# kb

id: albany-law-journal-of-science-and-technology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_Law_Journal_of_Science_and_Technology-0.md
category: reference
title: Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_Law_Journal_of_Science_and_Technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:05.669688+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: albany-law-journal-of-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
The Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology (Bluebook abbreviation: Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech.) is a triannual law journal edited by students at Albany Law School. It was established in 1990 and covers legal issues involving science and technology. The journal also organizes an annual symposia. == Membership == Members are students at Albany Law School. Students become eligible for journal membership upon completion of their first year of law school. Offers of membership are extended based on student class standing or on the results of a writing competition jointly administered by the school's three student-edited journals. == Notable symposia == Facebook Firing: The Intersection of Social Media, Employment, & Ethics (2013) Building a High-Tech, 21st Century Economy (2015) == Past Editors-in-Chief == Vol. 36 - John Rainey (2026) Vol. 35 - Savannah Everson (2025) Vol. 34 - Natalie Turney (2024) Vol. 33 - Claire Stratton (2023) Vol. 32 - Anneliese Aliasso (2022) Vol. 29 - Daniel Young (2019) Vol. 27 - Erin Ginty (2017) Vol. 26 - James Faucher II (2016) Vol. 25 - Gary J. Repke, Jr. (2015) Vol. 24 - Elizabeth A. Cappillino (2014) Vol. 23 - Nadia Isobel Arginteanu (2013) Vol. 22 - Christina M.


id: biological-patent-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent-0.md
category: reference
title: Biological patent
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:06.993445+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: biological-patent-20260505-0
summary:
A biological patent is a patent on an invention in the field of biology that by law allows the patent holder to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the protected invention for a limited period of time. The scope and reach of biological patents vary among jurisdictions, and may include biological technology and products, genetically modified organisms and genetic material. The applicability of patents to substances and processes wholly or partially natural in origin is a subject of debate. == Biological patents in different jurisdictions == === Australia === In February 2013, Judge Justice John Nicholas ruled in the Federal Court of Australia in favour of a Myriad Genetics patent on the BRCA1 gene. This was a landmark ruling, affirming the validity of patents on naturally occurring DNA sequences. However, the U.S. Supreme Court came to the opposite conclusion only a few months later. The Australian ruling has been appealed to the Full Bench of the Federal Court; submissions in the case include consideration of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. This decision was decided in 2014, affirming Nicholas J's decision in favor of Myriad, confirming that isolated genetic material (genes) are valid subjects of patents. In October 2015,


id: biological-patent-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent-1.md
category: reference
title: Biological patent
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:06.993445+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: biological-patent-20260505-0
summary:
In the United States, up until 2013 natural biological substances themselves could have been patented (apart from any associated process or usage) if they were sufficiently "isolated" from their naturally occurring states. Prominent historical examples of such patents include those on adrenaline, insulin, vitamin B12, and various genes. A landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013 declared naturally occurring DNA sequences ineligible for patents. == Ethics == === Patenting genes === Gene patents are a form of intellectual property which provide the patent holder with the exclusive right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the invention for a specified period of time, typically twenty years. The patenting of genes is a controversial issue in terms of bioethics. Some believe it is unethical to patent genetic material because it treats life as a commodity, or that it undermines the dignity of people and animals by allowing ownership of genes. Some say that living materials occur naturally, and therefore cannot be patented. Along with concerns about the commodification of human life, the medical community has also warned that gene patents can inhibit the practice of medicine and progress of science. For example, the American Medical Association's


id: biological-patent-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent-2.md
category: reference
title: Biological patent
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:06.993445+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: biological-patent-20260505-0
summary:
=== Patents relating to the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of COVID-19 === In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, several companies around the world raced to develop testing, vaccines, and cures for COVID-19. This required a substantial investment of time and money, and patents were used to protect this innovation. Patent holders are able to refuse licensing for third-parties to manufacture the patented medicine, creating a monopoly for the patent holder and lower supply levels. Furthermore, patent-holders control pricing for licensing and access. This patent-regime has the potential to limit access to life-saving vaccines and cures, especially for those in poor countries. Pharmaceutical industry executives diminished the idea of sharing intellectual property, arguing that companies would have no incentive to innovate if their patents were considered worthless during a pandemic. However, health advocates argue that taxpayers substantially contributed to the development of the vaccines and they should thus be regarded as global public goods. A lack of access to medication and vaccines is especially problematic during a global pandemic. In April 2020, the Director General of the World Health Organization supported a proposal by Carlos Alvarado, to create a pool of rights for testing medicine and vaccine with free access or


id: buck-v-bell-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell-0.md
category: reference
title: Buck v. Bell
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:08.352062+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: buck-v-bell-20260505-0
summary:
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Despite changing attitudes about sterilization, the Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell. It is widely believed to have been weakened by Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), which deemed compulsory sterilization of male habitual criminals unconstitutional. Legal scholar and Holmes biographer G. Edward White, in fact, wrote, "the Supreme Court has distinguished the case [Buck v. Bell] out of existence". In addition, federal statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, provide protections for people with disabilities, defined as both physical and mental impairments. == Background == The modern concept of eugenics was propounded in 1883 by Francis Galton, who also coined the name. The idea first became popular in the United States and had found proponents in Europe by the start


id: buck-v-bell-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell-1.md
category: reference
title: Buck v. Bell
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:08.352062+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: buck-v-bell-20260505-0
summary:
On March 28, 1924, she gave birth to a daughter. Since Buck had been declared mentally incompetent to raise her child, the Dobbses adopted the baby and named her "Vivian Alice Elaine Dobbs". She attended Venable Public Elementary School of Charlottesville for four terms, from September 1930 until May 1932. By all accounts, Vivian was of average intelligence, far above feeblemindedness.She was a perfectly normal, quite average student, neither particularly outstanding nor much troubled. In those days before grade inflation, when C meant "good, 81–87" (as defined on her report card) rather than barely scraping by, Vivian Dobbs received A's and B's for deportment and C's for all academic subjects but mathematics (which was always difficult for her, and where she scored a D) during her first term in Grade 1A, from September 1930 to January 1931. She improved during her second term in 1B, meriting an A in deportment, C in mathematics, and B in all other academic subjects; she was placed on the honor roll in April 1931. Promoted to 2A, she had trouble during the fall term of 1931, failing mathematics and spelling but receiving A in deportment, B in reading, and C in writing and English.


id: buck-v-bell-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell-2.md
category: reference
title: Buck v. Bell
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:08.352062+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: buck-v-bell-20260505-0
summary:
=== Legal appeals and rulings === The case then moved to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, where Whitehead offered a 5‑page compared to the state's 40-page brief. Buck lost there too. Her only recourse was to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that was merely an illusion: even if Whitehead had put forth an effort, Carrie's case was put before a Supreme Court with at least two avowed believers in eugenics: Chief Justice (and former president) William Howard Taft and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. In 1915, Taft had written the introduction to the book How to Live, which contained a sizable portion devoted to eugenics. As for Holmes, in 1921, he told future justice Felix Frankfurter that he had no problem "restricting propagation by the undesirables and putting to death infants that didn't pass the examination." Buck and her guardian contended that the due process clause guarantees all adults the right to procreate which was being violated. They also made the argument that the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment was being violated since not all similarly situated people were being treated the same. The sterilization law was only for the "feeble-minded" at certain state institutions and


id: buck-v-bell-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell-3.md
category: reference
title: Buck v. Bell
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:08.352062+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: buck-v-bell-20260505-0
summary:
=== Aftermath === According to famed eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin, whose written testimony was presented during the trial in his absence, Buck's legal defeat signaled the end of "eugenical sterilization's 'experimental period.'" Following the Supreme Court ruling, over two dozen states enacted similar laws, including Oregon and the Carolinas, doubling American sterilizations from 6,000 to more than 12,000 by 1947. Buck was sterilized on October 19, 1927, roughly five months after the Supreme Court trial verdict. She became the first Virginian sterilized since the 1924 Eugenical Sterilization Act passed. The Virginia sterilization law is said to have inspired Nazi Germany's 400,000 sterilizations, including those sanctioned under the 1933 Law for Protection Against Genetically Defective Offspring. Carrie Buck was operated upon, receiving a compulsory salpingectomy (a form of tubal ligation). She was later paroled from the institution as a domestic worker to a family in Bland, Virginia. She was an avid reader until her death in 1983. Her daughter Vivian had been pronounced "feeble minded" after a cursory examination by ERO field worker Dr. Arthur Estabrook. According to his report, Vivian "showed backwardness", thus the "three generations" of the majority opinion. It is worth noting that the child did very well


id: buck-v-bell-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell-4.md
category: reference
title: Buck v. Bell
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:08.352062+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: buck-v-bell-20260505-0
summary:
Cohen, Adam (2016), Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck, Penguin, ISBN 978-1-59420-418-0. Cullen-DuPont, Kathryn. Encyclopedia of Women's History in America (Infobase Publishing, 2009) pp 37–38 Breed, Allen G. (August 13, 2011). "Eugenics victim, son fighting together for justice". Winfall, North Carolina. Associated Press. Archived from the original on March 6, 2019. Retrieved August 13, 2011. Bruinius, Harry (2007). Better for All the World: The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America's Quest for Racial Purity. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-375-71305-7. Leuchtenburg, William E. (1995), "Mr. Justice Holmes and Three Generations of Imbeciles", The Supreme Court Reborn: The Constitutional Revolution in the Age of Roosevelt, New York: Oxford, pp. 3–25, ISBN 978-0-19-511131-6. Lombardo, Paul (2008), Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell., Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 365, ISBN 978-0-8018-9010-9 Smith, J. David. The Sterilization of Carrie Buck (New Horizon Press, 1989) == External links == Text of Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive Justia Library of Congress Professor Thomas D. Russell An account of the case from the Dolan DNA Learning Center Buck v. Bell (Case File #31681),


id: chemical-patent-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_patent-0.md
category: reference
title: Chemical patent
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_patent
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:09.617535+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: chemical-patent-20260505-0
summary:
A chemical patent, pharmaceutical patent or drug patent is a patent for an invention in the chemical or pharmaceuticals industry. Strictly speaking, in most jurisdictions, there are essentially no differences between the legal requirements to obtain a patent for an invention in the chemical or pharmaceutical fields, in comparison to obtaining a patent in the other fields, such as in the mechanical field. A chemical patent or a pharmaceutical patent is therefore not a sui generis right, i.e. a special legal type of patent. Chemical patent claims often use generic, Markush structures contained within them, named after the inventor Eugene Markush who won a lawsuit in the US in 1925 to allow such structures to be used in patent claims. These generic structures are used to make the patent claim as broad as possible. In the United States, patents on pharmaceuticals were considered unethical by the medical profession during most of the nineteenth-century. Drug patent terms in the US were extended from 17 to 20 years in 1994. Pharmaceutical patents are typically more valuable than any other type of patents, and thus play an essential role in the pharmaceutical industry. There are several reasons for this peculiarity: the cost of


id: clandestine-chemistry-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_chemistry-0.md
category: reference
title: Clandestine chemistry
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_chemistry
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:11.015131+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: clandestine-chemistry-20260505-0
summary:
Clandestine chemistry is chemistry carried out in secret, and particularly in illegal drug laboratories. Larger labs are usually run by gangs or organized crime intending to produce for distribution on the black market. Smaller labs can be run by individual chemists working clandestinely in order to synthesize smaller amounts of controlled substances or simply out of a hobbyist interest in chemistry, often because of the difficulty in ascertaining the purity of other, illegally synthesized drugs obtained on the black market. The term clandestine lab is generally used in any situation involving the production of illicit compounds, regardless of whether the facilities being used qualify as a true laboratory. == History == Ancient forms of clandestine chemistry included the manufacturing of explosives. From 1919 to 1933, the United States prohibited the sale, manufacture, or transportation of alcoholic beverages. This opened a door for brewers to supply their own town with alcohol. Just like modern-day drug labs, distilleries were placed in rural areas. The term moonshine generally referred to "corn whiskey", that is, a whiskey-like liquor made from corn. Today, American-made corn whiskey can be labeled or sold under that name, or as bourbon or Tennessee whiskey, depending on the details of


id: clandestine-chemistry-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_chemistry-1.md
category: reference
title: Clandestine chemistry
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_chemistry
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:11.015131+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: clandestine-chemistry-20260505-0
summary:
Operation Purple is a U.S. DEA driven international chemical control initiative designed to reduce the illicit manufacture of cocaine in the Andean Region, identify rogue firms and suspect individuals, gather intelligence on diversion methods, trafficking trends, and shipping routes, and take administrative, civil and/or criminal action as appropriate. Critical to the success of this operation is the communication network that gives notification of shipments and provides the government of the importer sufficient time to verify the legitimacy of the transaction and take appropriate action. The effects of this initiative have been dramatic and far-reaching. Operation Purple has exposed a significant vulnerability among traffickers, and has grown to include almost thirty nations. According to the DEA, Operation Purple has been highly effective at interfering with cocaine production. However, illicit chemists always find new methods to evade the DEA's scrutiny. In countries where strict chemical controls have been put in place, illicit drug production has been seriously affected. For example, few of the chemicals needed to process coca leaf into cocaine are manufactured in Bolivia or Peru. Most are smuggled in from neighbouring countries with advanced chemical industries or diverted from a smaller number of licit handlers. Increased interdiction of chemicals in


id: clandestine-chemistry-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_chemistry-2.md
category: reference
title: Clandestine chemistry
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_chemistry
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:11.015131+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: clandestine-chemistry-20260505-0
summary:
===== Methamphetamine ===== As of the early 1990s, methamphetamine use was concentrated among young white males in California and nearby states. Since then its use has spread both demographically and geographically. Methamphetamine has been a favorite among various populations including motorcycle gangs, truckers, laborers, soldiers, and ravers. Known as a "club drug", the National Institute on Drug Abuse tracks its incidence of use in children as young as twelve, and the prevalence of users increases with age. In the 1980s and early 1990s, most methamphetamine production in the United States occurred in small independent laboratories. Phenylacetone, one precursor of methamphetamine, became a Schedule II controlled immediate precursor in 1979. Underground chemists searched for alternative methods for producing methamphetamine. The two predominant methods which appeared both involve the reduction of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine. At the time, neither was a watched chemical, and pills containing the substance could be bought by the thousands without raising any kind of suspicion. In the 1990s, the DEA recognized that legally imported precursors were being diverted to the production of methamphetamine. Changes to federal regulations in 1988 and throughout the 1990s enabled the DEA to more closely track the ephedrine and pseudoephedrine precursors. Many


id: clandestine-chemistry-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_chemistry-3.md
category: reference
title: Clandestine chemistry
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_chemistry
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:11.015131+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: clandestine-chemistry-20260505-0
summary:
In Oregon, Brett Sherry of the Oregon Clandestine Drug Lab Cleanup Program has been quoted as stating that only 10–20% of drug labs are discovered by police. Statistics reporting the prevalence of meth labs and arrest of meth producers can vary greatly from county to county and state to state. Factors affecting policing and reporting include funding, specialized training, support from local residents, and willingness to make the issue a priority in policing. How information is categorized and tracked may also inflate or minimize the apparent results. Missouri has reported some of the highest rates of meth-lab arrests in the country, and has pursued an aggressive and highly publicized policy of policing meth labs. This has resulted in as many as 205 cases per year in one county. In contrast, West Virginia reports and/or prosecutes very few cases. It's possible that these low numbers are because of cost. In WV, a police agency which reports a meth lab is responsible for the cost of its cleanup—which can cost tens of thousands of dollars, as proper disposal of toxic and hazardous materials is very expensive. The high cost of cleanup is a clear disincentive for all agencies, but especially those with


id: data-quality-act-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Quality_Act-0.md
category: reference
title: Data Quality Act
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Quality_Act
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:16.979534+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: data-quality-act-20260505-0
summary:
The Information Quality Act (IQA) or Data Quality Act (DQA), passed through the United States Congress in Section 515 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554 (text) (PDF)). Because the Act was a two-sentence rider in a spending bill, it had no name given in the actual legislation. The Government Accountability Office uses the name "Information Quality Act". IQA directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue government-wide guidelines that "provide policy and procedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies". Other federal agencies are also required to publish their own guidelines for information quality and peer review agendas. == Text of the IQA == Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 Sec. 515 reads: (a) In General. – The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall, by not later than September 30, 2001, and with public and Federal agency involvement, issue guidelines under sections 3504(d)(1) and 3516 of title 44, United States Code, that provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal


id: data-quality-act-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Quality_Act-1.md
category: reference
title: Data Quality Act
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Quality_Act
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:16.979534+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: data-quality-act-20260505-0
summary:
== Information Quality Act failing as a basis for law suits == The Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to prevent dissemination of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s "Climate Action Report 2002" published May 2002, claiming the research did not meet requirements of the Federal Data Quality Act (FDQA), which came into effect in October 2002. The case was dismissed in November 2003. In 2004, a multi-party dispute regarding the management of the Missouri River led to a case in which the District Court declared that "the IQA directs the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") to issue guidelines that provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by the agency, the plain language of the legislation fails to define these terms. 44 U.S.C. § 3516. Moreover, the history of the legislation fails to provide any indication as to the scope of these terms. Absent any "meaningful standard" against which to evaluate the agency's discretion, the Court finds that Congress did not intend the IQA to provide a private cause of action, and therefore Blaske Marine Plaintiffs' IQA claim fails." Four days after this judgement the Department of


id: daubert-standard-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard-0.md
category: reference
title: Daubert standard
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:18.264783+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: daubert-standard-20260505-0
summary:
In United States federal law, the Daubert standard ( DAW-bərt) is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy are the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), which held that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not incorporate the Frye standard as a basis for assessing the admissibility of scientific expert testimony, but that the rule incorporated a flexible reliability standard instead; General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997), which held that a district court judge may exclude expert testimony when there are gaps between the evidence relied on by an expert and that person's conclusion, and that an abuse-of-discretion standard of review is the proper standard for appellate courts to use in reviewing a trial court's decision of whether it should admit expert testimony; Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999), which held that the judge's gatekeeping function identified in Daubert applies to all expert testimony, including that which is non-scientific. Important appellate-level


id: daubert-standard-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard-1.md
category: reference
title: Daubert standard
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:18.264783+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: daubert-standard-20260505-0
summary:
=== Timing === To attack expert testimony as inadmissible, counsel may bring pretrial motions, including motions in limine. The motion in limine may be brought prior to trial, although counsel may bring the motion during trial as well. A motion attacking expert testimony should be brought within a reasonable time after the close of discovery if the grounds for the objection can be reasonably anticipated. The hearing should be made well in advance of the first time a case appears on a trial calendar. In one case where a Daubert hearing was conducted on the day of the trial, in which the district court excluded all plaintiff's expert testimony, resulting in the dismissal of all claims, the appellate court remanded the case because of multiple irregularities and a defective record of lower court proceedings. The appellate court noted that in cases that rely heavily on expert testimony, a district court should set a discovery and trial schedule that realistically provides both sides with an adequate opportunity to introduce necessary evidence. The application of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to proposed expert testimony can often be an uncertain process and is best conducted in such a manner that litigants have a


id: daubert-standard-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard-2.md
category: reference
title: Daubert standard
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:18.264783+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: daubert-standard-20260505-0
summary:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. In Daubert, the court ruled that nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence governing expert evidence "gives any indication that 'general acceptance' is a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence. Moreover, such a rigid standard would be at odds with the Rules' liberal thrust and their general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to 'opinion' testimony." By requiring experts to provide relevant opinions grounded in reliable methodology, proponents of Daubert were satisfied that these standards would result in a fair and rational resolution of the scientific and technological issues which lie at the heart of product liability adjudication. Daubert has not appeared to further the Federal Rules philosophy of admitting generally all relevant testimony, and specifically of relaxing the traditional barriers to 'opinion' testimony. The Daubert decision has instead been heralded by some political commentators as one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in imposing higher barriers for toxic tort


id: daubert-standard-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard-3.md
category: reference
title: Daubert standard
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:18.264783+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: daubert-standard-20260505-0
summary:
== International influence == The Canadian Supreme Court expressly discussed the Daubert standard in R. v. J.-L.J., [2000]. In J.-L.J., the court took a look at the development of U.S. law in this regard, noting the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the Frye standard and its replacement with the Daubert standard. While the court did note that "Daubert must be read in light of the specific text of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which differs from our own procedures", the court also stated in the same sentence that "the U.S. Supreme Court did list a number of factors that could be helpful in evaluating the soundness of novel science." The court then incorporated elements from the Daubert standard in their decision regarding the Quebec Court of Appeal ruling while ultimately rejecting the lower court's decision and reinstating the defendant's conviction. Later, in 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada in White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co. [2015] 2 SCR 182 endorsed the parts of R v. J.-L.J. that cited Daubert, saying: "in the case of an opinion based on novel or contested science or science used for a novel purpose, the reliability of the underlying science for that


id: european-law-on-drug-precursors-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_law_on_drug_precursors-0.md
category: reference
title: European law on drug precursors
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_law_on_drug_precursors
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:19.548051+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: european-law-on-drug-precursors-20260505-0
summary:
European law on illicit drug precursors: Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors (contains list of substances) Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Union and third countries in drug precursors. Consolidated text (2021) (contains the same list of substances) Commission Regulation (EC) No 297/2009 of 8 April 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1277/2005 laying down implementing rules for Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on drug precursors and for Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors The list of 23 substances is identical to list of UN-controlled drug precursors, except for the different categorization and inclusion of stereoisomers in EU Category 1. == List of substances == === Category 1 Precursors === phenylacetone methyl 2-phenylacetoacetate (MAPA) methyl 2-methyl-3-phenyloxirane-2-carboxylate (BMK methyl glycidate) 2-methyl-3-phenyloxirane-2-carboxylic acid (BMK glycidic acid) N-acetylanthranilic acid alpha-phenylacetoacetamide (APAA) alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile (APAAN) isosafrole (cis + trans) 3,4-methylenedioxyphenylpropan-2-one piperonal safrole methyl 3-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-methyloxirane-2-carboxylate (PMK methyl glycidate) 3-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-methyloxirane-2-carboxylic acid (PMK glycidic acid) 4-anilino-N-phenethylpiperidine (ANPP) N-phenethyl-4-piperidone (NPP) ephedrine


id: harvey-v-horan-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_v._Horan-0.md
category: reference
title: Harvey v. Horan
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_v._Horan
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:20.751122+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: harvey-v-horan-20260505-0
summary:
Harvey v. Horan, 278 F. 3d 370 (4th Cir. 2002), is a federal court case dealing with felons' rights of access to DNA testing. The Eastern Virginia District Court originally found that felons were entitled access to DNA testing on potentially exculpatory evidence, but this finding was later overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, the case paved the way for the Innocence Protection Act, which ensures that convicted offenders can try to prove their innocence by requesting DNA testing on evidence in government's possession that was used in their case. == The case == On April 30, 1990, James Harvey was convicted of rape and forcible sodomy by a jury in Fairfax County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison. One piece of evidence used to convict Harvey was restriction fragment length polymorphism ("RFLP") DNA testing. The victim had two assailants, and this test prevented both Harvey and his co-defendant from being excluded as a possible source of spermatozoa recovered from the victim through conventional serology. Harvey was also implicated by testimony from his co-defendant, the victim, and a third prosecution witness. However, this testimony indicated that Harvey had not ejaculated during the attack.


id: harvey-v-horan-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_v._Horan-1.md
category: reference
title: Harvey v. Horan
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_v._Horan
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:20.751122+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: harvey-v-horan-20260505-0
summary:
== The appeal == On September 26, 2001, Horan's lawyer, Jack L. Gould, appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He contended that § 1983 was not an appropriate vehicle for Harvey's action. He stated that the procedural flaws in the claim required that it be dismissed because it was really a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus and an attempt to get around strict rules and deadlines. On January 23, 2002, the court concluded that Harvey's rights had not been violated and that the lower court had erred in its decision. Fourth Circuit Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote the opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer joined. Judge King wrote a concurring opinion. The majority opinion stated that the claim was, in effect, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought without leave of court. According to a previous case, Heck v. Humphrey (1994), a convicted criminal defendant cannot bring a § 1983 action that would "necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence" unless the defendant can prove that his "conviction or sentence has already been invalidated." In this decision, the Supreme Court found that civil tort


id: harvey-v-horan-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_v._Horan-2.md
category: reference
title: Harvey v. Horan
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_v._Horan
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:20.751122+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: harvey-v-horan-20260505-0
summary:
== Fallout == After the January 2002 decision was handed down, Harvey applied to Virginia's Fairfax Circuit Court for DNA testing based on a 2001 law allowing felons increased access to potentially exculpatory biological evidence that had not previously been subjected to the current DNA testing method. On March 1, 2002, the court ordered the Division of Forensic Science to conduct the testing. On May 15, 2002, after the testing was completed, the division filed a certificate of analysis stating that Harvey could not be eliminated as a possible contributor to the sperm fractions found on the victim. On September 24, 2002, Harvey filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Virginia Supreme Court, challenging the validity of the certificate of analysis and related test results. The court dismissed the petition on June 10, 2004, saying that it did not have jurisdiction to consider it. Back in March 2002, the federal appeal had come before the full Fourth Circuit as an en banc reconsideration (as opposed to the original three-judge panel). By this time, the issue was moot, but two judges, J. Michael Luttig and Wilkinson, wrote anyway. Luttig wrote that the "right of access to evidence


id: institute-for-law-science-and-global-security-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Law,_Science_and_Global_Security-0.md
category: reference
title: Institute for Law, Science and Global Security
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Law,_Science_and_Global_Security
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:21.974381+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: institute-for-law-science-and-global-security-20260505-0
summary:
The Institute for Law, Science and Global Security in the Department of Government at Georgetown University was established to promote teaching and research in the area of intersection between international law and international relations. The Institute sponsors undergraduate and graduate courses and runs a Master's Program in International Law and Global Security. The Institute seeks to inform the public policy debate about the nature, role and importance of international law as it connected to issues of science and global security. To this end, it sponsors a series of specific programs including the Program on Non-Proliferation Law and Policy, which is jointly run with the James Martin Center of the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Most recently, the Institute has begun a special initiative in the area of cyber security. Among the participants in this initiative have been former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency General Michael Hayden, Siobhan Gorman, national security correspondent of The Wall Street Journal, and Suzanne Spaulding, former General Counsel for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Since its creation, the Institute has also sponsored events with a variety of other speakers, including Paul D. Clement, former Solicitor General of the United States, Bill Richardson, the Governor


id: michael-kopelman-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kopelman-0.md
category: reference
title: Michael Kopelman
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kopelman
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:23.840629+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: michael-kopelman-20260505-0
summary:
Michael David Kopelman (born February 8, 1950) is a British researcher of memory disorders, having contributed for more than 30 years to the development of cognitive neuropsychology and cognitive neuropsychiatry. Until his retirement in 2015, he was lead clinician at the Neuropsychiatry and Memory Disorders Clinic at St Thomas' National Health Service teaching hospital in Central London. Beginning in 1981, he also served as an expert witness in legal proceedings, including high-profile cases. == Education == Kopelman's first degree was in psychology. He subsequently studied medicine at Middlesex University, and in 1978 completed his medical degree at the University of London. From 1980 to 1988, Kopelman trained in psychiatry at Bethlem-Maudsley Joint Hospitals. In 1988, he earned his PhD from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London. == Research and career == Kopelman's research interests include neurological memory disorders, especially retrograde amnesia; confabulation; executive function; semantic dementia; and psychogenic amnesia, particularly the nature of amnesia for offences. === Academic career === From 1989 to 2015, Kopelman was first a consultant neuropsychiatrist, then professor of neuropsychiatry at Guy's, King's and St Thomas' School of Medicine. He is Emeritus Professor of Neuropsychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and


id: legal-psychology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_psychology-0.md
category: reference
title: Legal psychology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_psychology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:25.069000+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: legal-psychology-20260505-0
summary:
Legal psychology is a field focused on the application of psychological principles within the legal system and its interactions with individuals. Professionals in this area are involved in understanding, assessing, evaluating potential jurors, investigating crimes and crime scenes, conducting forensic investigations The term "legal psychology" distinguishes this practical branch of psychology from the more theory-oriented field of clinical psychology. Together, legal psychology and forensic psychology form the field more generally recognized as "psychology and law". Following earlier efforts by psychologists to address legal issues, psychology and law became a field of study in the 1960s, though that originating concern has lessened over time. The multidisciplinary American Psychological Association's Division 41, the American Psychology–Law Society, is active with the goal of promoting the contributions of psychology to the understanding of law and legal systems through research; as well as providing education to psychologists in legal issues and providing education to legal personnel on psychological issues. Further, its mandate is to inform the psychological and legal communities, along with the general public, about current research, education, and services in the field of psychology and law. There are similar societies in Canada, Britain, and Europe. The Canadian Psychological Association also serves as a


id: legal-psychology-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_psychology-1.md
category: reference
title: Legal psychology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_psychology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:25.069000+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: legal-psychology-20260505-0
summary:
== Roles of a legal psychologist == === Academics and research === Many legal psychologists work as professors in university psychology departments, criminal justice departments or law schools. Like other professors, legal psychologists generally conduct and publish empirical research, teach various classes, and mentor graduate and undergraduate students. Many legal psychologists also conduct research in a more general area of psychology (e.g., social, clinical, cognitive) with only a tangential legal focus. Those legal psychologists who work in law schools almost always hold a JD in addition to a PhD. Academics and researchers make up a significant amount of the psychologists involved today with applying psychology to legal contexts. While many think of clinical psychology as the main form of psychology in the law, however the utility of psychology, including applications of social, developmental, and neurological psychology has given significant amount of evidence-based methods to support a fair, proper, and humane justice system. The application of psychological knowledge and principles of evidence-based care are significant to maintaining fairness and integrity across the criminal justice system. === Amicus briefs === One method that psychologists and researchers use to provide best practices to the justice system is through amicus briefs (defined by the


id: legal-psychology-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_psychology-2.md
category: reference
title: Legal psychology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_psychology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:25.069000+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: legal-psychology-20260505-0
summary:
== Example of legal psychology in action == One of the earliest experiments on eyewitness reliability was conducted in March 1893 J. McKeen Cattell posted questions to fifty-six of his students at Columbia University. The questions he asked his students were comparable to those asked in a court of justice. What he found was that it was reasonable to conclude eyewitness accounts of events were unreliable. His students were all sure they were mostly correct, even when they were not, and some were hesitant when they were in fact correct. He could not figure out specifically why each student had inaccurate testimonies. Research into eyewitness testimony became more popular nearly a century later in the 1980s and 1990s. As some research emerged about the potential unreliability of eyewitness memory concerns rose given the prevalent use of eyewitnesses for key evidence. Many details of crimes are obtained by interviewing witnesses, some of whom might testify in court, providing their account of the event into official evidence. Eyewitness testimony and identification of an accused is often a salient piece of evidence which unduly influences the opinions of the jury. As a result, incorrect or false eyewitness testimony has been found to be


id: jules-li-geois-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Liégeois-0.md
category: reference
title: Jules Liégeois
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Liégeois
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:26.427074+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jules-li-geois-20260505-0
summary:
Jules Joseph Liégeois (30 November 1833 – 14 August 1908), Knight of the Legion of Honour ("Chevalier de l'Ordre de la Légion d'Honneur"), and the Professor of administrative law at the University of Nancy for forty years, was a universally respected French jurist who was also widely known as an important foundation member, promoter, and defender of the Nancy School of Hypnosis — some would even say "the founder" of the School, not "just a participant" (Touzeil-Divina, 2024a). In addition to his numerous influential publications on administrative law and the relationship between economics and the law, he was internationally recognized for the significance, scope, and systematic nature of his critical and innovative personal investigations into natural/spontaneous somnambulism, hypnotism, and hypnotic suggestion in the wider medico-legal domain. He "was the first forensic scientist to scientifically address the medical question of hypnotism", and "was the leading researcher in the nineteenth century into the possibilities of the abuse of hypnosis for the purposes of crime", not only in the sense of crimes committed upon a hypnotized subject, and those committed by a hypnotized subject, but also in the sense of the hypnotized subject having no memory of either their hypnotization or their subsequent


id: jules-li-geois-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Liégeois-1.md
category: reference
title: Jules Liégeois
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Liégeois
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:26.427074+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jules-li-geois-20260505-0
summary:
At the time of their (1784) inquiries, the two Royal Commissions on Animal Magnetism — one was from the Paris Faculty of Medicine) and the French Royal Academy of Sciences (i.e., Bailly, 1784a; 1800; 1784b), and the other from the Royal Society of Medicine of Paris (i.e., Poissonnier, et al., 1784) — independently and emphatically concluded from their controlled trials and "blind" experiments that the (metaphysical) claims made by Mesmer's former associate, Charles d’Eslon, for the substantial existence of "animal magnetism" (le magnétisme animal) and of a substantial (rather than metaphorical) "magnetic fluid" (le fluide magnétique) were nothing more than a case (as Mesmer himself had argued) of the inappropriate reification of metaphor (i.e, Alfred Whitehead's "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"), and were, therefore, entirely without foundation. ==== Dominant ideas ==== Anticipating the (c.1820) work of Thomas Brown, the Chair of Moral Philosophy at Edinburgh University, James Braid's teacher, in relation to the suggestive influence of "dominant ideas", and the work of Braid himself, in relation to the "mono-ideo-dynamic principle of action" concept (Braid, 1855) that he had developed from the work of his associates William Benjamin Carpenter, and Daniel Noble, both of the (1784) investigatory committees concluded that — having


id: jules-li-geois-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Liégeois-2.md
category: reference
title: Jules Liégeois
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Liégeois
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:26.427074+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jules-li-geois-20260505-0
summary:
"The hypnotic condition is not an abnormal one, it does not create new functions nor extraordinary phenomena; it develops those which are produced in the waking condition; because of a new psychical modality, it exaggerates the normal susceptibility to suggestion, which we all possess to some extent; our psychical condition is modified so as to carry out the images and impressions evoked with greater boldness and distinctness." — Hippolyte Bernheim (1888). "Hypnotism, like natural sleep, exalts the imagination, and makes the brain more susceptible to suggestion. ... It is a physiological law, that sleep puts the brain into such a psychical condition that the imagination accepts and recognizes as real the impressions transmitted to it. To provoke this special psychical condition by means of hypnotism, and to cultivate the suggestibility thus artificially increased with the aim of cure or relief, this is the role of psychotherapeutics." — Hippolyte Bernheim (1888, emphasis in original). Of the foundation members of "Suggestion School" — Prof. Jules Liégeois (faculty of Law), Prof. Hippolyte Bernheim (1840–1919) (faculty of Medicine), and Prof. Henri-Étienne Beaunis (1830–1921) (chair of Physiology), from the University of Nancy — the first to associate himself with the experiments, principles, and practices of


id: jules-li-geois-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Liégeois-3.md
category: reference
title: Jules Liégeois
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Liégeois
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:26.427074+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jules-li-geois-20260505-0
summary:
=== "Waking" and "hypnotic" suggestion === Although Liégeois' initial experiments reflected his academic interest in the legal parallels between hypnotism and natural/spontaneous (i.e., rather than "mesmeric" or "artificially induced") somnambulism, his major work over an extended period involved a thorough investigation into the principles and practices responsible for a far wider range of applications of "suggestion" — involving both 'waking' suggestion and 'hypnotic' suggestion — than their medical and/or therapeutic applications alone. In particular, given his forensic interest in the effects of "suggestion" and their significance in relation to issues of posthypnotic amnesia, and the personal responsibility/culpability for the phenomena produced by "suggestion", he was also deeply interested in the nature, form, and content of the "suggestions" made. Driven by his concern with the philosophical and forensic (rather than therapeutic) aspects of hypnotism and hypnotic suggestion, Liégeois asserted, along with Charcot's associate Pierre Janet (1920, pp.284–285), that the critical feature of the subject-operator interaction was not the operator's making of the "suggestion", but, instead, was the subject's taking of the "suggestion" made by the operator. As Yeates (2016a) observed, in the same way that "one is only a "hypnotist" if one induces "hypnotism" ... an idea is only a "suggestion"


id: jules-li-geois-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Liégeois-4.md
category: reference
title: Jules Liégeois
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Liégeois
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:26.427074+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jules-li-geois-20260505-0
summary:
"[In the mid-1880s, in addition to concerns relating to the possibility] of rape under hypnotic sleep ... another type of moral concern associated with hypnotism was gaining public attention abroad: the possibility of inciting people under hypnosis to commit criminal acts. It was Jules Liégeois, the French lawyer associated with the Nancy School of hypnotism, who in 1884 first pointed to this danger in a report for the French Academy of Moral and Political Sciences." — Kaat Wils (2017). Liégeois' own experiments, relating to both serious and petty crimes, which employed a wide range of suggested "mock" activities involving fake weapons, fake poisons, etc. — i.e., "crimes expérimentaux" ('experimental crimes'), or "crimes de laboratoire" ('laboratory crimes), in place of "crimes véritable" ('real crimes') — was work for which he was much admired by the experimental psychologist, Joseph Delbœuf (e.g., Delbœuf, 1892), and much denigrated by Charcot's associate, Georges Gilles de la Tourette (e.g., Gilles de la Tourette, 1891b). However, as Bogousslavsky, Walusinski & Veyrunes (2009, pp. 197-198) observe, Gilles de la Tourette's criticism was somewhat unfair: not only had Gilles de la Tourette (some time earlier) personally conducted similar "hypnotic murder" experiments involving fake pistols and mock poisons at the


id: jules-li-geois-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Liégeois-5.md
category: reference
title: Jules Liégeois
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Liégeois
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:26.427074+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jules-li-geois-20260505-0
summary:
=== Prosecution === The two expert witnesses for the prosecution, Paul Brouardel, the eminent professor of forensics at the Faculté de Médecine de Paris, and Gilbert Ballet, Charcot's chef de clinique ('clinical head') at the Salpêtrière, gave evidence that, in their view, any such thing was impossible; and in an extensive (later) discussion of the matter, Georges Gilles de La Tourette, a former pupil of Brouardel and close associate of Charcot, published an extensive account of the matter (i.e., 1891a, and 1891b), "which denied all possibility of a violent act under hypnosis and by suggestion" (Walusinski, 2011, p. 76). === Defence === Called upon as an expert witness for Bompard's defence as a representative of the Nancy School, Liégeois produced extensive details of the numerous experiments that had satisfied both himself and his Nancy colleagues that crimes could be committed by (innocent) subjects under the influence of hypnotic suggestion. His constant emphasis throughout his testimony that both he and Bernheim held the same opinions is easily explained: Liégeois was a last-minute substitute for Bernheim — and was, therefore, only present as a proxy for Bernheim, rather than as Liégeois, the legal expert who had addressed the Académie des Sciences Morales


id: jules-li-geois-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Liégeois-6.md
category: reference
title: Jules Liégeois
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Liégeois
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:26.427074+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: jules-li-geois-20260505-0
summary:
1863: admitted as an Associate Member of the Académie de Stanislas on 23 January 1863. 1874: admitted as a Full Member of the Académie de Stanislas on 27 March 1874. 1881: admitted as a Full Member of the Society of Comparative Legislation in May 1881. 1881-1882: served as President of the Académie de Stanislas. 1886: made a Corresponding Member of the Society for Psychical Research. 1889: appointed vice-president of the First International Congress of Experimental and Therapeutic Hypnotism, in Paris, in August 1889. c.1890: made an Honorary Member of the Gesellschaft Für Psychologische Forschung ('Society for Psychological Research'). 1892: appointed vice-president of the Second International Congress of Experimental Psychology, in London, in August 1892. 1897: appointed Honorary President of the International Congress of Neurology, Psychiatry, Medical Electricity, and Hypnology, in Brussels, in 1897. 1899: made a Corresponding Member of the Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques, the organization to which he had made a significant presentation in 1884. 1900: appointed vice-president of the Second International Congress of Experimental and Therapeutic Hypnotism, in Paris, in August 1900. 1904: made a Chevalier (Knight) of the Légion d'honneur (Legion of Honour), by decree, on 26 July 1904. == Memorials == === Bains-les-Bains (1909)


id: national-clearinghouse-for-science-technology-and-the-law-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Clearinghouse_for_Science,_Technology_and_the_Law-0.md
category: reference
title: National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Clearinghouse_for_Science,_Technology_and_the_Law
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:27.710402+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: national-clearinghouse-for-science-technology-and-the-law-20260505-0
summary:
The National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law at Stetson University College of Law is an organization that provides information sharing and professional development to forensic scientists, lawyers, judges, other legal professionals, law enforcement personnel, educators, and the general public. Sponsored by a grant from the National Institute of Justice, NCSTL offers educational programs and a database of forensic-related information. Within the context of the promotion of justice based on sound science and technology, NCSTL focuses on raising awareness and fostering communication and understanding among the various parties interested in scientific evidence and expert testimony. == Free Forensics Database == One of the primary purposes of NCSTL is to provide a resource that collects and tracks the latest available sources related to forensics and technology. NCSTL scrutinizes and disseminates useful information in the form of a research database on the Internet that is free and available to the public. The NCSTL database was first offered live to the public in February 2005. It collects and distributes bibliographic information on thousands of court decisions, pieces of legislation, legal and scientific publications, news and media features, websites and educational opportunities. Using the database, researchers can choose to view all types of


id: neurolaw-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolaw-0.md
category: reference
title: Neurolaw
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolaw
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:29.062328+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: neurolaw-20260505-0
summary:
Neurolaw is a field of interdisciplinary study that explores the effects of discoveries in neuroscience on legal rules and standards. Drawing from neuroscience, philosophy, social psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and criminology, neurolaw practitioners seek to address not only the descriptive and predictive issues of how neuroscience is and will be used in the legal system, but also the normative issues of how neuroscience should and should not be used. The rapid growth of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) research has led to new insights on neuroanatomical structure and function, which has led to a greater understanding of human behavior and cognition. As a response, there has been an emergence of questions regarding how these findings can be applied to criminology and legal processes. Major areas of current neurolaw research include courtroom applications, legal implications of neuroscience findings, and how neuroscience-related jurisdiction can be created and applied. Despite the growing interest in neurolaw and its potential applications, the legal realm recognizes the substantial opportunity for misuse and is proceeding cautiously with novel research outcomes. == History == The term neurolaw was first coined by J. Sherrod Taylor in 1991, in a Neuropsychology journal article analyzing the role of psychologists and lawyers in


id: neurolaw-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolaw-1.md
category: reference
title: Neurolaw
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolaw
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:29.062328+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: neurolaw-20260505-0
summary:
=== Insanity defense === The tendency of the United States criminal justice system has been to limit the degree to which one can claim innocence based on mental illness. During the middle of the 20th century many courts, through the Durham Rules and the American Law Institute Model Penal Code, regarded impaired volition as legitimate grounds for the insanity defense. However, when John Hinckley was acquitted due to insanity in 1982, a reversal of this opinion occurred, which spurred a narrowing definition of mental illness. Insanity decisions became increasingly based on the M’Naghten Rules, which asserted that unless one was able to prove that a mental illness kept him or her from knowing that their actions were wrong, or knowing the disposition of the criminal act, one would not be able to be tried as criminally insane. Contemporary research conducted on the prefrontal cortex has criticized this standpoint because it considers impaired volition as a factor. Many researchers and courts are beginning to consider "irresistible impulse" as legitimate grounds for mental illness. One of the factors neurosciences have added to the insanity defense is the claim that the brain “made someone do it.” In these cases, the argument is based


id: neurolaw-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolaw-2.md
category: reference
title: Neurolaw
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolaw
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:29.062328+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: neurolaw-20260505-0
summary:
=== Epigenetics === Current research is exploring how genetic analysis can be used to assess risk and predict atypical behaviors. Studies have shown links between violent behaviors and a low allele variant of the MAOA gene. Preliminary research suggests that males that have this dysfunctional gene and have experienced childhood abuse are several hundred times more likely to commit a violent crime than those with normal MAOA gene expression. Findings like this have sparked a conversation about 'neuroprediction' or using genetics and neuroimaging modalities to predict criminal behavior and assess individual risk. If the science behind prediction improves, lawmakers will need to decide the role that genetic, neuroanatomical, or neuropathic predictions can play in legal decisions for risk assessment, particularly when a criminal is being sentenced or released. === Neuroimaging === Understanding structural and mechanistic neural dysfunction in criminals can help to determine motives and define criminal responsibility. fMRI is particularly important because it allows for detailed functional mapping of the human brain. fMRI measures blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) contrast, which allows us to view the most active areas of the brain at a given moment based on blood flow. This imaging modality allows researchers to identify and understand


id: neurolaw-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolaw-3.md
category: reference
title: Neurolaw
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolaw
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:29.062328+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: neurolaw-20260505-0
summary:
=== Criminal law === In the United States, brain scan results have been increasingly utilized during the sentencing phase of trials, with the rate of cases involving neuroscience evidence doubling from 2006 to 2009. In two instances occurring in California and New York, defendants were able to reduce their sentence of first-degree murder to manslaughter using neuroimaging. Each case presented brain scans suggesting hindered neurological function hoping to mitigate their responsibility in the crime. Brain images were also used in the case of Harrington v. State of Iowa in 2003 as evidence for the defense. However, in the case of Harrington v. State of Iowa, the brain images were solely shown to the judge and not a jury panel, reducing the ability of this case to be used as precedent for utilizing brain imaging as evidence. In Mumbai, India, the legal system has taken a more rapid approach in applying neuroscience and has already incorporated it into criminal convictions. In 2008, an Indian woman was convicted of murder based on strong circumstantial evidence, including a brain scan that suggested her guilt. This conviction was sharply criticized by Hank Greely, a professor of law at Stanford University. Greely contested the scan


id: neurolaw-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolaw-4.md
category: reference
title: Neurolaw
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolaw
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:29.062328+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: neurolaw-20260505-0
summary:
== Cautions and concerns == Public opinion of neurolaw is influenced by cultural, political, and media-related factors. Surveys show that the general public does not have a well-formed understanding of neurolaw. Approval seems to depend highly on how the topic is framed and may even vary depending on partisanship. Due to glorified depictions of forensics labs on popular television shows, brain imaging has faced criticism for having a "CSI effect". It is possible that some people have a false understanding of forensic science based on inaccurate portrayals. This could lead to them having a stronger opinion about technological evidence or neurolaw initiatives. Neuroscience is still not fully understood. There is not enough evidence of structural and functional relationships to be able to confidently link a brain feature to a criminal behavior or issue. This uncertainty leaves room for misuse of neuroscientific evidence in a courtroom. American professor of law and psychology Stephen J. Morse described the abuse of neuroscience in courtrooms with a pseudo-disease he called "brain overclaim syndrome". He comments on the idea of people having diminished responsibility or no responsibility for their actions because those actions were caused by "the brain", in situations where the science could not


id: patome-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patome-0.md
category: reference
title: Patome
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patome
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:35.407997+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: patome-20260505-0
summary:
Patome is a database of biological sequence data of issued patents and/or published applications. == See also == Patents Gene patent == References == == External links == https://web.archive.org/web/20101223004907/http://www.patome.org/


id: project-on-scientific-knowledge-and-public-policy-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_on_Scientific_Knowledge_and_Public_Policy-0.md
category: reference
title: Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_on_Scientific_Knowledge_and_Public_Policy
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:36.559247+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: project-on-scientific-knowledge-and-public-policy-20260505-0
summary:
The Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP), based at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C., examines the nature of science and the ways in which it is both used and misused in government decision-making and legal proceedings. Through empirical research, conversations among scholars, and publications, SKAPP aims to enhance understanding of how knowledge is generated and interpreted. SKAPP's mission is to promote transparent decision-making based on the best available science in order to promote public safety and health. SKAPP provides information about the impacts of existing legislation and regulation on drug safety, occupational health and safety, and environmental health. It has examined the use of science in regulation of specific hazards, including bisphenol A, beryllium, hexavalent chromium, and the butter-flavoring chemical diacetyl. Support for SKAPP is provided by the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, the Open Society Institute, and the Rockefeller Family Fund. Past support has been provided by the Common Benefit Trust, a fund established pursuant to a court order in the Silicone Gel Breast Implant Products Liability litigation; the Alice Hamilton Fund; and the Bauman Foundation. == Scientific evidence and the law == The Supreme Court of the United States


id: regulation-of-nanotechnology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology-0.md
category: reference
title: Regulation of nanotechnology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:37.701684+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: regulation-of-nanotechnology-20260505-0
summary:
Because of the ongoing controversy on the implications of nanotechnology, there is significant debate concerning whether nanotechnology or nanotechnology-based products merit special government regulation. This mainly relates to when to assess new substances prior to their release into the market, community and environment. Nanotechnology refers to an increasing number of commercially available products – from socks and trousers to tennis racquets and cleaning cloths. Such nanotechnologies and their accompanying industries have triggered calls for increased community participation and effective regulatory arrangements. However, these calls have presently not led to such comprehensive regulation to oversee research and the commercial application of nanotechnologies, or any comprehensive labeling for products that contain nanoparticles or are derived from nano-processes. Regulatory bodies such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. or the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate of the European Commission have started dealing with the potential risks posed by nanoparticles. So far, neither engineered nanoparticles nor the products and materials that contain them are subject to any special regulation regarding production, handling or labelling. == Managing risks: human and environmental health and safety == Studies of the health impact of airborne particles generally shown that


id: regulation-of-nanotechnology-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology-1.md
category: reference
title: Regulation of nanotechnology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:37.701684+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: regulation-of-nanotechnology-20260505-0
summary:
== Democratic governance == Many argue that government has a responsibility to provide opportunities for the public to be involved in the development of new forms of science and technology. Community engagement can be achieved through various means or mechanisms such as referendums, consultation documents, and advisory committees that include community members and other stakeholders as possible governance structures for nanotechnologies. Other conventional approaches include public meetings and "closed" dialog with stakeholders. More contemporary engagement processes that have been employed to include community members in decisions about nanotechnology include citizens' juries and consensus conferences. Leach and Scoones argue that since that “most debates about science and technology options involve uncertainty, and often ignorance, public debate about regulatory regimes is essential.” It has been argued that limited nanotechnology labeling and regulation may exacerbate potential human and environmental health and safety issues associated with nanotechnology, and that the development of comprehensive regulation of nanotechnology will be vital to ensure that the potential risks associated with the research and commercial application of nanotechnology do not overshadow its potential benefits. Regulation may also be required to meet community expectations about responsible development of nanotechnology, as well as ensuring that public interests are included in


id: regulation-of-nanotechnology-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology-2.md
category: reference
title: Regulation of nanotechnology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:37.701684+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: regulation-of-nanotechnology-20260505-0
summary:
=== Newness === The question of whether nanotechnology represents something 'new' must be answered to decide how best nanotechnology should be regulated. The Royal Society recommended that the UK government assess chemicals in the form of nanoparticles or nanotubes as new substances. Subsequent to this, in 2007 a coalition of over forty groups called for nanomaterials to be classified as new substances, and regulated as such. Despite these recommendations, chemicals comprising nanoparticles that have previously been subject to assessment and regulation may be exempt from regulation, regardless of the potential for different risks and impacts. In contrast, nanomaterials are often recognized as 'new' from the perspective of intellectual property rights (IPRs), and as such are commercially protected via patenting laws. There is significant debate about who is responsible for the regulation of nanotechnology. While some non-nanotechnology specific regulatory agencies currently cover some products and processes (to varying degrees) – by "bolting on" nanotechnology to existing regulations – there are clear gaps in these regimes. This enables some nanotechnology applications to figuratively "slip through the cracks" without being covered by any regulations. An example of this has occurred in the US, and involves nanoparticles of titanium dioxide (TiO2) for use in


id: regulation-of-nanotechnology-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology-3.md
category: reference
title: Regulation of nanotechnology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:37.701684+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: regulation-of-nanotechnology-20260505-0
summary:
Wide use of the term nanotechnology in recent years has created the impression that regulatory frameworks are suddenly having to contend with entirely new challenges that they are unequipped to deal with. Many regulatory systems around the world already assess new substances or products for safety on a case by case basis, before they are permitted on the market. These regulatory systems have been assessing the safety of nanometre scale molecular arrangements for many years and many substances comprising nanometre scale particles have been in use for decades e.g. Carbon black, Titanium dioxide, Zinc oxide, Bentonite, Aluminum silicate, Iron oxides, Silicon dioxide, Diatomaceous earth, Kaolin, Talc, Montmorillonite, Magnesium oxide, Copper sulphate. These existing approval frameworks almost universally use the best available science to assess safety and do not approve substances or products with an unacceptable risk benefit profile. One proposal is to simply treat particle size as one of the several parameters defining a substance to be approved, rather than creating special rules for all particles of a given size regardless of type. A major argument against special regulation of nanotechnology is that the projected applications with the greatest impact are far in the future, and it is unclear how


id: regulation-of-nanotechnology-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology-4.md
category: reference
title: Regulation of nanotechnology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:37.701684+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: regulation-of-nanotechnology-20260505-0
summary:
=== United States === Rather than adopt a new nano-specific regulatory framework, the United States' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convenes an 'interest group' each quarter with representatives of FDA centers that have responsibility for assessment and regulation of different substances and products. This interest group ensures coordination and communication. A September 2009 FDA document called for identifying sources of nanomaterials, how they move in the environment, the problems they might cause for people, animals and plants, and how these problems could be avoided or mitigated. The Bush administration in 2007 decided that no special regulations or labeling of nanoparticles were required. Critics derided this as treating consumers like a "guinea pig" without sufficient notice due to lack of labelling. Berkeley, CA is currently the only city in the United States to regulate nanotechnology. Cambridge, MA in 2008 considered enacting a similar law, but the committee it instituted to study the issue Cambridge recommended against regulation in its final report, recommending instead other steps to facilitate information-gathering about potential effects of nanomaterials. On December 10, 2008 the U.S. National Research Council released a report calling for more regulation of nanotechnology. ==== California ==== Assembly Bill (AB) 289 (2006) authorizes the


id: regulation-of-nanotechnology-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology-5.md
category: reference
title: Regulation of nanotechnology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:37.701684+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: regulation-of-nanotechnology-20260505-0
summary:
Hundreds of consumer products incorporating nano-materials are now on the market, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging. But evidence indicates that current nano-materials may pose significant health, safety, and environmental hazards. In addition, the profound social, economic, and ethical challenges posed by nano-scale technologies have yet to be addressed ... 'Since there is currently no government oversight and no labeling requirements for nano-products anywhere in the world, no one knows when they are exposed to potential nano-tech risks and no one is monitoring for potential health or environmental harm. That's why we believe oversight action based on our principles is urgent' ... This industrial boom is creating a growing nano-workforce which is predicted to reach two million globally by 2015. 'Even though potential health hazards stemming from exposure have been clearly identified, there are no mandatory workplace measures that require exposures to be assessed, workers to be trained, or control measures to be implemented,' explained Bill Kojola of the AFL-CIO. 'This technology should not be rushed to market until these failings are corrected and workers assured of their safety'" also [1]. The group has urged action based on eight principles.


id: regulation-of-science-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_science-0.md
category: reference
title: Regulation of science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:38.928956+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: regulation-of-science-20260505-0
summary:
The regulation of science refers to use of law, or other ruling, by academic or governmental bodies to allow or restrict science from performing certain practices, or researching certain scientific areas. Science could be regulated by legislation if areas are seen as harmful, immoral, or dangerous. For these reasons science regulation may be closely related to religion, culture and society. Science regulation is often a bioethical issue related to practices such as abortion and euthanasia, and areas of research such as stem-cell research and cloning synthetic biology. == United States == === Biomedical research === Unjust events such as the St. Louis tragedy or the Tuskegee syphilis experiment have prompted regulations in biomedical research. Over the years, regulations have been extended to encompass animal welfare and research misconduct. The federal government also monitors the production and sale of the results of biomedical research such as drugs and biopharmaceuticals. The FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services oversee the implementation of these regulations. The Dickey–Wicker Amendment prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed. ==== Human


id: therapeutic-jurisprudence-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_jurisprudence-0.md
category: reference
title: Therapeutic jurisprudence
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_jurisprudence
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:40.248804+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: therapeutic-jurisprudence-20260505-0
summary:
Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) is an interdisciplinary approach to legal scholarship with the goal of reforming the law so it has a positive impact on the well-being of defendants appearing in court. TJ researchers and practitioners typically make use of social science methods to explore ways in which negative consequences can be reduced, and therapeutic consequences enhanced, without breaching due process requirements. By taking a non-adversarial approach to the administration of justice, judges and lawyers work together to create strategies that help offenders make positive changes in their own lives. Therapeutic jurisprudence has been used successfully in mental health courts and other problem-solving courts, such as drug courts for defendants with addictions. == Early development == The term was first used by Professor David Wexler, of the University of Arizona Rogers College of Law and University of Puerto Rico School of Law, in a paper delivered to the National Institute of Mental Health in 1987. Constance Backhouse, a leading legal historian from Canada, has published a biography of Wexler and his work. Along with Professor Bruce Winick of the University of Miami School of Law, who developed the area with Wexler, these law professors suggested the need for a new perspective,


id: scientific-misconduct-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct-0.md
category: reference
title: Scientific misconduct
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:42.017412+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scientific-misconduct-20260505-0
summary:
Scientific misconduct is the violation of ethical and professional standards in research, including fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and other practices that compromise the integrity of the design, conduct, analysis, reporting, or publication of scientific or research findings. == Basic definitions and urgency of dealing with misconduct == Various research ethics bodies provide definitions of scientific misconduct. For example, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) defines research misconduct to include (any of) fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. A Lancet review on Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries provides the following sample definitions, reproduced in The COPE report 1999: Danish definition: "Intention or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist" Swedish definition: "Intention[al] distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other ways." Scientific misconduct can harm the credibility of the research record, damage careers, and undermine public trust in science. It may also affect other researchers who rely on falsified or fabricated findings. Additionally, it can harm individuals who expose it. In addition there are public health implications attached to


id: scientific-misconduct-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct-1.md
category: reference
title: Scientific misconduct
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:42.017412+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scientific-misconduct-20260505-0
summary:
A reviewer or editor with a conflict of interest can coerce the author to cite the reviewer's publications prior to recommending publication. This can inflate the perceived citation impact of a researcher's work and their reputation in the scientific community, similar to excessive self-citation. Suggesting fake peer reviewers can happen when journals invite authors to recommend a list of suitable peer reviewers, along with their contact information. In some cases, authors have recommended a "reviewer" for whom they provide a fake email address that in fact belongs to the author. If the editor follows the author's reviewer recommendation, the author can then write their own review. A rarer case of scientific misconduct is editorial misconduct, where an editor does not declare conflicts of interest, creates pseudonyms to review papers, gives strongly worded editorial decisions to support reviews suggesting to add excessive citations to their own unrelated works or to add themselves as a co-author or their name to the title of the manuscript. === Photo manipulation === Manipulation of images constitutes a form of research misconduct that some journals actively screen for because it can be detected through image analysis tools. In 2006, the Journal of Cell Biology gained publicity


id: scientific-misconduct-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct-2.md
category: reference
title: Scientific misconduct
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:42.017412+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scientific-misconduct-20260505-0
summary:
=== Scientists === All authors of a scientific publication are expected to have made reasonable attempts to check findings submitted to academic journals for publication. Simultaneous submission of scientific findings to more than one journal or duplicate publication of findings is usually regarded as misconduct, under what is known as the Ingelfinger rule, named after the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine 1967–1977, Franz Ingelfinger. Guest authorship (where there is stated authorship in the absence of involvement, also known as gift authorship) and ghost authorship (where the real author is not listed as an author) are commonly regarded as forms of research misconduct. In some cases coauthors of faked research have been accused of inappropriate behavior or research misconduct for failing to verify reports authored by others or by a commercial sponsor. Examples include the case of Gerald Schatten who co-authored with Hwang Woo-Suk, the case of Professor Geoffrey Chamberlain named as guest author of papers fabricated by Malcolm Pearce, (Chamberlain was exonerated from collusion in Pearce's deception) – and the coauthors with Jan Hendrik Schön at Bell Laboratories. More recent cases include that of Charles Nemeroff, then the editor-in-chief of Neuropsychopharmacology, and a well-documented case involving the


id: scientific-misconduct-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct-3.md
category: reference
title: Scientific misconduct
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:42.017412+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scientific-misconduct-20260505-0
summary:
The COPE guidelines state that journal editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error). Retraction is also appropriate in cases of redundant publication, plagiarism and unethical research. Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors, there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors' institution will not investigate the case, they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive, or an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time. Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error), or the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included). Evidence emerged in 2012 that journals learning of cases where there is strong evidence of possible misconduct,


id: scientific-misconduct-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct-4.md
category: reference
title: Scientific misconduct
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:42.017412+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scientific-misconduct-20260505-0
summary:
=== Regulatory violations and consequences === Title 10 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 50.5, Deliberate Misconduct of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations, addresses the prohibition of certain activities by individual involved in NRC-licensed activities. 10 CFR 50.5 is designed to ensure the safety and integrity of nuclear operations. 10 CFR Part 50.9, Completeness and Accuracy of Information, focuses on the requirements for providing information and data to the NRC. The intent of 10 CFR 50.5 is to deter and penalize intentional wrongdoing (i.e., violations). 10 CFR 50.9 is crucial in maintaining transparency and reliability in the nuclear industry, which effectively emphasizes honesty and integrity in maintaining the safety and security of nuclear operations. Providing false or misleading information or data to the NRC is therefore a violation of 10 CFR 50.9. Violation of any of these rules can lead to severe penalties, including termination, fines and criminal prosecution. It can also result in the revocation of licenses or certifications, thereby barring individuals or entities from participating in any NRC-licensed activities in the future. === Consequences for those who report misconduct === The potentially severe consequences for individuals who are found to have engaged in misconduct also reflect


id: scientific-misconduct-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct-5.md
category: reference
title: Scientific misconduct
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:42.017412+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scientific-misconduct-20260505-0
summary:
=== Exposure === There are several tools available to aid in the detection of plagiarism and multiple publication within biomedical literature. One tool developed in 2006 by researchers in Dr. Harold Garner's laboratory at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas is Déjà vu, an open-access database containing several thousand instances of duplicate publication. All of the entries in the database were discovered through the use of text data mining algorithm eTBLAST, also created in Dr. Garner's laboratory. The creation of Déjà vu and the subsequent classification of several hundred articles contained therein have ignited much discussion in the scientific community concerning issues such as ethical behavior, journal standards, and intellectual copyright. Studies within this database have been published in journals such as Nature and Science, among others. Other tools which may be used to detect fraudulent data include error analysis. Measurements generally have a small amount of error, and repeated measurements of the same item will generally result in slight differences in readings. These differences can be analyzed, and follow certain known mathematical and statistical properties. Should a set of data appear to be too faithful to the hypothesis, i.e., the amount of error that would normally


id: allocation-concealment-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allocation_concealment-0.md
category: reference
title: Allocation concealment
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allocation_concealment
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:43.310319+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: allocation-concealment-20260505-0
summary:
In a randomized experiment, allocation concealment hides the sorting of trial participants into treatment groups so that this knowledge cannot be exploited. Adequate allocation concealment serves to prevent study participants from influencing treatment allocations for subjects. Studies with poor allocation concealment (or none at all) are prone to selection bias. Some standard methods of ensuring allocation concealment include sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes (SNOSE); sequentially numbered containers; pharmacy controlled randomization; and central randomization. CONSORT guidelines recommend that allocation concealment methods be included in a study's protocol, and that the allocation concealment methods be reported in detail in their publication; however, a 2005 study determined that most clinical trials have unclear allocation concealment in their protocols, in their publications, or both. A 2008 study of 146 meta-analyses concluded that the results of randomized controlled trials with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment tended to be biased toward beneficial effects only if the trials' outcomes were subjective as opposed to objective. Allocation concealment is different from blinding. An allocation concealment method prevents influence on the randomization process, while blinding conceals the outcome of the randomization. However, allocation concealment may also be called "randomization blinding". == Impact == Without the use of allocation concealment,


id: betrayers-of-the-truth-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth-0.md
category: reference
title: Betrayers of the Truth
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:44.532981+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: betrayers-of-the-truth-20260505-0
summary:
Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science is a book by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, published in 1982 by Simon & Schuster in New York, and subsequently (1983) also by Century Publishing in London, and with a simplified subtitle as Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in Science by Oxford University Press in 1985. The book is a critique of some widely held beliefs about the nature of science and the scientific process. Broad and Wade argue that the conventional wisdom that science is a strictly logical process, with objectivity the essence of scientist's attitudes, errors being speedily corrected by rigorous peer scrutiny and experiment replication, is a mythical ideal. Our conclusion, in brief, is that science bears little resemblance to its conventional portrait. We believe that the logical structure discernible in scientific knowledge says nothing about the process by which the structure was built or the mentality of the builders. In the acquisition of knowledge, scientists are not guided by logic and objectivity alone, but also by such nonrational factors as rhetoric, propaganda, and personal prejudice. Scientists do not depend solely on rational thought, and have no monopoly on it. The authors


id: elisabeth-bik-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Bik-0.md
category: reference
title: Elisabeth Bik
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Bik
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:45.772187+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: elisabeth-bik-20260505-0
summary:
Elisabeth Margaretha Harbers-Bik (born 1966) is a Dutch microbiologist and scientific integrity consultant. Bik is known for her work detecting photo manipulation in scientific publications, and identifying over 4,000 potential cases of improper research conduct. Bik is the founder of Microbiome Digest, a blog with daily updates on microbiome research, and the Science Integrity Digest blog. Bik was awarded the 2021 John Maddox Prize for "outstanding work exposing widespread threats to research integrity in scientific papers". == Early life and education == Bik was born in the Netherlands. She studied at the Utrecht University, where she obtained her MSc degree and subsequently a PhD in 1996, both in microbiology. Her dissertation was about developing vaccines for new strains of Vibrio cholerae involved in cholera epidemics across India and Bangladesh. She conducted her doctorate and her postdoctoral studies at the molecular microbiology department in the National Institute of Health and the Environment in Bilthoven. == Career == === Public sector === After receiving her doctorate, Bik worked for the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment and St. Antonius Hospital in Nieuwegein, where she organized the development of new molecular techniques for identifying infectious agents. === Academia === In


id: elisabeth-bik-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Bik-1.md
category: reference
title: Elisabeth Bik
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Bik
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:45.772187+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: elisabeth-bik-20260505-0
summary:
==== Hydroxychloroquine ==== In March 2020, commenting on the publication of the results of a clinical trial by Didier Raoult on the effect of hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19, she identified a conflict of interest and strongly criticized the methodology of the study. The owners of the journal that had published the results admitted that the publication was not at the level expected by the society, in particular due to a lack of justification of the criteria for patient selection and triage. They then rebutted allegations of a conflict of interest, stating that the peer review process prior to publication had been respected because Jean-Marc Rolain, one of the co-authors of the article and editor of the journal, had not participated in the evaluation. The publisher Elsevier then announced an additional independent evaluation to determine whether the concerns about the article were well founded. In May 2021, the French non profit association Citizen4Science, made up of scientists and citizens, published a press release in response to an announcement by Didier Raoult's lawyer that IHU Marseille was suing Bik. Citizen4Science linked a petition denouncing the harassment of scientists and defenders of science integrity, specifically mentioning Bik and calling on French authorities to intervene


id: bird-of-washington-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_of_Washington-0.md
category: reference
title: Bird of Washington
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_of_Washington
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:27:47.008127+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: bird-of-washington-20260505-0
summary:
The Bird of Washington, Washington Eagle, or Great Sea Eagle (Falco washingtonii, F. washingtoniensis, F. washingtonianus, or Haliaetus washingtoni) was a putative species of sea eagle which was claimed in 1826 and published by John James Audubon in his famous work The Birds of America. It was most notable for its reported wingspan of 10 feet 2 inches. The validity of this species has been questioned since 1870, and the consensus among modern ornithologists is that it was fabricated. Theories about its true nature include the following: It was an invention and that the picture was plagiarized from a picture of a golden eagle in Rees's Cyclopædia. It was a juvenile specimen, aberrant individual, or subspecies of bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). It was actually a genuine species, but it was rare and became extinct after Audubon's sightings. John James Audubon's painting of the bird was acquired by Sidney Dillon Ripley, and his family donated it to the Smithsonian American Art Museum in 1994. Other illustrations by Audubon whose provenance is now disputed include western meadowlark, Harris's hawk and the red-winged blackbird. == History == Audubon attributes his first sighting of the bird to the year 1814. He was on a


