Weighing both sides: morality, mortality, and framing contests over obesity

Despite recent and growing media attention surrounding obesity in the United States, the so-called obesity epidemic remains a highly contested scientific and social fact. This article examines the contemporary obesity debate through systematic examination of the claims and claimants involved in the controversy. We argue that four primary groups-antiobesity researchers, antiobesity activists, fat acceptance researchers, and fat acceptance activists-are at the forefront of this controversy and that these groups are fundamentally engaged in framing contests over the nature and consequences of excess body weight. While members of the fat acceptance groups embrace a body diversity frame, presenting fatness as a natural and largely inevitable form of diversity, members of the antiobesity camp frame higher weights as risky behavior akin to smoking, implying that body weight is under personal control and that people have a moral and medical responsibility to manage their weight. Both groups sometimes frame obesity as an illness, which limits blame by suggesting that weight is biologically or genetically determined but simultaneously stigmatizes fat bodies as diseased. While the antiobesity camp frames obesity as an epidemic to increase public attention, fat acceptance activists argue that concern over obesity is distracting attention from a host of more important health issues for fat Americans. We examine the strategies claimants use to establish their own credibility or discredit their opponents, and explain how the fat acceptance movement has exploited structural opportunities and cultural resources created by AIDS activism and feminism to wield some influence over U.S. public health approaches. We conclude that notions of morality play a central role in the controversy over obesity, as in many medical disputes, and illustrate how medical arguments about body weight can be used to stymie rights claims and justify morality-based fears.     

Human (In)Security and Democracy in Central America

Human security has increasingly shifted attention to the individual, while the state has become guarantor (or violator) of security given its role in governing the domestic environment. This article examines how variations in regime forms influence security, pointing to the importance of political security in the wider human security framework. To illustrate, the article examines the nature of political security in Central America, a region with weakly democratized states and histories of political violence. The findings suggest a link between democracy and human security that is mediated by state capacity and the ability to control non-state violence against individuals.     

The relationship of criminal victimization,police per capita and population density in twenty-six cities

This study examines the relationship between indicators of environmental control and criminal victimization rates in twenty-six large American central cities. Using a typology of criminal victimization that classifies crimes as property crimes with contact, property crimes without contact, and nonproperty assaultive crimes, it is found that both the number of police per capita and population density are negatively related to property crimes without contact and nonproperty assaultive crimes. However, the number of police per capita (controlling for population density) is not related to property crimes with contact, while population density (controlling for number of police per capita) is positively related to these crimes. Possible explanations for these patterns of relationships are discussed.     

The balanced scorecard: Sustainable performance assessment for forensic laboratories

The purpose of this article is to introduce the concept of the balanced scorecard into the laboratory management environment. The balanced scorecard is a performance measurement matrix designed to capture financial and non-financial metrics that provide insight into the critical success factors for an organization, effectively aligning organization strategy to key performance objectives. The scorecard helps organizational leaders by providing balance from two perspectives. First, it ensures an appropriate mix of performance metrics from across the organization to achieve operational excellence; thereby the balanced scorecard ensures that no single or limited group of metrics dominates the assessment process, possibly leading to long-term inferior performance. Second, the balanced scorecard helps leaders offset short term performance pressures by giving recognition and weight to long-term laboratory needs that, if not properly addressed, might jeopardize future laboratory performance.