A global study of forensically significant calliphorids: implications for identification

A proliferation of molecular studies of the forensically significant Calliphoridae in the last decade has seen molecule-based identification of immature and damaged specimens become a routine complement to traditional morphological identification as a preliminary to the accurate estimation of post-mortem intervals (PMI), which depends on the use of species-specific developmental data. Published molecular studies have tended to focus on generating data for geographically localised communities of species of importance, which has limited the consideration of intraspecific variation in species of global distribution. This study used phylogenetic analysis to assess the species status of 27 forensically important calliphorid species based on 1167 base pairs of the COI gene of 119 specimens from 22 countries, and confirmed the utility of the COI gene in identifying most species. The species Lucilia cuprina, Chrysomya megacephala, Ch. saffranea, Ch. albifrontalis and Calliphora stygia were unable to be monophyletically resolved based on these data. Identification of phylogenetically young species will require a faster-evolving molecular marker, but most species could be unambiguously characterised by sampling relatively few conspecific individuals if they were from distant localities. Intraspecific geographical variation was observed within Ch. rufifacies and L. cuprina, and is discussed with reference to unrecognised species.     

“What If” History Matters? Comparative Counterfactual Analysis and Policy Relevance

Developing strong, policy-relevant causal explanations for major events in world politics often requires identification and rejection of weak counterfactual claims. Poorly constructed counterfactual arguments reveal serious deficiencies that undercut the necessary condition theories from which they are derived. Stronger explanations of historical events emerge when these weaknesses are weighed against the strengths of competing counterfactuals. Comparing the relative plausibility of competing (weak versus strong) counterfactual claims about the same event is the essence of comparative counterfactual analysis (CCA). When combined with process tracing, CCA can help to generate policy relevant findings by resolving many of the methodological pitfalls researchers confront when each method is applied in isolation.     

How Much Does Effortful Thinking Underlie Observers’ Reactions to Victimization?

From blaming to helping innocent victims, just-world research has revealed that observers react to victimization in a variety of ways. Recent research suggests that such responses to victimization require effortful thought, whereas other research has shown that people can react to these situations intuitively. Along with manipulating just-world threat, across seven experiments, we manipulated or measured participants’ level of mental processing before assessing judgments of victim derogation, blame, willingness to help, and ultimate justice reasoning. The effect of just-world threat on these responses held constant over a range of manipulations/measures, suggesting that the processes involved in maintaining a belief in a just world are not restricted to the rational, deliberative level of mental processing but also occur intuitively.     

Educated guesses: health risk assessment in environmental impact statements

Environmental pollution threatens public health. The search for solutions has advanced the frontiers of science and law. Efforts to protect the environment and public health begin with describing potential adverse consequences of human activities and characterizing the predicted risk. The National Environmental Policy Act requires the preparation of environmental impact statements to describe the effects of proposed federal projects and provide information for agency decisionmakers and the public. Risks to public health are particularly difficult to quantify because of uncertainty about the relation between exposure to environmental contamination and disease. Risk assessment is the current scientific tool to present estimates of risk. The methodology has created controversy, however, when underlying assumptions and uncertainties are not clearly presented. Critics caution that the methodology is vulnerable to bias. This Note evaluates the use of risk assessment in the environmental impact statement process and offers recommendations to ensure informed decisions.