Legal Scholarship, Humility, and the Scientific Method

This essay responds to the question of What next for law and behavioral biology? by describing an approach to legal scholarship that relies on the scientific method. There are two steps involved in this approach to legal scholarship. First, the legal scholar must become familiar with an area of scientific research that is relevant to the development of law and policy. (This essay uses behavioral biology research as an example.) Second, the legal scholar must seek and form relationships across disciplines, becoming an active member of a scientific research team that conducts studies relevant to particular issues of law and policy. This approach to legal scholarship does not conceive law as a science. It also does not place the legal scholar in the role of a scientist or empiricist. Instead, it places the legal scholar in a much more modest role -- as a participating member of a scientific research team. In this role, the legal scholar contributes to a research endeavor that employs the scientific method to produce new knowledge mostly in small, incremental steps. This scholar strives for nothing more than to participate in the production of new knowledge and the effective communication of that knowledge to other scholars, legal decisionmakers, and policymakers. It is a role that requires humility and promises significant advances in knowledge relevant to law and policy

Child Placement Decisions: The Relevance of Facial Resemblance and Biological Relationships

This article discusses two studies of evolution and human behavior addressing child-adult relationships and explores implications for policies and practices surrounding placement of children in foster homes. The first study indicates that men favor children whose facial features resemble their own facial features. This study may justify public child welfare decisionmakers in considering facial resemblance as they attempt to place children in safe foster homes. The second study indicates that parents are likely to invest more in children who are biologically related to them, thus enhancing their longterm well-being. Among other implications, this study may justify public child welfare decisionmakers in attempting to preserve biological families and avoid the removal of children from biological parents. It may also justify maintaining contact between biological parents and children even if removal is necessary. Although this article recognizes that the studies do not provide for comprehensive decisionmaking rules, the article articulates how the studies can be used to incrementally construct, test, and improve policies and practices in a specific area of public activity

The Multiethnic Placement Act: Threat to Foster Child Safety and Well-being?

Despite the efforts of public officials to reduce the time children spend in foster care, many children live in foster homes for a substantial portion of their childhoods. In fact, a child placed in a foster home may remain in that home for an extended period, with a significant possibility of remaining there permanently. In light of this situation, the decision to place a child in a particular foster home is extremely important. The federal Multiethnic Placement Act ( MEPA ) significantly affects foster care placement decisions. This law expressly prohibits public child welfare agencies from delaying or denying a child\u27s foster care or adoptive placement on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Federal officials have interpreted MEPA as barring public agencies from routinely and systematically considering race when placing children in particular foster homes. In other words, MEPA precludes these agencies from pursuing children\u27s interests through a policy or practice of matching a child\u27s race with that of his or her foster parent. To date, commentators who have examined MEPA have focused their attention on identifying and weighing the benefits and harms of transracial adoption for minority children and communities. As a consequence, they have not addressed the impact of MEPA on foster care placement decisions in any detail. In contrast, this Article examines foster care placement decisions. More specifically, this Article uses behavioral biology research on kinship cues and social psychology research on in-group favoritism to formulate a hypothesis that has implications for MEPA\u27s prohibition on the routine consideration of race in making foster care placement decisions. Namely, children placed with non-kin, same-race foster parents are likely to be safer and healthier than children placed with non-kin, different-race foster parents. The Article calls for a test of this hypothesis, explains how such a test may proceed, and discusses possible implications for laws and policies that address race and foster care

Foster Care Safety and the Kinship Cue of Attitude Similarity

This article brings behavioral biology research on attitude similarity as a kinship cue to bear on the laws, policies, and practices surrounding the placement of children in foster care. The basic logic of the article relies on the nature and power of kinship cues. Individuals perceive others as kin through fallible, often unconscious mechanisms. Because these mechanisms are fallible, individuals may come to believe that unrelated persons are kin. Once a cue gives rise to the perception of kinship, the individual who acquires this perception about another person is more likely to treat that other person favorably, providing important benefits to this other person. This prosocial behavior could certainly benefit foster children. More specifically, if foster parents perceive their foster children as kin, they may provide better care, likely reducing incidents of maltreatment. Attitude similarity serves as a kinship cue. Individuals who share attitudes on a variety of items are more likely to treat each other favorably. This article explores how public actors may be able to construct a kinship cue that elicits prosocial behavior by matching foster parents with children who share their attitudes

The Multiethnic Placement Act: Threat to Foster Child Safety and Well-being?

Despite the efforts of public officials to reduce the time children spend in foster care, many children live in foster homes for a substantial portion of their childhoods. In fact, a child placed in a foster home may remain in that home for an extended period, with a significant possibility of remaining there permanently. In light of this situation, the decision to place a child in a particular foster home is extremely important. The federal Multiethnic Placement Act ( MEPA ) significantly affects foster care placement decisions. This law expressly prohibits public child welfare agencies from delaying or denying a child\u27s foster care or adoptive placement on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Federal officials have interpreted MEPA as barring public agencies from routinely and systematically considering race when placing children in particular foster homes. In other words, MEPA precludes these agencies from pursuing children\u27s interests through a policy or practice of matching a child\u27s race with that of his or her foster parent. To date, commentators who have examined MEPA have focused their attention on identifying and weighing the benefits and harms of transracial adoption for minority children and communities. As a consequence, they have not addressed the impact of MEPA on foster care placement decisions in any detail. In contrast, this Article examines foster care placement decisions. More specifically, this Article uses behavioral biology research on kinship cues and social psychology research on in-group favoritism to formulate a hypothesis that has implications for MEPA\u27s prohibition on the routine consideration of race in making foster care placement decisions. Namely, children placed with non-kin, same-race foster parents are likely to be safer and healthier than children placed with non-kin, different-race foster parents. The Article calls for a test of this hypothesis, explains how such a test may proceed, and discusses possible implications for laws and policies that address race and foster care

Pelvic measurements and calving difficulty (2005)

Although researchers agree that birth weight is the most important measurable trait affecting calving difficulty, there is evidence that the size and shape of the pelvis also affect a heifer's ability to calve.New 2/97/5M, PDF indicia updated 4/05

Pelvic measurements and calving difficulty

"This publication was adapted and revised from "Pelvic Measurements for Reducing Calving Difficulty," by Gene H. Deutscher, NebGuide G88-895, of the Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service, University of Nebraska Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The tables contain Nebraska data."--Page 3."Although researchers agree that birth weight is the most important measurable trait affecting calving difficulty, there is evidence that the size and shape of the pelvis also affect a heifer's ability to calve."--Page 1.David J. Patterson and William O. Herring (Department of Animal Sciences)New 2/97/5M, PDF indicia updated 4/05

Pelvic measurements and calving difficulty (1997)

Although researchers agree that birth weight is the most important measurable trait affecting calving difficulty, there is evidence that the size and shape of the pelvis also affect a heifer's ability to calve.New February 1997 -- Extension web site

Foster Care Placement: Reducing the Risk of Sibling Incest

The Westermarck theory maintains that incest avoidance arises from the physical proximity of siblings during a critical period of early childhood. This proximity gives rise to an inhibiting effect on post childhood sexual interest. Two recent studies of sibling relationships have verified and refined the Westermarck theory, indicating that the critical period extends through the first four years of childhood. The theory and the studies have implications for child welfare laws, policies and practices surrounding the placement of siblings in foster care. Namely, the findings provide powerful reasons for placing siblings together during the critical period in order to minimize the risk of post childhood sibling incest. Although public child welfare systems currently recognize the value and benefits of placing siblings together, these systems fail miserably in this area because of a lack of resources. By focusing on children in the critical period of development, resource-poor public systems can marshal their will and target their resources to actually place this discrete group of siblings together, avoid increasing the risk of post childhood sibling incest, and realize all the benefits of maintaining sibling relationships