Microbial contamination of ABO antigens in bone tissue

Fragments of human bones were stored in different media for two years and then expression of the ABO antigens was indicated. Simultaneously, microbiological investigations were performed. In almost all cases, different ABO substances were detected in putrefied and fresh bones taken from the same person. Blood group antigens found in putrefied bones were compared with serological activity of bacterium cultured from these tissues. Attempts were made to remove unspecific reactions. The authors assume that bacteria are responsible for nonspecific serological reactions, not only as a carrier of blood-group-like substances, but also as a source of enzymes responsible for changes in the structure of ABO antigens in putrefied bones.     

Structural validity of the posttraumatic stress disorder checklist among college students with a trauma history

The authors conducted confirmatory factor analyses to test three-factor and four-factor models of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) using the PTSD Checklist with college students reporting a traumatic event history. The authors found support for the three-factor DSM-IV-based PTSD diagnostic model including reexperiencing, avoidance/numbing, and hyperarousal symptom factors, with slightly better support for a four-factor model separating the avoidance and numbing factors. Results further attest to the PTSD Checklist's construct validity, and to research finding that PTSD avoidance and numbing constructs are distinct.     

Company Liability and Competition Law: Exposure of Company to Risk of Undesirable Behaviour of Directors

In order to protect the objectives of competition policy, companies as undertakings are primarily targeted for the competition law infringements based on the mixed approach of compliance and deterrence theories relying on the view that company directors are incentivised to comply with the rules of competition law by the internal compliance programmes and corporate fines are the consequences of incompliance. This enforcement strategy gives rise to a tension between corporate governance, company law and competition law, as the former two focus on the behaviour of individuals within the corporate structure, while the latter concerns the impact of the company’s behaviour in the market. The question that arises in this tension is whether or to what extent competition law actually considers the way in which the company is run internally while it seeks to promote these primary objectives. This article analyses the deterrent effectiveness of primary enforcement strategy employed in the UK competition law regime and argues that competition law does not tend to localise the source of conduct or particular decisions and does not aim to correct the right wrongdoer. Despite that lack of effectiveness of public enforcement strategy to deter further anti-competitive behaviour has led individual sanctions to be introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 in the UK, companies are still primarily targeted by corporate fines even though directors have intentionally breached the rules of competition law and this strategy is unlikely to deter directors from engaging with undesirable behaviour which exposes the company to risk of liability and loss.

     

Functional MRI Detection of Deception After Committing a Mock Sabotage Crime*

Abstract: Using Blood Oxygen Level Dependent (BOLD) functional MRI (fMRI) to detect deception is feasible in simple laboratory paradigms. A mock sabotage scenario was used to test whether this technology would also be effective in a scenario closer to a real‐world situation. Healthy, nonmedicated adults were recruited from the community, screened, and randomized to either a Mock‐crime group or a No‐crime group. The Mock‐crime group damaged and stole compact discs (CDs), which contained incriminating video footage, while the No‐crime group did not perform a task. The Mock‐crime group also picked up an envelope from a researcher, while the No‐crime group did not perform this task. Both groups were instructed to report that they picked up an envelope, but did not sabotage any video evidence. Participants later went to the imaging center and were scanned while being asked questions regarding the mock crime. Participants also performed a simple laboratory based fMRI deception testing (Ring‐Watch testing). The Ring‐Watch testing consisted of “stealing” either a watch or a ring. The participants were instructed to report that they stole neither object. We correctly identified deception during the Ring‐Watch testing in 25 of 36 participants (Validated Group). In this Validated Group for whom a determination was made, computer‐based scoring correctly identified nine of nine Mock‐crime participants (100% sensitivity) and five of 15 No‐crime participants (33% specificity). BOLD fMRI presently can be used to detect deception concerning past events with high sensitivity, but low specificity.     

Proprietary Estoppel and Responsibility for Omissions

The ‘acquiescence’ category of proprietary estoppel is a rare example of responsibility for pure omissions in private law. On liberal‐individualistic theories of ownership, the policy considerations against liability for nondoing are exceptionally powerful in the context of rights over land. Nevertheless, I argue that in proprietary estoppel the law is justified in imposing a duty on the right‐holder to alert a stranger when his actions are based on a mistake. Owners of property rights are under what Honoré termed a ‘special duty’ to contribute to the social good of efficient market for land by publicising their rights. This ‘duty to speak’ is however relatively weak and cannot completely suppress considerations against liability for omission. While liability in the acquiescence category can be justified in principle, the current law, in which owners who failed to correct the mistake of the relying party incur similar liability to owners who actively encouraged the other party to rely, is untenable.