Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for A and B water soluble blood group substances

The conditions affecting an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for salivary blood group substances were investigated. It was found that A, B, and O secretor saliva samples would each bind both anti-A and anti-B typing reagents. The conditions that affected the assay response were optimized for maximum sensitivity and to give the highest resolution possible between the result for an antiserum binding to homologous antigen and the response for heterologous antigen-antibody combinations. Monoclonal antibodies eliminated the heterologous binding indicating that this binding was due to a lack of specificity of the routine typing reagents. A sensitive assay using the monoclonal antibodies to distinguish between samples of A and B secretor saliva is described.     

A discussion of the merits of random man not excluded and likelihood ratios

DNA mixture interpretation is undertaken either by calculating a LR or an exclusion probability (RMNE or its complement CPI). Debate exists as to which has the greater claim. The merits and drawbacks of the two approaches are discussed. We conclude that the two matters that appear to have real force are: (1) LRs are more difficult to present in court and (2) the RMNE statistic wastes information that should be utilised.     

Measuring performance at the army research laboratory: The performance evaluation construct

The Army Research Laboratory (ARL) is the only R&D organization to be designated a Pilot Project for Performance Measurement under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). As such, managers at ARL were required to develop a system for measuring progress towards meeting strategic and annual performance goals, as specified in the required planning documents. The measurement system developed at ARL to comply with the GPRA, which we call the Performance Evaluation Construct, is presented herein.     

AN EVALUATION OF SUPERVISED ACCESS III

Although supervised access has become a more frequently used option within the custody and access domain over the last 10 years, no empirical literature has examined supervised access from the standpoint of its effect on the legal system. As part of a large-scale evaluation of Ontorio's Supervised Access Pilot Project, the present study sought the perceptions of the legal community and the courts regarding supervised access centers. A total of 14 lawyers and 13 judges participated in semistructured telephone interviews concerning supervised access cases in general, the function and impact of the supervised access program in their community, and their satisfaction with and recommendations regarding the center. Both lawyers and judges expressed high levels of satisfaction with the centers and believed that their availability resulted in savings to the legal system and reductions in hostility and conflict between parents. Implications and limitations of the study are discussed.     

IF A THREAT OF VIOLENCE IS PRESENTED,WHEN DOES THE LAW REQUIRE FAMILY MEDIATORS TO BREACH CONFIDENTIALITY?

For a family mediator to protect his client, a third party, and/or himself from unlawfully disclosing a client's admission, the family mediator should use the principles set forth in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California when a threat of violence is presented by one of his clients, since many states have adopted these principles through case law and statute to protect third parties from acts of violence. The two most significant factors in determining whether to breach confidentiality are the identifiability of the victim and the likelihood of the potential physical harm. If a jurisdiction has not explicitly done so via statute, the family mediator should nonetheless follow these principles since they are likely to be adopted by that jurisdiction through case law, because the probability of a court's finding a special relationship between a family mediator and a client is relatively high.     

Interdisciplinarity and the Discipline of Law

This article concerns the effects of interdisciplinary research conducted by academic lawyers on the legal discipline itself. It discusses the intellectual tension between the modes of legal analysis traditionally used by academic lawyers and the approach taken by interdisciplinary scholars, and how this tension is rooted in the challenges interdisciplinarity poses to widely-accepted notions about the purposes of legal scholarship and the relationship between academic lawyers and the legal profession. The article considers the implications of legal interdisciplinarity in light of the cultural context from which legal interdisciplinarians emerge and how the relationship between legal scholarship and legal practice ultimately guarantees the continued existence of a distinct and coherent disciplinary identity for law.