Care, No Matter What: Planned Parenthood\u27s Use of Organizational Rhetoric to Expand its Reputation

This paper analyzes uses of organizational rhetoric on Planned Parenthood\u27s website to market itself as a provider of holistic healthcare rather than just an abortion provider

The Undergraduate Journal of Contemporary Issues & Media

The journal is the product of students in our Techni-al Editing course, who through their e orts and those of the authors collaborated to bring the pieces to fruition.  Each piece in the volume addresses the term “inequality,” a nebulous concept that each contributor interpreted in their own unique way through a medium that best t their message. Through a diverse set of texts and video, the journal represents how each person chose to share their perspective

Volume 12

Introduction, Dr. Roger A. Byrne, Dean From the Editor, Dr. Larissa Kat Tracy From the Designers, Rachel English, Rachel Hanson Immortality in the Mortal World: Otherworldly Intervention in Lanval and The Wife of Bath\u27s Tale by Haleigh James Analysis of Phenolic Compounds in Moroccan Olive Oils by HPLC by Hannah Meyls Art by Hope Irvin The Effects of Cell Phone Use on Gameplay Enjoyment and Frustration by Megan E. Hlavaty, Samara L. Gall, and Austin J. Funk Care, No Matter What: Planned Parenthood\u27s Use of Organizational Rhetoric to Expand its Reputation by Karyn Keane Analysis of Petroleum Products for Forensic and Environmental Applications by Sarah Ghali, Antonio Harvey, and Katelynn McCrillis Art by Andrew Jones The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire by Rachel Hazelwood Art by Madison Schmitz Ercilla y la imitacion: Araucanos al estilo europeo by Marija Venta Design by Haley Tebo Design by Jeremiah Gilmer White Supremacist\u27s Appropriation of the Persuasion of Passivity in Marvel\u27s Captain America by Bridget Dunn Design by Benjamin Sullivan Art by McKenzie Johnso

Bi-allelic Loss-of-Function CACNA1B Mutations in Progressive Epilepsy-Dyskinesia.

The occurrence of non-epileptic hyperkinetic movements in the context of developmental epileptic encephalopathies is an increasingly recognized phenomenon. Identification of causative mutations provides an important insight into common pathogenic mechanisms that cause both seizures and abnormal motor control. We report bi-allelic loss-of-function CACNA1B variants in six children from three unrelated families whose affected members present with a complex and progressive neurological syndrome. All affected individuals presented with epileptic encephalopathy, severe neurodevelopmental delay (often with regression), and a hyperkinetic movement disorder. Additional neurological features included postnatal microcephaly and hypotonia. Five children died in childhood or adolescence (mean age of death: 9 years), mainly as a result of secondary respiratory complications. CACNA1B encodes the pore-forming subunit of the pre-synaptic neuronal voltage-gated calcium channel Cav2.2/N-type, crucial for SNARE-mediated neurotransmission, particularly in the early postnatal period. Bi-allelic loss-of-function variants in CACNA1B are predicted to cause disruption of Ca2+ influx, leading to impaired synaptic neurotransmission. The resultant effect on neuronal function is likely to be important in the development of involuntary movements and epilepsy. Overall, our findings provide further evidence for the key role of Cav2.2 in normal human neurodevelopment.MAK is funded by an NIHR Research Professorship and receives funding from the Wellcome Trust, Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital Charity, and Rosetrees Trust. E.M. received funding from the Rosetrees Trust (CD-A53) and Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity. K.G. received funding from Temple Street Foundation. A.M. is funded by Great Ormond Street Hospital, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and Biomedical Research Centre. F.L.R. and D.G. are funded by Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. K.C. and A.S.J. are funded by NIHR Bioresource for Rare Diseases. The DDD Study presents independent research commissioned by the Health Innovation Challenge Fund (grant number HICF-1009-003), a parallel funding partnership between the Wellcome Trust and the Department of Health, and the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (grant number WT098051). We acknowledge support from the UK Department of Health via the NIHR comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre award to Guy's and St. Thomas' National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London. This research was also supported by the NIHR Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre. J.H.C. is in receipt of an NIHR Senior Investigator Award. The research team acknowledges the support of the NIHR through the Comprehensive Clinical Research Network. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, Department of Health, or Wellcome Trust. E.R.M. acknowledges support from NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, an NIHR Senior Investigator Award, and the University of Cambridge has received salary support in respect of E.R.M. from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve. I.E.S. is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (Program Grant and Practitioner Fellowship)

Toxicologic Pathology Forum Opinion Piece: Current Use of Non-blinded vs. Blinded Histopathologic Evaluation in Animal Toxicity Studies

The Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) explored current institutional practices for selecting between non-blinded vs. blinded histopathologic evaluation during Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)-compliant, regulatory-type animal toxicity studies using a multi-question survey and STP-wide discussion at the 2019 STP annual meeting. Survey responses were received from 107 individuals representing 87 institutions that collectively employ 589 toxicologic pathologists. Most responses came from industry (N = 46, mainly biopharmaceutical or contract research organizations) and consultants (N = 24). For GLP-compliant animal toxicity studies, histopathologic evaluation usually involves initial (primary) non-blinded analysis, with post hoc informal blinded re-examination at the study pathologist’s discretion to confirm subtle findings or establish thresholds. Initial blinded histopathologic evaluation sometimes is elected by study pathologists to test formal hypotheses and/or by sponsors to address non-pathologist expectations about histopathology data objectivity. Current practice is that a blinded histopathologic evaluation is documented only if a formal blinding (i.e., using slides with coded labels) is employed, using simple statements without detailed methodology in the Study Protocol (or an amendment) and/or pathology report. In general, blinding is an inappropriate strategy for the histopathologic evaluation during pathology peer reviews of GLP-compliant animal toxicity studies

Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Best Practices: Recommended ("Best") Practices for Informed (Non-blinded) Versus Masked (Blinded) Microscopic Evaluation in Animal Toxicity Studies.

This article describes the Society of Toxicologic Pathology's (STP) five recommended ("best") practices for appropriate use of informed (non-blinded) versus masked (blinded) microscopic evaluation in animal toxicity studies intended for regulatory review. (1) Informed microscopic evaluation is the default approach for animal toxicity studies. (2) Masked microscopic evaluation has merit for confirming preliminary diagnoses for target organs and/or defining thresholds ("no observed adverse effect level" and similar values) identified during an initial informed evaluation, addressing focused hypotheses, or satisfying guidance or requests from regulatory agencies. (3) If used as the approach for an animal toxicity study to investigate a specific research question, masking of the initial microscopic evaluation should be limited to withholding only information about the group (control or test article-treated) and dose equivalents. (4) The decision regarding whether or not to perform a masked microscopic evaluation is best made by a toxicologic pathologist with relevant experience. (5) Pathology peer review, performed to verify the microscopic diagnoses and interpretations by the study pathologist, should use an informed evaluation approach. The STP maintains that implementing these five best practices has and will continue to consistently deliver robust microscopic data with high sensitivity for animal toxicity studies intended for regulatory review. Consequently, when conducting animal toxicity studies, the advantages of informed microscopic evaluation for maximizing sensitivity outweigh the perceived advantages of minimizing bias through masked microscopic examination