Judging Bias: Juror Confidence and Judicial Rulings on Challenges for Cause

The judge in a jury trial is charged with excusing prospective jurors who will not be impartial. To assess impartiality, prospective jurors are typically asked whether they can be fair. Using an experimental paradigm, we found that small changes in jurors' self‐reported confidence in their ability to be fair affected judges' decisions about bias but did not affect the judgments of either attorneys or jurors. We suggest why a judge's role and unique relationship with jurors is likely to foster a decision strategy based on reported juror confidence, and we discuss the implications of our analysis for current legal debates over jury selection practices. Unexpected patterns in our results also highlight the ways in which perceptions of impartiality are affected, in part, by the social characteristics of the observer.     

Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations.

No consensus yet exists on how to handle incidental findings (IFs) in human subjects research. Yet empirical studies document IFs in a wide range of research studies, where IFs are findings beyond the aims of the study that are of potential health or reproductive importance to the individual research participant. This paper reports recommendations of a two-year project group funded by NIH to study how to manage IFs in genetic and genomic research, as well as imaging research. We conclude that researchers have an obligation to address the possibility of discovering IFs in their protocol and communications with the IRB, and in their consent forms and communications with research participants. Researchers should establish a pathway for handling IFs and communicate that to the IRB and research participants. We recommend a pathway and categorize IFs into those that must be disclosed to research participants, those that may be disclosed, and those that should not be disclosed.     

Characterization of human DNA in environmental samples

Environmental samples from indoor surfaces can be confounded by dust, which is composed largely of human skin cells and has been documented to contain roughly tens of micrograms of total DNA per gram of dust. This study complements previous published work by providing estimates of the quantity of amplifiable human DNA found in environmental samples from a typical indoor environment, categorized by the intensity of human traffic and visible quantity of dust. Dust was collected by surface swabbing standard 576 cm² areas in eight locations, and evaluated for total DNA quantity, presence of human DNA (mitochondrial and nuclear loci using conventional PCR), quantity of human nuclear DNA using quantitative PCR, and STR analysis. The total DNA content of 36 dust samples ranged from 9 to 28 ng/cm², and contained 0.2–1.1 pg/cm² of human DNA. Overall, human DNA was detected in 97% of 36 dust samples and 61% of samples yielded allele distributions of varying degrees of complexity when subjected to STR analysis. The implications of this study are twofold. First, the presence of dust in evidence can be a significant contamination source in forensic investigations because the human DNA component is of sufficient quality and quantity to produce allele calls in STR analysis. This can be effectively managed by implementing stringent protocols for collection and analysis of potential biological samples. A second implication is the use of dust as a source of evidence for identification of inhabitants within a defined location. In the latter case, a number of additional studies would be necessary to identify relevant pretreatments for environmental dust samples and to develop the necessary deconvolution techniques to separate the composite genotypes obtained.     

Thinking Critically about Race and Genetics

We must critically rethink race and genetics in the context of the new genetic breakthroughs and haplotype mapping. We must avoid the slippery slope of turning socially constructed racial categories into genetic realities. It is a potentially dangerous arena given the history of racialized science in the United States and globally. Indeed, the new advances must be viewed in the context of a long history of racial inequality, continuing into the current period. This is more than a question of how carefully we use categories of analysis such as race. Justice and equity must be core to our considerations. There is a community stake in this work that must be seriously considered and included in decision making. A progressive and critical analysis is in order.