Investigating the Potential of Fluorescent Fingerprint Powders as a Marker for Blow Fly Larvae (Diptera: Calliphoridae)

Four fluorescent fingerprint powders (RedWop^?, GreenWop^?, Basic Yellow^?, and Yellow Powder^?) were evaluated as a marker for blow fly larvae. Administration methods included ingestion (high vs. low concentration) or topical. Ingestion of high concentrations of Basic Yellow^? and RedWop^? caused higher larval mortality. Basic Yellow^? delayed development and adult emergence while RedWop^? and Yellow Powder^? had a significant effect on particular stages of development, however, emergence time was not altered. Optimal administration is through ingestion at low concentration levels (<10%) or topically, with GreenWop^? demonstrating minimal adverse effects. Optimum wavelength for discrimination between powders was 450 nm. This research can aid in investigative training to increase visibility of larval and pupal blow flies. It can also be used in entomological studies to differentiate between larval blow flies (or other dipteran) species or individuals to further understand complex interactions and behavior during larval development.     

Vernacular rights cultures and the ‘Right to Have Rights’

We use a case study of the Landless Workers Movement (MST) in Brazil and the Via Campesina network of which they are part to develop the concept of ‘vernacular rights cultures’. Vernacular rights cultures calls attention to the way in which demands for the right to have rights call on particular cultures, histories and political contexts in a manner that can transform the rights inscribed in constitutions and political imaginaries. What Ranciere (1999) and Balibar (2002) call the democratisation of democracy, we therefore argue, does not just involve a logic of equality and inclusion through which dispossessed groups demand already existing rights. Rather, it also occurs as mobilisations alter the means through which rights are delivered and transform the content and meaning of the rights demanded.     

Pain, Impairment, and Disability in the AMA Guides

Physicians use the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th edition to evaluate millions of disability applicants each year. As major contributors to the chapter in the Guides devoted to assessing impairment associated with pain, we confronted the difficulties of incorporating pain into the Guides' overall evaluation system. Analysis of these difficulties is complicated by the paucity of research on the Guides, and by ambiguities and contradictions that pervade it. We propose that the ambiguities can be reduced if impairment is consistently defined in terms of organ or body part derangement, and disability in terms of activity limitations at the level of the whole person. We also propose a distinction between objective factors that may influence a person's ability to perform activities following injury. We suggest that when physicians examine disability applicants, they should evaluate both objective measures of organ or body part dysfunction and subjective reports of applicants -- especially ones regarding pain. We conclude that a comprehensive medical evaluation of disability applicant encompasses more than an impairment assessment.