Short term impact of Tribulus terrestris intake on doping control analysis of endogenous steroids

Tribulus terrestris is a nutritional supplement highly debated regarding its physiological and actual effects on the organism. The main claimed effect is an increase of testosterone anabolic and androgenic action through the activation of endogenous testosterone production. Even if this biological pathway is not entirely proven, T. terrestris is regularly used by athletes. Recently, the analysis of two female urine samples by GC/C/IRMS (gas chromatography/combustion/isotope-ratio-mass-spectrometry) conclusively revealed the administration of exogenous testosterone or its precursors, even if the testosterone glucuronide/epitestosterone glucuronide (T/E) ratio and steroid marker concentrations were below the cut-off values defined by World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). To argue against this adverse analytical finding, the athletes recognized having used T. terrestris in their diet. In order to test this hypothesis, two female volunteers ingested 500 mg of T. terrestris, three times a day and for two consecutive days. All spot urines were collected during 48 h after the first intake. The ¹³C/¹²C ratio of ketosteroids was determined by GC/C/IRMS, the T/E ratio and DHEA concentrations were measured by GC/MS and LH concentrations by radioimmunoassay. None of these parameters revealed a significant variation or increased above the WADA cut-off limits. Hence, the short-term treatment with T. terrestris showed no impact on the endogenous testosterone metabolism of the two subjects.     

The Measurand Problem in Breath Alcohol Testing

Proper interpretation of forensic measurements can be critical to the administration of justice. Breath alcohol testing is commonly relied upon to measure the concentration of alcohol in breath or, indirectly, in blood. The concentration sought constitutes the “quantity intended to be measured,” referred to as the measurand. Although breath tests always probe the same physical quantity, their measurand is dictated by statute and varies between jurisdictions. Thus, identical numerical values obtained from tests in disparate jurisdictions may refer to different quantities and may not indicate the relevant statutory measurand. This can lead to misinterpretation of results, referred to as the “measurand problem.” We first illustrate the concept of the measurand. Thereafter, the measurand problem is illustrated through application of Hlastala's breath test paradigm and Gullberg's work on breath test uncertainty. It is shown that where the measurand is not properly accounted for, conclusions based upon breath test evidence are undermined.     

Child Abuse as a Catalyst for Wife Abuse?

This paper draws on Matza’s (1964/1990) theory of deviance to propose that the father’s current abuse of the child moderates the relationship between father’s patriarchal beliefs and current perpetration of husband violence in South Korea. Drawing on Matza’s concept of neutralizing beliefs, the paper argues that child abuse potentiates patriarchal beliefs, allowing husbands to extend rationalizations for child abuse to rationalizations for wife abuse, resulting in an interaction effect. The paper tests this hypothesized interaction effect using data from a nationally representative sample of 585 South Korean men. The paper then tests a competing alternative hypothesis that any type of violence (including violence outside the family) by the father acts as a moderator. Support is found for the child abuse as moderator hypothesis but not for the competing hypothesis.     

“Bending” Evidence for a Cause: Scholar‐Advocacy Bias in Family Law

There are a number of salient public policy issues in the family law field that have invoked impassioned policy debates on a recurrent basis. In the absence of a body of research to address these critical concerns, advocates under the guise of social science scholarship have exacerbated the confusion and controversy by construing the scant available research evidence to justify their own ends, without regard to the relevance, quality, utility, and limitations of the studies. This is one of two articles on this problem that we have named “scholar‐advocacy bias.” In this article, we discuss the difference between truth in social science and truth in law. We identify common ways in which social science researchers and reviewers of research—wittingly or unwittingly—can become advocates for ideological positions and social policies at the expense of being balanced reporters of research evidence as illustrated by recent debates about overnight parenting of infants and toddlers. We also consider how adherence to established scientific principles and methods prevents the misuse of research in this way.     

Trauma-Informed Resource Parent Training and the Impact on Knowledge Acquisition,Parenting Self-Efficacy,and Child Behavior Outcomes: A Pilot of the Resource Parent Curriculum Parent Management Training (RPC+)

This pilot study illustrates one state’s development, implementation, and outcomes of a trauma-informed curriculum called the Resource Parent Curriculum + CARE (RPC+). The RPC+ is an intensive co-trained curriculum intended to be trauma-informed and skills-based focused on ameliorating child behavior problems that are frequently the source of parenting stress and placement instability. This article will provide a literature review of child and caregiver needs, describe the training curriculum, and present the results from the pilot implementation of the curriculum. Preliminary findings from this study show participants of the RPC+ show positive changes pre- to post-training on a number of dimensions that have been correlated with placement stability for children including knowledge of trauma, parenting self-efficacy, and child behavior outcomes.     

Narrative analysis for the policy analyst: A case study of the 1980–1982 medfly controversy in California

Narrative policy analysis provides a way of analyzing those highly uncertain and complex policy issues whose truth-value cannot be ascertained and about which the only thing practicing policy analysts know are the stories policymakers use in articulating these issues. One extremely well-documented controversy, the 1980-82 California Medfly Crisis, illustrates how a comparison and analysis of the structure of the dominant stories in that controversy reduces some of its underlying uncertainty. By focusing on the differential risk perceptions reflected in the stories, narrative policy analysis identifies an important area in which conventional policy analysis could have contributed to the controversy's resolution.