Innovation or Inertia: The U.S. Military and the Learning of Counterinsurgency

Following its encounter with insurgent violence in Iraq, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has sought to improve the U.S. military's ability to conduct counterinsurgency. This effort suggests a potential turning-point in the history of the U.S. military, which has traditionally devoted its attention and resources to “high-intensity” or “conventional” combat. Given this institutional culture, what are now the prospects of the U.S. military ‘learning counterinsurgency’? In many ways, the ongoing reorientation is promising and targeted, informed directly by the U.S. campaign in Iraq. At the same time, Pentagon priorities still reveal a remarkable resistance to change, and this in spite of the radically altered strategic environment of the War on Terror. Given this intransigence - and the eventual fall-out from the troubled Iraq campaign - the ongoing learning of counterinsurgency might very well fail to produce the type of deep-rooted change needed to truly transform the U.S. military.     

The quantification of fingerprint quality using a relative contrast index

Research into fingermark enhancement techniques has traditionally used visual comparisons and qualitative methods to assess their effectiveness based on the quality of the developed fingermark. However, with increasing research into the optimisation of these techniques the need for a quantitative evaluative method has arisen. Parameters for acceptable fingerprint quality are not well defined and generally encompass clear, sharp edges and high levels of contrast between the fingermark ridges and background material. Using these current parameters, a conclusive measurement of fingerprint quality and thus the effectiveness of development techniques cannot be achieved.This study presents a model through which an aspect of fingerprint quality can be objectively and impartially measured based on a relative contrast index, constructed through measuring the reflective intensity of the fingermark ridges against the background material. Using a fibre-optic spectrophotometer attached to a microscope with axial illumination, the intensity counts of the ridge detail and background material were measured and a logarithmic contrast index constructed. The microscope and spectrophotometer parameters were experimentally tested using a standard colour resolution chart with known reflective properties. The protocol was successfully applied to four sample groups: black inked fingerprints on white paper; latent fingermarks on white paper developed separately with ninhydrin and physical developer; and fingermarks in blood deposited on white tiles and enhanced with amido black. The contrast indices obtained quantitatively reflect the level of contrast and provide an indication of fingerprint quality through a numerical representation rather than previous qualitative methods. It has been suggested that the proposed method of fingerprint quantification may be viable for application in the forensic research arena as it allows the definitive measurement of contrast to aid the evaluation of fingermark detection and enhancement techniques.     

Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations.

No consensus yet exists on how to handle incidental findings (IFs) in human subjects research. Yet empirical studies document IFs in a wide range of research studies, where IFs are findings beyond the aims of the study that are of potential health or reproductive importance to the individual research participant. This paper reports recommendations of a two-year project group funded by NIH to study how to manage IFs in genetic and genomic research, as well as imaging research. We conclude that researchers have an obligation to address the possibility of discovering IFs in their protocol and communications with the IRB, and in their consent forms and communications with research participants. Researchers should establish a pathway for handling IFs and communicate that to the IRB and research participants. We recommend a pathway and categorize IFs into those that must be disclosed to research participants, those that may be disclosed, and those that should not be disclosed.