The OAS and the Summit of the Americas: Coexistence,or Integration of Forces for Multilateralism?

Fifty years after the creation of the OAS, political power is not centralized in that organization but variously diffused throughout the interamerican system. Meanwhile, the Summit of the Americas process has slowly acquired its own institutionality outside the OAS, and is sometimes perceived as challenging the primacy of the ideal of the OAS as the principal institution of interamerican relations. Even with its own weaknesses, the Summit of the Americas has become the most important force for reform of the OAS. As the hemisphere prepares for the third full summit in Quebec, this essay assesses the relationship of these two institutions and their future prospects.     

The effect of school classroom characteristics on low self-control: A multilevel analysis

Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory has reaped a substantial amount of empirical support. Recently, attention has focused on the factors associated with the development of self-control. With few and isolated exceptions, most research has examined the ways in which parents contribute to the development of self-control in children. Gottfredson and Hirschi hypothesized, however, that other social institutions, especially schools, may play at least some role in inculcating self-control. The current study addressed this possibility by conducting a series of multilevel models that examined whether the characteristics of schools, and classrooms within schools, were salient to the development of self-control. Using a longitudinal sample of kindergarten and first-grade students, the results revealed that classroom characteristics influenced self-control.     

Incidental findings in genetics research using archived DNA

Despite calls by some commentators for disclosing incidental findings in genetics research, several factors weigh in favor of caution. The technology of genetics has the power to uncover a vast array of information. The most potent argument for restraint in disclosure is that much research is pursued without consent so that the individual participant may not know that research is being conducted at all. Often the work is done by investigators and at institutions with which the person has no prior contact. Past practice is also relevant; genetics researchers historically have chosen not to disclose incidental findings, of which misattributed paternity and pleiotropic alleles such as ApoE have been the most common. Many people choose not to have genetic tests when given a choice. It may be desirable to discuss the topic of incidental findings when consent for research is obtained, but given the risk of unwanted surprise when there has been no prior discussion, the potential utility of incidental findings should be very high before they are even offered to individuals.     

The intersection of racial profiling research and the law

There has been a significant increase in the litigation of selective enforcement cases based on racial profiling claims. This trend has resulted in two legal issues that are problematic for racial profiling research. First, selective enforcement claims that rely on statistical evidence must successfully measure “similarly situated persons” who were eligible for police stops to provide a comparison against those actually stopped by police. Second, the research must demonstrate “how much” statistical evidence of racial/ethnic disparities exists. Although these legal components are necessary for successful selective enforcement claims, the methodologies and statistical analyses currently used in racial profiling research cannot adequately address these issues. It is argued that the over-reliance on social science research, in general, and statistical techniques, specifically, to provide evidence of discrimination in selective enforcement cases places policing research and legal decision making at a crossroads.