The authoritarian logic of regulatory pluralism: Understanding China's new environmental actors

Over the last decade, Chinese citizens, judges, and prosecutors have started to take action against industrial pollution, pluralizing a regulatory landscape originally occupied by administrative agencies. Regulatory pluralism here has an authoritarian logic, occurring without the retreat of party‐state control. Under such logic, the party‐state both needs and fears new actors for their positive and negative roles in controlling risk and maintaining stability. Consequently, the regime's relation to regulatory pluralism is ambivalent, shifting between support and restriction. This prevents a development of a regulatory society that could bypass the regulatory state. Theoretically, this special edition argues for a subjective definition of regulation in a context of pluralism. Moreover, it finds that regulatory pluralism need not coincide with a decentring of regulation. Finally, it highlights how entry onto the regulatory landscape affects the non‐regulatory roles of new actors, creating unintended consequences for regulatory pluralism.     

PROTECTING LIVES,CAREERS, AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE: FLORIDA'S EFFORTS TO PREVENT OFFICER‐INVOLVED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Florida's innovative Law Enforcement Families Partnership (LEFP) was created to reduce and prevent officer‐involved domestic violence in the state. Administered by the Institute for Family Violence Studies at Florida State University and supported by the criminal justice and victim's advocacy communities, the LEFP is the first statewide project of its kind. It includes several components, the cornerstone of which is an online curriculum that teaches officers about the dynamics and consequences of domestic violence perpetrated by officers. This article describes the project and early data from the surveys attached to the curriculum.     

Growing Stem Cells: The Impact of Federal Funding Policy on the U.S. Scientific Frontier

This paper articulates a citation‐based approach to science policy evaluation and employs that approach to investigate the impact of the United States’ 2001 policy regarding the federal funding of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research. We evaluate the impact of the policy on the level of U.S. hESC research, the U.S. position at the knowledge frontier, and the strategic response of U.S. scientists. Consistent with recent research on the science of science and innovation policy, we employ a difference‐in‐differences approach using bibliometric data with the aim of analyzing the causal impact of the policy on cumulative research. Our estimates suggest that in the aftermath of the 2001 policy, U.S. production of hESC research lagged 35 to 40 percent behind anticipated levels. However, this relative decline was largely concentrated in the years 2001 to 2003 and ameliorated over time. The rebound in U.S. hESC research after 2003 was driven by contributions by researchers at elite U.S. institutions and U.S. researchers who collaborated with international partners. The results suggest that scientists respond strategically to research funding restrictions and that modest science policy shifts can have a significant influence on the within‐country composition of research and the pattern of global research collaboration.     

Allele frequencies for 15 autosomal STR loci and admixture estimates in Puerto Rican Americans

Allelic frequencies of 15 short tandem repeats (STR) markers (CSF1PO, FGA, THO1, TPOX, VWA, D3S11358, D5S818, D7S820, D8S1179, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51, D21S11, D19S433 and D2S1338) were determined using the AmpFl STR Identifiler PCR Amplification Kit in Puerto Rican American individuals (N=205) from Massachusetts. The FGA, D18S51 and D2S1338 loci had a high power of discrimination (PD) with values of 0.967, 0.965 and 0.961, respectively. Significant deviations from the Hardy-Weinberg (HW) equilibrium were not detected. An important genetic contribution of Caucasian European (76.4%) was detected in Puerto Rican Americans. However, comparative analysis between Puerto Rican American and other neighboring populations from United States mainly with African and Caucasian Americans, revealed significant differences in the distribution of STR markers. Our results are important for future comparative genetic studies of different American ethnic groups, in particular a cultural group called Hispanic-Americans and should be helpful for forensic and paternity testing.     

Strengths,Limitations, and Recommendations for Instrumental Color Measurement in Forensic Soil Characterization

Color determination of soil evidence is often done by visual comparison to soil color charts. A handheld spectrophotometer was tested with representative materials for its suitability for forensic soil characterization. Instrumental colorimetry provides accurate colorimetry with ~10-fold better precision than a soil color chart. The minimum sample size for accurate color determination was between 0.02 and 0.04 mg of fine soil for the specific instrument tested. Reporting colors in the L*a*b* space permits quantification of ΔE₀₀, a measure of perceptible color difference, could enable objective quantification of small color differences and thresholds for forensic soil comparisons. A ΔE₀₀ greater than ~ 3.5 to 6 likely indicates disparate soil sources in a forensic comparison, in the absence of confounding factors like sample alteration. Despite the superior precision of instrumental colorimetry, this approach is inappropriate for samples which are mottled at an inseparable scale, attached to a substrate, or too small for instrumental measurement.     

Liberal Versus Conservative Stinks

In a recent Public Opinion Quarterly article “Is the Academy a Liberal Hegemony?,” John Zipp and Rudy Fenwick pit themselves against “right-wing activists and scholars,” citing our scholarship (Klein and Stern in Academic Questions 18(1): 40–52, 2005a; Klein and Western in Academic Questions 18(1): 53–65, 2005). Here, we analyze Zipp and Fenwick’s characterization of our research and find it faulty. We, then, turn to their self-identification “liberal vs. conservative” findings and show they concord with our analysis. If one feels that it is a problem that humanities and social science faculty at 4-year colleges and universities are vastly predominantly democratic voters, mostly with views that may called establishment-left, progressive, or status-quo oriented, then such concerns should not be allayed by Zipp and Fenwick’s article. We commence the article with a criticism of the “liberal versus conservative” framework because it is the source of much of the confusion surrounding controversies such as the one over the ideological profile of faculty.