Life as an Extreme Sport

Category: Politics

power plays and other stories

Revisiting Frontline’s Racial Bias in Stand Your Ground Laws

...and everything else, Politics

Almost a year ago, Frontline ran a detailed article of how Stand Your Ground laws fare when broken down by race, based on the work of the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center. The study used FBI data on homicides from 2005-2009 (43,500), singling out the cases of single shooters targeting a single stranger. So, then, with all the data, is there a racial bias in the laws?

Sometimes, a picture – or, in this case, a graph – really is worth a thousand words.

Note: the single problem I have with this study (or at least the single one I can think of right now, but I’m low on both caffeine and sleep) is that the researcher conducting the study did his limitations in such a way (single shooter targeting a single stranger, which worked out to about 5,000 cases) that it seems plausible that many Stand Your Ground cases that have roots in domestic violence have been ignored in the data.

That said, the data is damning, and I doubt adding in domestic violence-related SYG cases would radically change these numbers.

Rape Kit vs Abortion – Educating Jodie Laubenberg

...and everything else, Bioethics, Politics

One of the first things I saw when I got off the plane in Philadelphia Sunday night, after a trans-Pacific flight, was this statement from Rep. Jodie Laubenberg:

In the emergency room they have what’s called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out. The woman had five months to make that decision, at this point we are looking at a baby that is very far along in its development.

This is Laubenberg’s justification for why Texas SB5, which seeks to limit abortion services even further in Texas, including banning abortion after 20 weeks (and currently being filibustered by the amazing Wendy Davis), does not have an exception for rape or incest victims.

I’ve seen a lot of statements that Laubenberg is clearly confused, and a lot of very pointed comments about her lack of knowledge on a subject she seeks to legislate – all of which are true. But what I haven’t seen is the very simple differentiation between a rape kit and an abortion. So here, let me make a tiny contribution to the growing body of evidence that Rep. Laubenberg is in no way qualified to sponsor bills on or otherwise discuss rape kits, abortions, or women’s health issues.

Continue reading

The Difference Between Citizen and DIY Science

...and everything else, Bioethics, Philosophy, Politics

As some folks know, I’m leading a discussion this afternoon on citizen/DIY science and research ethics, with my co-moderator, Dr. Judy Stone. One of the things that Judy and I have been talking about lately is whether or not there’s really a concern with ethical research in citizen science, or if the concern is with DIY science, a related yet independent concept. A very informal poll via Twitter showed that people certainly agree with me that there is a difference between citizen science and DIY science, and that difference seems to be whether or not there is any institutional involvement. The citizen science initiatives that I’m familiar withNote: I am willing to concede I am not familiar with them all, and would love to hear if you know of a genuine citizen science model that is not at all affiliated with any institution. are all tied to institutional or university funding and support, at least in some ways. Cornell’s Great Backyard Bird Count is a fantastic example of a crowd-sourced citizen science initiative, but there is institutional oversight to insure that anything done is ethical. Judy also makes a good note that most citizen science projects appear to be natural science related, where there is less need for ethical oversight as a whole. This, however, ties into my primary concern, which is that the research being done that would require ethical oversight is being done in the DIY science sphere, whether that’s human or animal (or even biological) research. And because of this institutional oversight, the ethical issues that are there are differentIn particular, the question of who owns research and access to data is an interesting one, but even that can be somewhat easily dismissed by any forms of consent participants sign. than the ones that inhabit the DIY science community.

Now, quite obviously, the idea that an institution is involved doesn’t mean there will be proper ethical oversight – all together now, Markingson! – but at least there are procedures in place, and if a scientist does want to initiate a citizen science project, there are review boards that will likely need to be involved. It’s when you get into DIY science that the question of regulated, ethical research following necessary minimum guidelines come into play. What happens when scientists – with degrees or otherwise – start doing research outside the scope of institutional review boards, medical ethical committees or institutional animal care and use committees? While there is a long history of researchers experimenting on themselves, there is an equally long history of vulnerable groups being taken advantaged of without proper ethical oversight. How does this history and experience dovetail with DIY scientists and researchers who are not a part of this narrative history, and may not have the experience – or ethical self-regulation – to know where to draw a line in the proverbial sand? While there are standards for traditional medical research – still too frequently violated – how are they, or should they, be applied to DIY science research?

And unfortunately, those doing DIY science, like the biohackers, as a general rule seem to fall under the “but we’re all doing good” naiveté that doesn’t see the dual threat of DIY science: that of a malicious agent, and that of a project with good intent but bad result. As was pointed out to me the other night, computer hackers didn’t initially start out with malicious intent, but these days, most folks equate hackers (rather than crackers) with malware and malice. I see no reason that an open-source biohacking movement wouldn’t also devolve into the same malware and malice we know is possible, if not actually plausible.And bio-malware should terrify people much, much more than computer malware. There are a lot of horror novels around this idea. My favorite is probably from Richard Preston (yes, the non-fiction author), which talks about a guy making a new and horrible disease from moth pox, in his bathroom. Preston clearly worked from the DIY Science community, even back in the 90s when he wrote this, and the fears are just getting more realized, not less.

While it’s easy to default to OMG HORROR MOVIE scenarios when talking about the life sciences, there are more practical concerns about the lack of connection to expected ethical oversights: when publishing on human or animal research, you do need to provide documentation on your appropriate ethical clearances, and many publications require a statement about ethical oversight as well as following the Declaration of Helsinki. Without having this, open source and DIY science projects are finding that, regardless of the strength of their data and research, they are unable to be published because they don’t have this sign-off on ethical approval.To make those of you who know your IRBs, there’s been discussion among some of the DIY science people to set up a DIY-IRB. I’m pretty sure my face looked like I sucked a lemon when I heard this,…

Of course, the most frustrating thing about discussing the lack of genealogy and narrative history with those who are interested in practicing and pursuing science outside of institutional oversight is that inevitably, the question of “what is the answer” comes up, and there is no answer, at least not yet. The cat is out of the bag, and anyone with a cat knows it’s just about impossible to shove back in – so, given that, what do we do? How do we address the issues of ethics outside institutional oversight? Whatever we do, ignoring it until we’re forced to because of government intrusion seems like a bad idea, but that’s about all I’ve got.

So how about you? What do you think? Hopefully some of you reading this will join me and Judy this afternoon, as well as continue the discussion beyond. Today, we’ll be using the hashtags #SciO13 and #ethics for the talk, and hopefully the conversation will continue on after – so please join us, and join in.

Yet Another Rape Apologist in a Position of Power

...and everything else, Politics

It’s been a banner year for rape in the media, and apparently December just felt left out. Joining the likes of:

is Orange County Superior Court judge Derek Johnson, who said that the following litany of amazing things when refusing a heavier sentence for a man convicted of rape by a jury of his peers:

I spent my last year and a half in the D.A.’s office in the sexual assault unit. I know something about sexual assault. I’ve seen women who have been ravaged and savaged whose vagina was shredded by the rape. I’m not a gynecologist, but I can tell you something: If someone doesn’t want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case. That tells me that the victim in this case, although she wasn’t necessarily willing, she didn’t put up a fight. And to treat this case like the rape cases that we all hear about is an insult to victims of rape. I think it’s an insult. I think it trivializes rape.State of California, Commission on Judicial Performance

Of course, in some ways it’s unfair to lump Johnson in with the above quotes, because his ruling actually happened in 2008. That’s okay, though — there’s an awful lot of horrible that’s been spouted off in the past, too, and he’s just clearly gravitating towards his own:

  • Stephen “rape causes women to ‘secrete a certain secretion’” Freind (1988 Rep, R-PA);Freind’s Rape-pregnancy Theory Refuted
  • Henry “the facts show that people who are raped—who are truly raped—the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work and they don’t get pregnant. Medical authorities agree this is a rarity, if ever” Aldridge (1995 Rep, R-NC);Lawmaker Says Rape Can’t Cause Pregnancy
  • Clayton “if ‘[rape] is inevitable, just relax and enjoy it” Williams (1990 Texas Republican gubernatorial nominee);Texas Candidate’s Comment About Rape Causes a Furor
  • James Leon “concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami” Holms (Federal Judge, 1997);In Judicial Twist, Republicans Seen Stalling Bush Pick
  • John C. Willke, a physician who was once president of the National Right to Life Committee, whose statement is astonishing and bears repeating in full:

    Finally, factor in what is is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that’s physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more.Rape Pregnancies Are Rare

People being horrible about rape, since forever.

With thanks to Katie J.M. Baker for her Jezebel post Fuck You, Rape Culture, which served as a comprehensive list of spoken justifications for rape that made the news this year.

Not Domestic Terrorism, Just Domestic Violence

...and everything else, Bioethics, Politics

There was another mass shooting in the United States today, this time in Wisconsin.Again, some might note. The Sikh temple shooting in August was about 40 minutes from Brookfield, Wisconsin, in Oak Grove. As always, it’s interesting to watch what kind of narrative will unfold when these events happen. As I noted a few weeks ago, there is an unfortunate pattern to how mass murderers are both treated by and portrayed in the media. If the murderer is white, firearms regulation panic will set in and the news cycle will be dominated by the insistence that we must do more to remove guns from the public sphere, combated by 2nd Amendment rights activists.

If the murderer isn’t white, whether or not it’s covered at all — at least outside of the shooting’s local media — depends on how slow a news day it isClearly, today was a slow news day. and the victims. And it rarely triggers the sort of panicked regulation talk that accompanies shootings perpetrated by white men.I’d very much like to be proven wrong on this, by the way. If you can find media coverage — especially historical — that shows otherwise, please do pass it along. Instead, the reaction seems to be “dig for the reason.” Tonight, the police department in Brookfield gave that reason: oh, it was a domestic violence-related situation.

There we go — like clockwork, media sites are now running with this.Kudos to Reuters for not only not doing this, but also including a similar shooting in the Orlando, Florida area earlier this week. Headlines show “Wife of spa shooting suspect had obtained restraining order,” “Suspect in fatal Wisconsin shooting had slashed wife’s tires: police,” “Wisconsin police: After domestic violence arrest, suspect kills 3 — and himself,” and so on.

Perhaps most tellingly, though, is that all emphasize that the President was briefed that this was not a case of domestic terrorism. Just domestic violence. To paraphrase Kate Harding, sure it’s not terrorism — unless, of course, you’re a woman thinking of leaving a man who is abusive.I did contemplate rephrasing this to be gender neutral, because when you want to discuss people left out of a conversation, men who are abused — especially by women — are frequently ignored. So I want to take the moment to acknowledge men are quite certainly abused by women — but to also note that men are significantly less likely to be killed by their abuser. For statistics about men and domestic violence, please read this CDC press release.

This dismissal of mass shooting as just domestic violence is a dangerous narrative. Not only does it function as a smokescreen to avoid a necessary dialog on mass killings, firearms violence, and firearms control, but it de-emphasizes and legitimizes violence against women.

Every nine seconds a woman in America is beatenhttp://www.cfvc.org/Statistics.aspx. The leading cause of injury to women? Not rape, not muggings, not car accidents, but domestic violence.http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/domestic-violence-statistics/ Nearly 40 percent of women seeking care in an emergency department are there because of domestic abuse.Rand, M. Department of Justice. Violence related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments. Bureau of Justice Statistics. August 1997. More than three women a day in the United States are killed by an intimate partner.http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/domestic-violence-statistics In 2007, the last year the FBI has data,http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf 1,640 women were killed by their partner.

Women are 70 times more likely to be killed in the two weeks after they leave a situation of domestic violence than any other time.http://www.dvipiowa.org/myths.htm.

If this isn’t a systemic use of terror as a means of coercion, then I’m not sure what is.

I would welcome a continued and sustained debate about firearms violence in the United States. Likewise, I would welcome a serious and sustained public debate about domestic violence. Both of these issues are serious public health concerns, and should be engaged at a level that does not fade when the news cycle rotates. What I do not welcome is what the narrative is once again devolving in to: the dismissal of violence based on circumstance, relationship, and ethnicity.