Palimpsest

Palimpsest Contributing artists: Ray Arnold, Christine Barry, Susan Fereday, David McDowell, Peter Mudie. Catalogue of an exhibition held at University Fine Arts Gallery, University of Tasmania, April 20-May 13, 1990 Kaye Moorhouse, curato

Book Reviews

The Shaman\u27s Apprentice by Lynne Cherry and Mark J. Plotkin Medicinal Plants of the Heartland by Connie Kaye and Neil Billington Potions, Poisons, and Panaceas by David Brussell Origin and Early Diversification of Land Plants by P. Kenrick & P.R. Cran

How \u3ci\u3eDaubert\u3c/i\u3e and its Progeny Have Failed Criminalistics Evidence and a Few Things the Judiciary Could Do About It.

Part I documents how courts have failed to faithfully apply Daubert’s criteria for scientific validity to this type of evidence. It describes how ambiguities and flaws in the terminology adopted in Daubert combinedwith the opaqueness of forensic-science publications and standards have been exploited to shield some test methods from critical judicial analysis. Simply desisting from these avoidance strategies would be an improvement. Part II notes how part of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael has enabled courts to lower the bar for what is presented as scientific evidence by mistakenly maintaining that there is no difference between that evidence and other expert testimony that need not be scientifically validated. It suggests that a version of Rule 702 that explicitly insists on more rigorous validation of evidence that is promoted or understood as being “scientific” would be workable and more clearly compatible with the rule’s common law roots. Part III sketches various meanings of the terms “reliability” and “validity” in science and statistics, on the one hand, and in the rules and opinions on the admissibility of expert evidence, on the other. It discusses the two-part definition of “validity” in the PCAST report and the proposed criteria for demonstrating scientific validity of subjective pattern-matching testimony. It contends that if “validity” means that a procedure (even a highly subjective one) for making measurements and drawing inferences is fit for its intended use, then whether test results that have higher error rates than the ones selected in the report might nevertheless assist fact finders who are also appropriately informed of the evidence’s probative value must be evaluated. Finally, Part IV articulates two distinct approaches to informing judges or jurors of the import of similarities in features: the traditional one in which examiners opine on the truth and falsity of source hypotheses and a more finely grained one in which criminalists report only on the strength of the evidence. It suggests that the rules for admitting scientific evidence need to be flexible enough to accommodate the latter, likelihood-based testimony when it has a satisfactory empirically established basis

A Tale of Two Sciences

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times . .. . So might one describe the contrasting portraits of DNA\u27s ascension in the criminal justice system that are drawn in David Kaye\u27s The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence and Sheldon Krimsky and Tania Simoncelli\u27s Genetic Justice: DNA Data Banks, Criminal Investigations, and Civil Liberties. For Kaye, the double helix stands as the icon of twenty-first-century achievement, a science menaced primarily by the dolts (lawyers, judges, and the occasional analyst) who misuse it. For Krimsky and Simoncelli, DNA is a seductive forensic tool that is prone to overuse and best distrusted, as evidenced by swollen national data banks, shady police and laboratory practices, and unverified claims that the science has aided hundreds of thousands of investigations. Both books were written by experienced DNA insiders. Krimsky, a Tufts University professor and bioethics expert, and Simoncelli, formerly the Science Advisor at the American Civil Liberties Union, were both active participants in early academic and policy debates around DNA databasing. So too was Kaye, a professor at Penn State University, who has served on a number of government committees devoted to DNA methods and who has also aided defense lawyers in an assortment of cases. So whose picture is right

A Tale of Two Sciences

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times . .. . So might one describe the contrasting portraits of DNA\u27s ascension in the criminal justice system that are drawn in David Kaye\u27s The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence and Sheldon Krimsky and Tania Simoncelli\u27s Genetic Justice: DNA Data Banks, Criminal Investigations, and Civil Liberties. For Kaye, the double helix stands as the icon of twenty-first-century achievement, a science menaced primarily by the dolts (lawyers, judges, and the occasional analyst) who misuse it. For Krimsky and Simoncelli, DNA is a seductive forensic tool that is prone to overuse and best distrusted, as evidenced by swollen national data banks, shady police and laboratory practices, and unverified claims that the science has aided hundreds of thousands of investigations. Both books were written by experienced DNA insiders. Krimsky, a Tufts University professor and bioethics expert, and Simoncelli, formerly the Science Advisor at the American Civil Liberties Union, were both active participants in early academic and policy debates around DNA databasing. So too was Kaye, a professor at Penn State University, who has served on a number of government committees devoted to DNA methods and who has also aided defense lawyers in an assortment of cases. So whose picture is right

Third United States Army Special Services presents the Harding Bison Band (1964 program)

Performed December 9-22, 1964. Piccolo: Susan CraigFlutes: Sue Bixler, Barbara Bridges, Jo Byrd, Marge Chambers, and Sue StudebakerEb Clarinet: Ken TiptonBb Clarinet: Lean Bradford, Billie Bradsher, Carole Brown, Marilyn Cape, Faye Freeman, Sandy Green, Rhydonia Holt, Marion McClaren, and Kaye WilhiteAlto Clarinet: Ron DoranBass Clarinet: Joyce MooreOboe: Martha PitnerAlto Sax: Nancy Bridges, Ann Eckerberg, and Jimmy MackeyBassoon: Karla PfeiferTenor Sax: Jim KnightBaritone Sax: Maria MichaelsFrench Horns: David Clinger, Bill Culp, Karen Hamilton, and Janie RittenourCornets: Doug Fairley, Benny Gooden, Jim Ed Gray, Kay Smith, John Tooke, and Jack TrentBaritone: Cliff GanusTrombones: Chuck Couch, Royce Jenkins, and Dwight RuttledgeBass Horns: Ben Huey and John TuckerPercussion: Sam Hester, David Smith, and Mary Smithhttps://scholarworks.harding.edu/theatre-history/1365/thumbnail.jp

One-year outcomes after transcatheter insertion of an interatrial shunt device for the management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Background—Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction has a complex pathophysiology and remains a therapeutic challenge. Elevated left atrial pressure, particularly during exercise, is a key contributor to morbidity and mortality. Preliminary analyses have demonstrated that a novel interatrial septal shunt device that allows shunting to reduce the left atrial pressure provides clinical and hemodynamic benefit at 6 months. Given the chronicity of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, evidence of longer-term benefit is required. Methods and Results—Patients (n=64) with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40%, New York Heart Association class II–IV, elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (≥15 mm Hg at rest or ≥25 mm Hg during supine bicycle exercise) participated in the open-label study of the interatrial septal shunt device. One year after interatrial septal shunt device implantation, there were sustained improvements in New York Heart Association class (P<0.001), quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure score, P<0.001), and 6-minute walk distance (P<0.01). Echocardiography showed a small, stable reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (P<0.001), with a concomitant small stable increase in the right ventricular end-diastolic volume index (P<0.001). Invasive hemodynamic studies performed in a subset of patients demonstrated a sustained reduction in the workload corrected exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (P<0.01). Survival at 1 year was 95%, and there was no evidence of device-related complications. Conclusions—These results provide evidence of safety and sustained clinical benefit in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients 1 year after interatrial septal shunt device implantation. Randomized, blinded studies are underway to confirm these observations