Surface interactions relevant to space station contamination problems

The physical and chemical processes at solid surfaces which can contribute to Space Station contamination problems are reviewed. Suggested areas for experimental studies to provide data to improve contamination modeling efforts are presented

Genome editing in non-model organisms opens new horizons for comparative physiology

For almost 100 years, biologists have made fundamental discoveries using a handful of model organisms that are not representative of the rich diversity found in nature. The advent of CRISPR genome editing now opens up a wide range of new organisms to mechanistic investigation. This increases not only the taxonomic breadth of current research but also the scope of biological problems that are now amenable to study, such as population control of invasive species, management of disease vectors such as mosquitoes, the creation of chimeric animal hosts to grow human organs and even the possibility of resurrecting extinct species such as passenger pigeons and mammoths. Beyond these practical applications, work on non-model organisms enriches our basic understanding of the natural world. This special issue addresses a broad spectrum of biological problems in non-model organisms and highlights the utility of genome editing across levels of complexity from development and physiology to behaviour and evolution

Using Legal Process to Fight Terrorism: Detentions, Military Commissions, International Tribunals, and the Rule of Law

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, those arguing that international law cannot serve as an effective tool in the fight against terrorism have grown. The ranks of international relations realists, who view international law primarily as a cover for strategic interests and thereby as lacking any independent bite, has swelled. In November 2001, President Bush issued an executive order asserting the authority to use military commissions to try individual terrorism suspects captured by the United States. Such commissions would be conducted unilaterally and would not be required to include procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the accused. This crisis has forced us to revisit the question of what the rule of law gets us as a nation and as a people. This article argues that the Administration\u27s treatment of detainees and the military commissions run counter to the rule of law - both domestically, by violating American constitutional protections, and internationally, by flouting established principles of international law. Far from being a straight-jacket that threatens our security, respect for legal process values and international law, will actually best serve our long-term strategic interests in containing terrorism. This article also considers how an international tribunal process could be initiated expeditiously and two alternative quasi-international models that have received insufficient consideration thus far. The law skeptics\u27 perspective is also addressed at a more theoretical level, offering some tentative observations about the importance of fair adjudicatory processes despite the fact that societies are always to some degree riven by conflict

Using Legal Process to Fight Terrorism: Detentions, Military Commissions, International Tribunals, and the Rule of Law

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, those arguing that international law cannot serve as an effective tool in the fight against terrorism have grown. The ranks of international relations realists, who view international law primarily as a cover for strategic interests and thereby as lacking any independent bite, has swelled. In November 2001, President Bush issued an executive order asserting the authority to use military commissions to try individual terrorism suspects captured by the United States. Such commissions would be conducted unilaterally and would not be required to include procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the accused. This crisis has forced us to revisit the question of what the rule of law gets us as a nation and as a people. This article argues that the Administration\u27s treatment of detainees and the military commissions run counter to the rule of law - both domestically, by violating American constitutional protections, and internationally, by flouting established principles of international law. Far from being a straight-jacket that threatens our security, respect for legal process values and international law, will actually best serve our long-term strategic interests in containing terrorism. This article also considers how an international tribunal process could be initiated expeditiously and two alternative quasi-international models that have received insufficient consideration thus far. The law skeptics\u27 perspective is also addressed at a more theoretical level, offering some tentative observations about the importance of fair adjudicatory processes despite the fact that societies are always to some degree riven by conflict