https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2023/09/minister-champagne-launches-voluntary-code-of-conduct-relating-to-advanced-generative-ai-systems.html
5. Ibid. 6. UK Government, "Policy Paper: The BletchleyDeclaration by Countries Attending the AI Safety Summit, 1-2November 2023," November 1, 2023, online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-safety-summit-2023-the-bletchley-declaration/the-bletchley-declaration-by-countries-attending-the-ai-safety-summit-1-2-november-2023
7. European Parliament, Amendments adopted by theEuropean Parliament on 14 June 2023 on the proposal for aregulation of the European Parliament , June 14, 2023 online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0236_EN.html ;see also: European Parliament, "EU AI Act: first regulation onartificial intelligence," News Release (June 14, 2023) online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence#
8. European Parliament, "EU AI Act: first regulationon artificial intelligence," News Release (June 14, 2023)online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence#
9. See Open Letter to the Representatives of the EuropeanCommission, the European Council and the European Parliament,online (pdf): https://www.igizmo.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Open-Letter-EU-AI-Act-and-Signatories.pdf
10. Luca Bertuzzi, "EU's AI Act negotiations hitthe brakes over foundation models" Eurative, November10, 2023, online: https://www.euractiv.com/section/artificial-intelligence/news/eus-ai-act-negotiations-hit-the-brakes-over-foundation-models/
11. Jillian Deutsch, "The EU's AI ActNegotiations Are Under Severe Strain," Bloomberg,November 16, 2023, online: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-11-16/eu-ai-act-under-strain-as-chatgpt-could-be-exempt
12. The White House, "Executive Order on the Safe,Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of ArtificialIntelligence" News Release (October 30, 2023) online: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/
13. The White House, "FACT SHEET:Biden-⁠Harris Administration Secures Voluntary Commitmentsfrom Leading Artificial Intelligence Companies to Manage the RisksPosed by AI" News Release (July 21, 2023) online: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/07/21/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-secures-voluntary-commitments-from-leading-artificial-intelligence-companies-to-manage-the-risks-posed-by-ai/
The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances. AUTHOR(S)

Worldwide: Current Status Of AI Policy Developments In Canada And Abroad - Miller Thomson LLP

a parent or guardian of a minor referred to in the Will orentitled on intestacy. Will drafters and those who hold original (or copy wills) willneed to be aware of these provisions, as they should expect thatrequests will made under that section regularly. Remedy if executor or administrator fails to performduties
New section 98 of the Act is in some ways a codification ofcauses of action and remedies available at common law, but createsa clear statutory pathway for aggrieved beneficiaries to issueproceedings against an executor if they believe that the executorhas failed to perform any duties or comply with any undertaking ordirection of the Court. This is given context by new section 81,which sets out (in very general terms) the duties of anexecutor. The Court may make any or all of the following orders:
requiring the executor/administrator to pay into the estatean amount equivalent to any financial benefit theexecutor/administrator as obtained (directly or directly) by theirfailure;
requiring the executor/administrator to compensate anyperson who has suffered loss or damage; or
any other order appropriate to compensate persons who havesuffered loss or damage as a result of the failure of theexecutor/administrator. An application must be made within 3 years from the time theaggrieved person becomes aware of the failure. This timeframe hasthe potential to cause issues for executors, as foreseeably thetime that the aggrieved person becomes aware of the failure couldbe after the time the executor has finally distributed theestate. The executor would then be unable to rely on recourse toestate assets to defend the claim. Distribution of intestate estates according to Courtapproved agreements
Section 111 introduces an entirely new concept, which allows theCourt to approve an agreement for the distribution or"re-distribution" of an intestate estate (or part ofone), in a manner other than to those family members or relativesspecified by Division 3 of the Act. Previously, this result could only be achieved either bycontractual agreement, or by an order made under theInheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 (SA). The problemwith the former was enforceability (requiring a separate set ofproceedings) and stamp duty implications in transferring dutiableproperty. The latter required potentially expensive and unnecessaryproceedings (if all parties were in agreement). Section 111 hassought to remove some of those obstacles by creating a newprocess. Procedurally, the section requires:
the application to be made by the administrator of theintestate estate;
all persons who are entitled to share in the distribution ofthe intestate estate (or part of the intestate estate) must beparties to the agreement, and have notice of the application;
the Court to be satisfied that the terms of the agreement are,in all the circumstances, "just". Satisfying the Court of those matters will no doubt require thatall interested persons who are not sui juris areseparately represented, and that the agreement is recommended asbeing in their interests. It is also noteworthy that an agreement can provide for thedistribution of an intestate to persons who are not blood relativesof the intestate (step children for example). There are similar legislative provisions in New South Wales andthe Northern Territory, but they are much more narrow inapplication in that they only apply to the estates of indigenouspersons.1 The few cases in the area suggest there aredifficulties in applying those provisions in practice. Family Provision
A. The testator's intention is now the "primaryconsideration" for the Court
Section 116(2) of the Act provides that when determining whetherto make a family provision order, 'the wishes of thedeceased person is the primary consideration of theCourt'. This is a significant change from theInheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 (SA), which simplygranted the Court a broad discretion to make a family provisionorder and did not provide any specific criteria.2 Otherjurisdictions such as New South Wales and Victoria have enactedlegislation which sets out in some detail the matters to which theCourt may have (and in some cases, must have) regard to whenconsidering a family provision claim. However, framing the wishesof the deceased person as a "primary" consideration forthe Court is a unique provision. Section 116(2) appears to be an attempt to address concernsraised in the public consultation process that insufficient weightand respect is currently given to the testator's wishes infamily provision claims. It will be instructive to see how theCourt construes this provision. Some practitioners have expressedthe view that this provision will make a family provision claimessentially impossible to prosecute, given that in most cases aprovision claim is inherently at odds with the testator'swishes. However that is a very literal interpretation of thestatute. It seems more likely that Section 116(2) will result inthe Court placing a greater emphasis on interfering with thetestator's wishes to the least extent necessary, aswell as:
increased calls for the discovery of will drafter's filesin family provision claims (as ancillary evidence of thetestator's intention); and
will drafters advising clients to give consideration to leavinga written statement of their wishes addressing their reasons fordisinheriting a particular beneficiary. The Act also sets out further criteria to which the Courtmust have regard, being 'any evidence of the deceasedperson's reasons for making the dispositions in the deceasedperson's will (if any); the applicant's vulnerability anddependence on the deceased; the applicant's contribution to theestate of the deceased person; and the character and conduct of theapplicant'. The Court may also have regard to any other matterthat the Court considers relevant'.3 These criteria essentiallycomprise an abridged version of those which appear in Part IV ofthe Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic). B. Changes to categories of persons entitled toclaim
The Act has made various amendments to the classes of claimantseligible to make a family provision claim. Generally, compared tothe existing provisions, these changes increase the eligibility ofstep children to make a claim,4 while limiting theeligibility of grandchildren, siblings and parents.5
Step children were previously only eligible if they were thechild of a spouse or domestic partner of the deceasedand they were, or were entitled to be, maintainedby the deceased. That definition has been expanded so that'step child' includes a child of a former spouseor domestic partner of the deceased, and they satisfy any one ofthe following:
disabled and significantly vulnerable;
cared for, contributed to maintenance of deceased at date ofdeath;
substantially contributed to estate of deceased person; or
step-child's parent contributed assets to estate ofdeceased person. Previously, parents and siblings simply had to satisfy the Courtthat they had cared for or contributed to the maintenance of thedeceased at some point during their lifetime. This has now beentightened to provide that they must have cared for or contributedto the maintenance of the deceased at the date ofdeath (or alternatively if the deceased died in an agedcare facility, as at the date they entered that facility). Parentsare also eligible if they were maintained by the deceased at thedate of death. Grandchildren were previously eligible to claim, without anyadditional criteria. That is now limited to circumstances where thegrandchild's parent (being the child of the deceased) diedbefore the deceased, or alternatively where the grandchild wasmaintained, or was entitled to be maintained, by the deceased as atthe date of death. These amendments do not appear to adopt any particular existingstatutory regime in another State or Territory, but rather appearto borrow elements from various sources. C. Security for costs in family provisionclaims
Section 117 of the Act now authorises the Court to order that aparty to family provision proceeding provide security for costs. Anorder may be made where a party's claim for family provision is'without merit' or they are 'unwilling tonegotiate a settlement of a claim forprovision'.6 This amendment is intended to'discourage unmeritorious claims'.7
An order for security for costs can already be sought in civilproceedings in South Australia under the Uniform Civil Rules2020 (SA).8 However, in practice this is rarely, ifever, sought for family provision claims. Section 117 of the Actmay be an attractive option for respondents seeking to protectthemselves against weak or vexatious family provision claims,though it remains to be seen whether the Court will treat thisprovision any differently than the existing powers. It may beexpected that the Court will be reluctant to exercise this power,except perhaps in cases involving small estates and blatantlyunmeritorious claims. A specific provision to make orders for security for costs infamily provision claims does not appear to exist in any of theequivalent Acts throughout Australia. Conclusion
The reforms to succession law by the Act are wide-ranging, andinclude unique provisions which have not been applied in otherjurisdictions. It will be instructive to see how these provisionsare applied in practice and interpreted by the Courts. Footnotes
2 See Inheritance (Family Provision) Act1972 (SA) s 7. 3 Succession Act 2023 (SA) s116(2)(b)-(c). 4 Ibid ss 115(3), (4). 5 Ibid ss 115(5), (7), (8). 6 South Australia, ParliamentaryDebates, House of Assembly, 28 September 2023, 5543 (CatherineHutchesson). 7 South Australia, ParliamentaryDebates, House of Assembly, 14 September 2023, 5371 (MichaelBrown). 8 Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) r115. The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

Australia: Changes to categories of persons entitled to claim Reform in South Australia: Succession Act 2023 (SA) - Piper Alderman

, via Wikimedia Commons. In two previous articles ( here  and  here ), I reviewed the process of vertebrate blood clotting and summarized why it cannot readily be explained by naturalistic unguided processes, such as those proposed by neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. In this final installment, with the foregoing challenges in mind, let us inspect Russell Doolittle’s paper on the evolution of vertebrate blood clotting1 to determine to what extent his analysis assuages these concerns. Since Doolittle has also published a book dealing with this subject2, in which he elaborates on the arguments expressed in the paper in more detail, I occasionally will refer to things said in the book as well. Doolittle contends that “Many of the proteins involved [in coagulation] are clearly related to one another by gene duplications, and in the past, sequence-based phylogenies have offered insights into the relative order in which certain factors appeared.”3 But sequence similarity does not necessarily imply common ancestry (due to the possibility of common design) and common ancestry does not necessarily imply a stepwise evolutionary pathway. Michael Behe explains this point:
Although useful for determining lines of descent… comparing sequences cannot show how a complex biochemical system achieved its function—the question that most concerns us in this book. By way of analogy, the instruction manuals for two different models of computer put out by the same company might have many identical words, sentences, and even paragraphs, suggesting a common ancestry (perhaps the same author wrote both manuals), but comparing the sequences of letters in the instruction manuals will never tell us if a computer can be produced step-by-step starting from a typewriter… Like the sequence analysts, I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent. But the root question remains unanswered: What has caused complex systems to form?4
This aside, however, Doolittle’s proposed mechanism runs into the problem enumerated above — namely, that duplicating a gene coding for one of the blood clotting factors would lead to that factor becoming over-expressed, disrupting the cascade’s delicate balance and leading to excessive clotting. This difficulty is nowhere even acknowledged in Doolittle’s paper, let alone addressed. Doolittle raises a valid concern: “The question may be asked, how can new factors be introduced into an existing pathway?” Good question. How does Doolittle respond? He writes, “It was long ago suggested that in the case of clotting pathways, new factors that are the products of gene duplications could easily be sandwiched into the middle of pathways where they initially were only performing the same operation as the original gene product. Only a few amino acid replacements were likely needed to broaden the proteolytic specificity to the point where the duplicon could itself activate the other surviving gene product.”5 In support of this thesis, Doolittle notes that “all of the vitamin-K dependent proteases (prothrombin, factors VII, IX, and X, and protein C) cleave after arginine residues in the same general regions of their homologous substrates.”6 This, again, however, runs into the problem described above — namely, that gene duplication events would be likely to upset the delicate balance of the system, increasing the risk of thrombosis. Such duplicate genes are thus unlikely to be preserved by selection. Moreover, a few specific amino acid replacements in animals such as vertebrates (assuming none of them are beneficial until all have arisen) are unlikely to happen on a realistic timescale. As has been  much discussed  at Evolution News in the past, and in the academic literature, evolution depends on prohibitively long times to attain and fix multiple co-dependent mutations, where none of them confer a fitness benefit until all have arisen.7,8,9,10,11,12 Doolittle gives a time window for the emergence of the coagulation cascade of approximately fifty to a hundred million years, since fibrin clots have never been detected in any protochordate (i.e., organisms lacking a backbone but possessing a notochord at some stage during development) though it has been identified in the earliest vertebrates — that is, jawless fish. Thus, he argues, blood clotting must have arisen between the emergence of protochordates and jawless fish. As he writes in his book,
Because fibrin clots have never been observed in our nearest non-vertebrate relatives, the protochordates, we must accept that the clotting system was assembled in the relatively brief interval since protochordates diverged from the lineage leading to vertebrates and the appearance of creatures like the hagfish and lamprey. In years, the available time is estimated to have been 50 to 100 million.13
Given that it is highly probable that each step in the evolution of coagulation would require multiple co-dependent mutations (since each proenzyme would have to evolve in a coordinated way with its activating enzyme), this time window appears to be quite brief. Compounding this is the fact that the mutations in the evolving gene duplicate would need to occur in a coordinated way with its own activating enzyme to ensure that the new factor is active only when needed. Simpler Blood Clotting Systems in Jawless Fish
There are two extant genera of jawless fish — hagfish (pictured above) and lamprey. Doolittle predicts, from an evolutionary framework, that jawless vertebrates would have a simpler blood clotting cascade than the human system described above. Doolittle limits the scope of his analysis to the lamprey, for which there was better genomic data than for hagfish. Doolittle’s research has revealed that lampreys lack both factor IX and factor VIII.14,15 It may thus be concluded that factors IX and VIII are not essential, at least in the jawless vertebrates. Why are jawless vertebrates not hemophilic, unlike humans who lack these factors? Without knowing more about how coagulation works in jawless vertebrates, it is impossible to say for sure. Clearly, there are other differences as well — since apparently there are two factor X genes in lamprey. Is it possible that one of those is functioning as a factor IX gene? There are also three factors VII. Unfortunately, the precise mechanisms of coagulation in lampreys have yet to be elucidated. Given that humans who are deficient in factors IX or VIII suffer from hemophilia, this provides an indirect justification for believing that there are, quite probably, compensating mechanisms in lampreys that have yet to be uncovered. Failing to Address Behe’s Argument
A crucial point is that, even if Doolittle’s entirely evolutionary scheme were correct, it would not even address — much less refute — Behe’s original thesis about the blood clotting cascade. In Darwin’s Black Box, Behe only argued that the common pathway is irreducibly complex — he does not give an assessment of whether the intrinsic pathway (to which these factors IX and VIII, missing in jawless fish, belong) or the extrinsic pathway are irreducibly complex as well.16 To summarize, in Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe only argued for irreducible complexity of the common pathway — i.e., the pathway after the convergence of the extrinsic and intrinsic initiation pathways, or what Behe calls the components “after the fork.” Behe made this very explicit in his book, where he wrote:
Leaving aside the system before the fork in the pathway, where some details are less well known, the blood-clotting system fits the definition of irreducible complexity.17
The system “before the fork in the pathway” is the intrinsic and extrinsic initiation pathways highlighted by Doolittle. But Behe explicitly leaves this part of the system “aside” and does not argue it is irreducibly complex. Thus, even if Doolittle’s arguments held merit, they would still not refute, even address, the portion of the pathway that Behe argues is irreducibly complex. Regarding the systems “after the fork,” to my knowledge, there are no vertebrates with a functional coagulation system that lack thrombin, fibrinogen, factor X, or factor V. Clearly, there also has to be some way of activating factor V in response to tissue damage. Thus, to be conservative, blood coagulation must require a minimum of five parts (and probably more) – the very components which Behe argues comprise the irreducibly compelx portion of the blood clotting cascade. Behe’s argument has not been refuted. This same mistake was made in response to Behe by Kenneth Miller, as has been  previously noted  at Evolution News by Casey Luskin. Co-Option of Thrombin / Fibrinogen
Doolittle concedes that “it seems unlikely that thrombin and fibrinogen would appear simultaneously,” and posits that “one already existed with an alternative function.”18 He suggests that “fibrinogen may have had a role in cell-cell interactions, a property of many proteins with fibrinogen-related domains.”19 Doolittle postulates that “a more likely scenario, however, is that thrombin had an early role in agglutinating thrombocytes by proteolyzing cell surface proteins, something it is known to do today, attacking a set of G-protein-coupled receptors called PAR proteins.”20 On this hypothesis, “a tissue factor would become exposed during the course of injury, activating prothrombin that would then clump cells which were the ancient ancestors of mammalian platelets. A GLA domain could have helped to keep thrombin localized on the surface of the thrombocytes.”21 The emergence of fibrinogen “would allow thrombin to broaden its attack, generating a more durable clot composed of fibrin. Duplications of the prothrombin gene would lead to the appearance of factors VII, X, and eventually IX.”22
Such a scenario, however, presents a number of problems. One is acknowledged by Doolittle himself: “Besides the GLA domain, thrombin has two kringle domains, usually thought to have an affinity for fibrin. The kinds of domains that interact with tissue factor, however, are the EGF domains found in factors VII, X, and IX.”23 He, therefore, has to postulate that “there was much domain shuffling in the early stages and that thrombin originally had EGF domains, or no peripheral domains at all.”24 Second, he makes no attempt to estimate how durable a clot composed of nothing more than clumped cells would be — though, if the initial flow rate was relatively low, this issue could be less of a concern. Finally, a duplication of a prothrombin gene would result in a second prothrombin gene. Doolittle makes no attempt to determine how difficult it would be for factors VII, X and IX to arise from a duplicated prothrombin gene (and evolve in a coordinated way with their corresponding activating enzymes), nor how the overexpression problem described above may be overcome. Doolittle’s Four Stage Scenario
In his book, Doolittle proposes four stages in the evolution of vertebrate blood clotting, based on the presence or absence of coagulation factors in various animals. The timepoints along evolutionary history at which each of his four stages takes place is illustrated in the diagram below, reprinted under fair use from figure 13.1 of his book.25
The first stage, according to Doolittle, “existed in the last common ancestor of jawless and jawed vertebrates and was characterized by the presence of only six different proteins, three of which are vitamin K-dependent proteases.”26 These six proteins included tissue factor, factor VII, factor X, factor V, prothrombin and fibrinogen. The second stage, Doolittle suggests, involved the emergence of factors VIII and IX prior to the evolution of jawed fish. The third stage was characterized by the acquisition of prekallikrein and factor XII. A duplication of the gene coding for prekallikrein, resulting in the origins of factor XI, led, according to Doolittle’s scenario, to the fourth stage. Notice that even the primitive system that constitutes stage one contains all of the four components that Behe claimed to comprise the irreducibly complex system — that is, thrombin, fibrinogen, factor X and factor V — in addition to tissue factor and factor VII (key components of the extrinsic pathway, required for initiating coagulation in response to tissue damage). Behe’s hypothesis predicts that every coagulation system will contain these four proteins (or equivalents), in addition to there being some way of activating factor V in response to tissue damage. This is preciselywhat the data show. The only aspect of the coagulation cascade that emerged subsequent to the origins of coagulation itself, then, so far as can be told by the data, are the components that make up the intrinsic pathway. That the intrinsic pathway is redundant is not particularly surprising, since there only needs to be one mechanism by which factor V is activated. Adding the intrinsic pathway is certainly helpful, though not necessarily essential. The intrinsic pathway serves to amplify the coagulation response initiated by the extrinsic pathway, and provides additional layers of activation and enzyme generation. Again, Behe’s fundamental thesis about irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade has not been refuted or even touched by Doolittle’s arguments. But perhaps the most damning problem confronting Doolittle’s proposed scenario is that his analysis entirely ignores all of the clotting inhibitors (such as antithrombin, protein C, and protein S) that prevent excessive clot formation, as well as those factors that dismantle clots (as he himself acknowledges27). And this even though he correctly notes elsewhere that “this suppression of activity is very important; there is enough prothrombin in one milliliter of plasma to clot all the fibrinogen in the whole body if the prothrombin were all converted to thrombin.”28 Thus, the emergence of the pathway for coagulation along the lines suggested by Doolittle would likely result in runaway thrombosis without the simultaneous advent of inhibitors. A Formidable Challenge
In summary, the coagulation cascade presents a formidable challenge to evolutionary theory. While Doolittle is to be commended for his work in attempting to provide an evolutionary account for coagulation, the failure of those attempts underscores the difficulty of the problem. They simply do not address the issues at the heart of Behe’s argument in Darwin’s Black Box, which remains untouched by Doolittle’s thesis. Notes
Doolittle RF. The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Clotting. University Science Books 2013. Doolittle RF. Step-by-step evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 2009;74:35-40. Behe, Michael J. (1996). Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press, kindle. Ibid. Doolittle RF. Step-by-step evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 2009;74:35-40. Hössjer O, Bechly G, Gauger A. On the waiting time until coordinated mutations get fixed in regulatory sequences. J Theor Biol. 2021 Sep 7;524:110657. Sanford J, Brewer W, Smith F, Baumgardner J. The waiting time problem in a model hominin population. Theor Biol Med Model. 2015 Sep 17;12:18. Durrett R, Schmidt D. Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution. Genetics. 2008 Nov;180(3):1501-9. Erratum in: Genetics. 2009 Feb;181(2):819-20; author reply 821-2. Behe MJ, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. Free Press 2007. Behe MJ, Snoke DW. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Sci.2004 Oct;13(10):2651-64. doi: 10.1110/ps.04802904. Epub 2004 Aug 31. PMID: 15340163; PMCID: PMC2286568. Axe DD. The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations. Bio-Complexity2010. Doolittle RF. The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Clotting. University Science Books 2013, 184. Doolittle RF, Jiang Y, Nand J. Genomic evidence for a simpler clotting scheme in jawless vertebrates. J Mol Evol. 2008 Feb;66(2):185-96. doi: 10.1007/s00239-008-9074-8. Doolittle RF. Bioinformatic Characterization of Genes and Proteins Involved in Blood Clotting in Lampreys. J Mol Evol. 2015 Oct;81(3-4):121-30. Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press 1996, kindle. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., 17. Resident Biologist & Fellow, Center for Science and Culture
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie holds a Bachelor's degree in Forensic Biology from the University of Strathclyde, a Masters (M.Res) degree in Evolutionary Biology from the University of Glasgow, a second Master's degree in Medical and Molecular Bioscience from Newcastle University, and a PhD in Evolutionary Biology from Newcastle University. Previously, Jonathan was an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Jonathan has been interviewed on podcasts and radio shows including "Unbelievable?" on Premier Christian Radio, and many others. Jonathan has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, South Africa and Asia promoting the evidence of design in nature. Share

Has Russell Doolittle Provided an Evolutionary Explanation of the Blood Clotting Cascade?

Yesterday, in the first of a series of three articles ( here ), I summarized the details of the vertebrate blood clotting cascade. Now, in a second installment, I will review why coagulation presents a significant challenge to evolutionary explanations. This is to set the stage for part three where I will evaluate a particular attempt to offer an evolutionary account of blood clotting by biochemist Russell Doolittle. What components are essential to the coagulation cascade? If we limit our analysis, for simplicity, to those components that make up the common pathway (i.e., after the convergence of the intrinsic and extrinsic pathways), the essential proteins include fibrinogen, prothrombin, factor X, and factor V. In the absence of fibrinogen (a condition known as afibrinogenemia), the mesh-like network that stabilizes the blood clot will not form.1 In the absence of prothrombin, the result is a bleeding disorder called hypoprothrombinemia.2 Since no thrombin is produced, fibrinogen is not converted to fibrin and thus the system fails, again, to form the mesh-like network that is necessary for the formation of a stable clot. In the absence of factor V (known as Owren’s disease), the production of thrombin is significantly reduced, with a similar result.3 In the absence of factor X (known as Stuart-Prower disease), the production of thrombin is impaired, which again prevents blood clot formation.4
Carefully and Finely Tuned
Moreover, as Michael Behe explains in Darwin’s Black Box, the coagulation process needs to be carefully and finely tuned:
If only a small amount of fibrinogen were available it would not cover a wound; if a primitive fibrin formed a random blob instead of a meshwork, it would be unlikely to stop blood flow. If the initial action of antithrombin were too fast, the initial action of thrombin too slow, or the original Stuart factor [i.e., Factor X] or Christmas factor [i.e., Factor IX] or antihemophilic factor [i.e., Factor VIII] bound too loosely or too tightly (or if they bound to the inactive forms of their targets as well as the active forms), then the whole system would crash.5
Indeed, “the quality and character of the fibrin clots generated in fish and mammals do not appear to be significantly different.”6 Thus, the earliest vertebrates apparently formed fibrin clots that were not less effective or durable than those found in humans. How is this to be explained by a gradual trial-and-error process? Furthermore, once the clotting has begun, there must be a mechanism to prevent excessive clotting and to confine the clot to the site of the injury. Otherwise, the result would be widespread clotting throughout the body’s blood vessels, leading to thrombosis and eventual death. Indeed, “this suppression of activity is very important; there is enough prothrombin in one milliliter of plasma to clot all the fibrinogen in the whole body if the prothrombin were all converted to thrombin.”7 Thus, the coagulation cascade cannot evolve unless there is simultaneously a mechanism in hand for controlling it to prevent excessive and widespread clotting. Both would have to arise at the same time. Thus, the coagulation cascade is balanced on a knife-edge. Maintaining this delicate balance requires intricate mechanisms, ensuring that clotting occurs when needed to prevent excessive bleeding, while also preventing unnecessary clot formation that could lead to harmful consequences such as thrombosis. Any disruptions or imbalances in these regulatory mechanisms can result in severe bleeding or clotting disorders. A Proenzyme and an Activating Enzyme
Another difficulty is that, from the very start, any new step that was added to the cascade would need both a proenzyme and an activating enzyme to ensure that the proenzyme is turned on at the appropriate time. As Behe explains, while one might envision some simpler system where there is a direct pathway from factor X to fibrinogen, bypassing thrombin entirely, “If a new protein were inserted into the thrombinless system it would either turn the system on immediately — resulting in rapid death — or it would do nothing, and so have no reason to be selected. Because of the nature of a cascade, a new protein would immediately have to be regulated.”8 Thus, “since each step necessarily requires several parts, not only is the entire blood-clotting system irreducibly complex, but so is each step in the pathway.”9 A further problem with the hypothetical thrombinless system, entertained above, is that thrombin is highly effective in cleaving fibrinogen at specific sites, generating fibrin monomers that can polymerize to form a stable clot. Directly cutting fibrinogen with factor X alone would not produce the same reliable and robust fibrin network required for effective clot formation, unless an early form of factor X cut fibrinogen at the same sites that thrombin does. One might try to explain the origins of new blood clotting factors by postulating successive rounds of gene duplication and divergence (where the duplicate copy would still be under the regulation of the enzyme regulating the original factor). However, a major problem here is that the duplication of a gene would create an excess of the protein that the gene codes for. But excessive expression of clotting factors can disrupt the delicate balance of the coagulation cascade, leading to an increased tendency for the formation of blood clots. To take one example, in humans, 2 to 4.5g/L is considered to be the normal range for the concentration of fibrinogen in blood plasma.10 Doubling this concentration, which occurs during pregnancy, significantly increases the risk of thrombosis — while halving it creates a risk of bleeding.11 Thus, the relative concentrations of coagulation factors is very precisely balanced. Upsetting this balance can result in conditions such as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or stroke. To take another example, it has been shown that,
Elevated (pro)thrombin levels trigger the formation of densely-packed fibrin clots composed of thin fibrin fibers compared to normal clots. Increased thrombin generation in these individuals also increases activation of the thrombin-activatable fibrinolysis inhibitor (TAFI) in vitro. Activated TAFI downregulates fibrinolysis by cleaving C-terminal lysine residues from fibrin and reducing the number of tPA and plasminogen binding sites on fibrin. It has been suggested that the combination of abnormal structure and increased TAFI activation reduces the rate of fibrinolysis and contributes to the increased risk of thrombosis in these individuals.12
Thus, a duplicate blood clotting factor gene is likely to be deleterious and purged by purifying selection rather than preserved. Regarding this problem, one might retort that a gene duplication event that knocks the system out of balance might be compensated for by a second gene duplication event that creates a new activating enzyme, thereby bringing the system back into balance. However, among eukaryotic organisms, any particular gene has only a probability of being duplicated, over the span of one million years, of 0.01, “with rates in different species ranging from about 0.02 down to 0.002.”13 Moreover, “the vast majority of gene duplicates are silenced within a few million years, with the few survivors subsequently experiencing strong purifying selection.”14 Given the selection costs of carrying a duplicated gene, upsetting the delicate balance of the coagulation cascade, it is unlikely that it would be retained long enough for the appropriate gene to also be duplicated, restoring the balance of the system. A Challenge to Evolutionary Mechanisms
In conclusion, the intricacies of vertebrate blood clotting represent a significant challenge to evolutionary mechanisms. The process of clot formation is itself irreducibly complex and must also emerge simultaneously with a mechanism to prevent excessive clotting and to confine the clot to the site of injury. From a neo-Darwinian perspective, it is difficult to envision such a system emerging one step at a time without passing through maladaptive intermediate stages. On the other hand, a complex integration of parts contributing towards a higher-level objective, such as we see associated with coagulation, is precisely what we might expect on a hypothesis of design. In the third and final installment in this series, I will review Russell Doolittle’s attempt to provide an evolutionary explanation for this pathway. Notes
Simurda T, Asselta R, Zolkova J, Brunclikova M, Dobrotova M, Kolkova Z, Loderer D, Skornova I, Hudecek J, Lasabova Z, Stasko J, Kubisz P. Congenital Afibrinogenemia and Hypofibrinogenemia: Laboratory and Genetic Testing in Rare Bleeding Disorders with Life-Threatening Clinical Manifestations and Challenging Management. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Nov 19;11(11):2140. Mazodier K, Arnaud L, Mathian A, Costedoat-Chalumeau N, Haroche J, Frances C, Harlé JR, Pernod G, Lespessailles E, Gaudin P, Charlanne H, Hachulla E, Niaudet P, Piette JC, Amoura Z. Lupus anticoagulant-hypoprothrombinemia syndrome: report of 8 cases and review of the literature. Medicine (Baltimore). 2012 Sep;91(5):251-260. Ehtisham M, Shafiq MA, Shafique M, Mumtaz H, Shahzad MN. Owren’s Disease: A Rare Deficiency. Cureus. 2021 Aug 10;13(8):e17047. Chatterjee T, Philip J, Nair V, Mallhi RS, Sharma H, Ganguly P, Biswas AK. Inherited Factor X (Stuart-Prower Factor) deficiency and its management. Med J Armed Forces India. 2015 Jul;71(Suppl 1):S184-6. Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press 1996, kindle. Doolittle RF. Step-by-step evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 2009;74:35-40. Ibid., 17. Ibid. Grottke O, Mallaiah S, Karkouti K, Saner F, Haas T. Fibrinogen Supplementation and Its Indications. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2020 Feb;46(1):38-49. Ibid. Wolberg AS, Campbell RA. Thrombin generation, fibrin clot formation and hemostasis. Transfus Apher Sci. 2008 Feb;38(1):15-23. Lynch M, Conery JS. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science. 2000 Nov 10;290(5494):1151-5. Ibid. Resident Biologist & Fellow, Center for Science and Culture
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie holds a Bachelor's degree in Forensic Biology from the University of Strathclyde, a Masters (M.Res) degree in Evolutionary Biology from the University of Glasgow, a second Master's degree in Medical and Molecular Bioscience from Newcastle University, and a PhD in Evolutionary Biology from Newcastle University. Previously, Jonathan was an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Jonathan has been interviewed on podcasts and radio shows including "Unbelievable?" on Premier Christian Radio, and many others. Jonathan has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, South Africa and Asia promoting the evidence of design in nature. Share

Why the Blood Clotting Cascade Challenges Evolution

August 12, 2023
Scenario
The legendary melodrama of the famous Soviet director Eldar Ryazanov was first shown to the Soviet audience on February 11, 1983. Could the people who then went to the cinemas for a session called “Station for Two” imagine that Ryazanov would shoot something equal to the New Year’s long-loved ” Irony of Fate” that Oleg Basilashvili will play something equal to the role in the recent “Autumn Marathon” by Georgy Danelia, and Lyudmila Gurchenko will experience a new triumph more than a quarter of a century after “Carnival Night”, soon becoming a People’s Artist of the Soviet Union? The magazine “Soviet Screen” in February 1983 wrote about the plot of this film: “Both of them are not of their first youth. Fate patted both of them. Restaurant acquaintance, starting with a quarrel, will gradually turn into true love, which will dramatically change the fate of these people”1. But this beloved film, like most of its kind, had its own difficulties on the way to the viewer. Documents from the archives of the Mosfilm film concern tell about them. The script editorial board of the Creative Association of Comedy and Musical Films of the Mosfilm Studio, where the film was created, already in October 1981 discussed the literary script for the future film. The general mood of the panel speakers was optimistic. However, for example, script editor L.P.  Gorina expressed doubts about the fact that “the hero [Платон Рябинин] can fall in love with a waitress in two days”2. Soviet filmmakers strove for credibility in showing the world around them and did not really welcome, especially in social and everyday plots, “fairy tales” for the people. An article about the film in the Soviet Screen magazine. February 1983
Questions arose about the very image of Platon Ryabinin. The writer Victoria Tokareva reflected: “Why is the hero a loser?”  Chief editor of the creative association E.A. Yermolin concluded that “the hero is an idealist”3. Emil Braginsky, co-author of the script, answering all questions, noted that he and Ryazanov “tried to combine love and sorrow” in this story, but in no case reject the comments and continue to work on the text. Railway station
Already at the next stage – the creation of a screenplay, which was planned to be written by the end of 1981 – the creative association of the film studio petitioned for the inclusion of the film in the calendar-thematic plan of 1982, and also noted the main positive beginning of the future picture: “Love conquers any difficulties, in this is both the life-affirming beginning of the script and its pathos”4. In conclusion to the finished screenplay, it was said that the actions of Platon Gromov (obviously, it was Gromov, and not Ryabinin – the main character’s original surname) began to acquire more meaning, now this is “not a spontaneous escape from justice”, he “goes to say goodbye to the old father” . In addition, the line of the waitress Vera has become more “tactfully written out”: earlier, when discussing the script, some had the feeling that the image of Vera was “underestimated” by an intimate scene in a compartment with the hero of Nikita Mikhalkov5. On the set of the film (from left to right): E. Ryazanov, L. Gurchenko, O. Basilashvili, N. Mikhalkov. One lyrical component was not enough to support the picture in front of higher authorities, so the production aspect of the picture was pedaled. So, when discussing the next, directorial scenario of “Station for Two” at Mosfilm in February 1982, they did not fail to note that in the film “the life and work of such a complex modern mechanism as a railway station is written out with documentary authenticity”6. “Mosfilm” in every possible way supported the already become by the beginning of the 1980s. successful scenario tandem of Braginsky-Ryazanov and the director himself, therefore, on February 5, 1982, the film studio turned to the chairman of the USSR State Film Agency F.T. Yermash with a request to increase the length of the film by almost 1000 m and make it a two-part series due to the fact that “the director’s study of the characters’ relationships” led to an increase in scenes and plans of a “lyrical nature”, as well as to the fact that “new musical numbers appeared”7. Filming
At the film studio, they perfectly understood that such a petition from the point of view of film production and high authorities had to be justified, first of all, by the worthy ideological and artistic level of the picture. Since it was still winter in February 1982, and there were many winter scenes in the film, in February-March, the first thing they did was shoot the “leaving nature”, so that later, in the summer, they could calmly shoot most of the remaining planned material and not wait for the next winter, keeping within the terms of production (i.e. in one year 1982). There were two business trips: to the Iksha corrective labor colony to shoot episodes related to Plato’s imprisonment, and to Leningrad, since the Vitebsk railway station was chosen as the main filming location (among the filming objects were the waiting room, the carriage depot, the Intourist hall ). Shooting the most touching episode: the return of Platon Ryabinin to the colony. In the draft cast of actors for the roles, there are names of performers whom the audience, however, for some reason did not see. So, Lyudmila Zaitseva was supposed to be the duty officer at Intourist, Rimma Markova was supposed to be the lady of the Uzbek, and Larisa Luzhina could play Plato’s wife. In contracts and acts, it slips every now and then that “Station for Two” is a “comedy”, but Eldar Ryazanov himself, obviously, did not understand the film in this way. In his memoirs, he noted: “Life material dictated a tougher, more merciless, more bitter intonation. In addition, the spring of the plot was repelled by an accident where a person died, and it was no longer possible to write in a light, ironic, comedic intonation”8. Filming didn’t go smoothly. L.M. Gurchenko recalled the weather during the filming: “I got cold during the summer Leningrad expedition, filming in a light blouse. But what kind of summer expedition is this if the air temperature in June is plus nine! And so for a month and a half”9. But if only that was the case. High authorities also created a certain intensity of passions. The Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR expressed “a general negative attitude towards the content of the script”, two episodes caused particular indignation of the audience in police uniforms – in one of them, the police lieutenant allegedly “in allegorical form” announced the existence of prostitution in the country, and in the other the scene of the evening verification of prisoners was shown in a colony, which, according to representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, could cause citizens only “feelings of anger and indignation” when watching a film10. Goskino of the USSR in June 1982, already after the film crew left for Leningrad and started filming, reviewed the calendar and thematic plan and the general estimate of the film, coming to the conclusion that filming in Leningrad was “inappropriate”, since “according to the development of the plot, the entire film can be filmed in the Moscow region”11. But since the filming had already begun, film officials did not disrupt anything: they only strictly noted that it was necessary to be more thoughtful about the need for business trips and expeditions when creating new films. Foreign movie poster. Change
The footage, carefully reviewed by the editors at Mosfilm, was liked by everyone. Views of June-July made a good impression on the scriptwriting and editorial board of the Sixth Creative Association. It was noted that the Vitebsk railway station was distinguished by an “attractive interior”, the performance of the role of the waitress Vera was regarded as an “interesting decision”, the “wonderful acting duet” Gurchenko – Basilashvili was especially noted. In the end, the editors came to the conclusion that the authors managed to shoot a picture that “affects the moral categories of the life of our society today”12. By the end of July, Goskino was convinced that it was possible to meet the needs of the film studio, since “additional filming … will make it possible to create a film work of a high ideological and artistic level”, and therefore a two-part film format is quite possible13. The request of the filmmakers was finally granted by the country’s highest film establishment. The film was set to be released on November 30, 1982. Just before the film was handed over in October 1982, the screenwriting and editorial board at the film studio nevertheless demanded that the filmmakers make a number of changes. First of all, to reduce the footage of the tape by reducing the most “negative” and critical episodes: the evening check of the prisoners in the colony, the scene in the train compartment with the heroes of L.M. Gurchenko and N.S. Mikhalkov, scenes of beating Mikhalkov’s hero Basilashvili in a restaurant. Finally, it was necessary to clarify the words in the scene that took place in the house of the “dealer” – “Uncle Misha”, talentedly performed by Nonna Mordyukova14. In conclusion about the end of the film production, the talented work of cameraman Vadim Alisov, composer Andrey Petrov, actors Nikita Mikhalkov and Nonna Mordyukova was noted. And, of course, the duet of Gurchenko and Basilashvili is “convincing, psychologically accurate and humanly charming”15. The protagonist of the film Platon Ryabinin (actor Oleg Basilashvili): he fell behind the train, but he found love (actress Lyudmila Gurchenko)! On February 11, 1983, the film was released on movie screens in the Soviet Union. They say that the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU Yu.V. Andropov noted the work of Lyudmila Gurchenko and initiated the assignment of the title of People’s Artist of the USSR to her. A year later, Oleg Basilashvili also became “people’s”. The film was nominated for the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 1983. The main thing was not the titles and awards, but the sincere love of the simple spectator for this film, which has survived to this day. What explains it? Probably by what was noted in one of the first reviews of the script for “Station for Two” in October 1981: “The script is true in essence and in the meaning of life, its spiritual heights and its base passions”16. He’s right forty years later…
1. Pabauskaya N. “Station for two” // Soviet screen. 1983. N 2. S. 5. 2. Archive of the cinema concern “Mosfilm”. F. 2453. Op. 17. D. 2868. L. 2. 3. Ibid. L. 2ob, 3. 4. Ibid. L. 7. 9. Gurchenko L. Applause. Memory. Tale. M., 1987. S. 228. 10. Archive of the cinema concern “Mosfilm”. F. 2453. Op. 17. D. 2869. L. 1. 11. Ibid. L. 74.

“Station for two” filmed backwards

Paradigma

Corporate Minority

Ibid provides and implements solutions for purchasing processes in supply chain management. It is based in Florianopolis, Brazil.

Date	12/17/2021
Round	Corporate Minority
Amount
Investors	Hurst Capital
Valuation	$99M
Revenue	0 FY undefined
Sources	1

First funding	12/17/2021
Last Funding	12/17/2021
Investor	Hurst Capital
Rounds	1 Corporate Minority
Board Seats
Type	Corporation
Location	Brazil

Wells Fargo Success Story

Professional Services

Platform Overview

IBID

Investors Count

Funding, Valuation & Revenue

IBID Investors