Measures of aggression and mood changes in male weightlifters with and without androgenic anabolic steroid use

Supraphysiologic doses of testosterone are associated with increased aggression that is hypothesized to be a function of testosterone serum concentrations, mood, and personality. The study attempted to characterize this relationship among weightlifters who were users (n = 10) and nonusers (n = 18) of anabolic steroids. Participants were interviewed using the Modified Mania Rating Scale and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression to assess mood, the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI) and Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm (PSAP) to assess aggression, and the Personality Disorder Questionnaire (PDQ-R) to assess personality. Blood samples were obtained for the determination of total, free, and weakly bound testosterone. Comparisons of continuous variables between testosterone users and non-users were performed with a parametric (unpaired t-test) or non-parametric (Mann-Whitney) test where appropriate. Correlations with testosterone were examined separately for testosterone users and non-users, using Spearman rank correlation. The subjective (BDHI) and objective (PSAP) assessments of aggression found that supranormal testosterone concentrations were associated with increased aggression. However, the PDQ-R results suggest that this finding was confounded by the personality disorder profile of the steroid users, because steroid users demonstrated Cluster B personality disorder traits for antisocial, borderline, and histrionic personality disorder.     

Comparing Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives on the Treatment of Student Misbehavior

Social Justice Research - The treatment of student misbehavior is both a major challenge for teachers and a potential source of students’ perceptions of injustice in school. By implication,...     

The Place for Custody Evaluations in Family Peacemaking

Custody evaluations can serve the dual purpose of providing neutral, objective information to the court while also contributing to the possibility of earlier settlement, which coincides with the therapeutic jurisprudence goal of more positive outcomes for children and families. Research suggests that most cases settle after custody evaluations. However, most of the literature is focused on the use of custody evaluations for litigation. Evaluators, attorneys, and mental health consultants can influence parents to focus more on children's needs and less on their conflict as they go through the evaluation process. This article urges family courts to develop processes and require professionals to learn skills needed for an interdisciplinary process to utilize evaluations in peacemaking.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• All custody evaluation processes should aim to reduce and/or shorten children's exposure to parental conflict.
• Evaluators, attorneys, and mental health professional consultants should use the evaluation process to influence parents to be more aware of their children's needs and less invested in their adversarial positions.
• Evaluators should learn to write and orally present information and state opinions with consideration of the parents themselves as consumers of the custody evaluation as well as the court.
• Attorneys and mental health professional consultants should help clients review the report, process their emotional reactions, and consider their options for settlement versus litigation in terms of emotional and financial costs to the family.
• Court processes should be developed to contain the time and cost of custody evaluations and provide dispute resolution after custody evaluations.

     

Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights

Several recent studies show European university scientists contributing far more frequently to company-owned patented inventions than they do to patents owned by universities or by the academic scientists themselves. Recognising the significance of this channel for direct commercialisation of European academic research makes it important to understand its response to current Bayh-Dole inspired reforms of university patenting rights. This paper studies the contribution from university scientists to inventions patented by dedicated biotech firms (DBFs) specialised in drug discovery in Denmark and Sweden, which in this respect share a number of structural and historic characteristics. It examines effects of the Danish Law on University Patenting (LUP) effective January 2000, which transferred to the employer university rights to patents on inventions made by Danish university scientists alone or as participants in collaborative research with industry. Sweden so far has left property rights with academic scientists, as they also were in Denmark prior to the reform. Consequently, comparison of Danish and Swedish research collaboration before and after LUP offers a quasi-controlled experiment, bringing out effects on joint research of university IPR reform. In original data on all 3,640 inventor contributions behind the 1,087 patents filed by Danish and Swedish DBFs 1990–2004, Difference-in-Difference regressions uncover notable LUP-induced effects in the form of significant reductions in contributions from Danish domestic academic inventors, combined with a simultaneous substitutive increase of non-Danish academic inventors. A moderate increase in academic inventions channelled into university owned-patents does appear after LUP. But the larger part of the inventive potential of academia, previously mobilised into company-owned patents, seems to have been rendered inactive as a result of the reform. As a likely explanation of these effects the paper suggests that exploratory research, the typical target of joint university-DBF projects in drug discovery, fits poorly into LUP’s requirement for ex ante allocation of IPR. The Pre-LUP convention of IPR allocated to the industrial partner in return for research funding and publication rights to the academic partner may have offered more effective contracting for this type of research. There are indications that LUP, outside the exploratory agenda of drug discovery, offers a more productive framework for inventions requiring less complicated and uncertain post-discovery R&D.