Gold-plating of Mylar lift films to capitalize on surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy for chemical extraction of drug residues

The method of residue extraction through electrostatic lifting provides a distinctive mode of performing ultra-trace analysis. These lifts provide a medium for analyte extraction via nanomanipulation-coupled to nanospray ionization-mass spectrometry (NSI-MS). This method of extraction can be coupled to Raman spectroscopy for supplemental verification of analytes using surface enhanced Raman scattering (SERS). The gold surface used for SERS provides an enhanced effect on peak signal intensity allowing ultra-trace amounts to be detected more effectively. The aim of this research is to utilize gold-coated films with electrostatic lifting in order to collect latent materials and analyze chemicals of interest contained in them via SERS.     

Author Index of Volume 16

Authors Index

Author Index of Volume 16     

Psycholegal Scholarship's Contribution to False Consciousness About Injustice

The field of psychology and law began with an avowed focus on social justice. In the past two decades, that focus has been diverted. With justice defined more narrowly than previously, psycholegal research has contributed to false consciousness about the degree to which law reduces injustice and promotes social change. Primary components of false consciousness about law include the belief that procedural justice is more important than substantive or distributive justice, the acceptance of legal doctrines that support corporate capitalism, and the belief that the strict rule of law is inherently superior to individualized equity and commonsense justice.     

Regime Types and Discrimination against Ethnoreligious Minorities: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Autocracy–Democracy Continuum

Although many assume that the relationship between the autocracy–democracy continuum and discrimination is linear, with autocracies discriminating the most and democracies discriminating the least, the assumption is not universal. This study uses the Minorities at Risk dataset to test this relationship with regard to government treatment of religiously differentiated ethnic minorities (ethnoreligious minorities) as well as ethnic minorities that are not religiously differentiated. The results show that the pattern of treatment of ethnoreligious minorities differs from that of other ethnic minorities. The extent to which a state is democratic has no clear influence on the level of discrimination against non-religiously differentiated ethnic minorities, but it has a clear influence on the level of discrimination against ethnoreligious minorities. Autocracies discriminate more than democracies against ethnoreligious minorities, but semi-democracies, those governments that are situated between democracies and autocracies, discriminate even less. This result is consistent on all 11 measures used here and is statistically significant for seven of them, and it remains strong when controlling for other factors, including separatism. This phenomenon increases in strength from the beginning to the end of the 1990s. Also, democracies discriminate against ethnoreligious minorities more than they do against other minorities. The nature of liberal democracy may provide an explanation for this phenomenon.