ORCID Profile
0000-0002-6573-2670
Current Organisation
Australian National University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
In Research Link Australia (RLA), "Research Topics" refer to ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes. These topics are either sourced from ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes listed in researchers' related grants or generated by a large language model (LLM) based on their publications.
Biological Psychology (Neuropsychology, Psychopharmacology, Physiological Psychology) | Psychology | Forensic Psychology
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2022
DOI: 10.1016/J.FORSCIINT.2022.111472
Abstract: Systematic reviews are indispensable tools for both reliably informing decision-makers about the state of the field and for identifying areas that need further study. Their value, however, depends on their transparency and reproducibility. Readers should be able to determine what was searched for and when, where the authors searched, and whether that search was predetermined or evolved based on what was found. In this article, we measured the transparency and reproducibility of systematic reviews in forensic science, a field where courts, policymakers, and legislators count on systematic reviews to make informed decisions. In a s le of 100 systematic reviews published between 2018 and 2021, we found that completeness of reporting varied markedly. For instance, 50 % of reviews claimed to follow a reporting guideline and such statements were only modestly related to compliance with that reporting guideline. As to specific reporting items, 82 % reported all of the databases searched, 22 % reported the review's full Boolean search logic, and just 7 % reported the review was registered. Among meta-analyses (n = 23), only one stated data was available and none stated the analytic code was available. After considering the results, we end with recommendations for improved regulation of reporting practices, especially among journals. Our results may serve as a useful benchmark as the field evolves.
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Date: 06-2023
DOI: 10.1037/MAC0000116
Publisher: PeerJ
Date: 26-06-2018
DOI: 10.7717/PEERJ.5088
Abstract: Genome-wide association studies have identified a plethora of risk genes for both Crohn’s disease (CD) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). A subset of genes found to be risk factors for CD have also been found to be risk factors for AS. The objective of our study was to assess whether CD risk genes were associated with non-invasive clinical markers of gut inflammation in patients with AS, indicating a potential subset of patients with clinical as well as genetic overlap. A total of 308 Caucasian patients who fulfilled the modified New York Criteria for AS, were assessed for bowel symptoms using the Dudley Inflammatory Bowel Symptom Questionnaire (DISQ). Of these patients, 157 also had faecal calprotectin measured. All AS patients and 568 healthy controls were genotyped for 10 CD risk loci using predesigned single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping assays. Chi-square analysis was used to test for association between genotype and DISQ score and faecal calprotectin level. The minor allele of two SNPs, one in chromosome region 1q32 SNP (rs11584383), and one in the gene coding for IL23R (rs11209026) conferred protection against AS. Only the association of 1q32 remained significant after Bonferroni correction for multiple testing. Stratification by DISQ score and faecal calprotectin did not influence the association of 1q32 with AS. In patients with AS, the association of the CD 1q32 SNP was independent of non-invasive markers of bowel inflammation. Other CD related SNPs were not found have a significant association with AS.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2018
Publisher: University of California Press
Date: 2021
Abstract: In this article, we provide a toolbox of recommendations and resources for those aspiring to promote the uptake of open scientific practices. Open Science encompasses a range of behaviours that aim to improve the transparency of scientific research. This paper is ided into seven sections, each devoted to different groups or institutions in the research ecosystem: colleagues, students, departments and faculties, universities, academic libraries, journals, and funders. We describe the behavioural influences and incentives for each of these stakeholders as well as changes they can make to foster Open Science. Our primary goal, however, is to suggest actions that researchers can take to promote these behaviours, inspired by simple principles of behaviour change: make it easy, social, and attractive. In isolation, a small shift in one person’s behaviour may appear to make little difference, but when combined, many shifts can radically alter shared norms and culture. We offer this toolbox to assist in iduals and institutions in cultivating a more open research culture.
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 03-2018
Publisher: PubPub
Date: 17-06-2021
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 29-08-2018
DOI: 10.1136/BMJ.K3225
Abstract: To identify the genetic determinants of fracture risk and assess the role of 15 clinical risk factors on osteoporotic fracture risk. Meta-analysis of genome wide association studies (GWAS) and a two-s le mendelian randomisation approach. 25 cohorts from Europe, United States, east Asia, and Australia with genome wide genotyping and fracture data. A discovery set of 37 857 fracture cases and 227 116 controls with replication in up to 147 200 fracture cases and 150 085 controls. Fracture cases were defined as in iduals (>18 years old) who had fractures at any skeletal site confirmed by medical, radiological, or questionnaire reports. Instrumental variable analyses were performed to estimate effects of 15 selected clinical risk factors for fracture in a two-s le mendelian randomisation framework, using the largest previously published GWAS meta-analysis of each risk factor. Of 15 fracture associated loci identified, all were also associated with bone mineral density and mapped to genes clustering in pathways known to be critical to bone biology (eg, This large scale GWAS meta-analysis for fracture identified 15 genetic determinants of fracture, all of which also influenced bone mineral density. Among the clinical risk factors for fracture assessed, only bone mineral density showed a major causal effect on fracture. Genetic predisposition to lower levels of vitamin D and estimated calcium intake from dairy sources were not associated with fracture risk.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 29-12-2018
DOI: 10.1002/ART.40369
Abstract: Endoplasmic reticulum aminopeptidase 1 ( ERAP ‐1) and ERAP ‐2 , encoded on chromosome 5q15, trim endogenous peptides for HLA ‐mediated presentation to the immune system. Polymorphisms in ERAP 1 and/or ERAP 2 are strongly associated with several immune‐mediated diseases with specific HLA backgrounds, implicating altered peptide handling and presentation as prerequisites for autoreactivity against an arthritogenic peptide. Given the thorough characterization of disease risk–associated polymorphisms that alter ERAP activity, this study aimed instead to interrogate the expression effect of chromosome 5q15 polymorphisms to determine their effect on ERAP isoform and protein expression. RNA sequencing and genotyping across chromosome 5q15 were performed to detect genetic variants in ERAP 1 and ERAP 2 associated with altered total gene and isoform‐specific expression. The functional implication of a putative messenger RNA splice‐altering variant on ERAP ‐1 protein levels was validated using mass spectrometry. Polymorphisms associated with ankylosing spondylitis ( AS ) significantly influenced the transcript and protein expression of ERAP‐1 and ERAP‐2. Disease risk–associated polymorphisms in and around both genes were also associated with increased gene expression. Furthermore, key risk‐associated ERAP 1 variants were associated with altered transcript splicing, leading to allele‐dependent alternate expression of 2 distinct isoforms and significant differences in the type of ERAP ‐1 protein produced. In accordance with studies demonstrating that polymorphisms that increase aminopeptidase activity predispose to immune disease, the increased risk also attributed to increased expression of ERAP 1 and ERAP 2 supports the notion of using aminopeptidase inhibition to treat AS and other ERAP ‐associated conditions.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 25-09-2020
Abstract: This article makes a case for pre-recorded, modularized expert evidence as a way to improve access to justice in some intimate partner violence (IPV) cases. Knowledge about the effects and dynamics of IPV regularly plays an important role in criminal trials. This knowledge is often beyond the ken of the factfinder, and thus can provide important context for the case facts. It may also assist in disabusing misconceptions surrounding IPV. Despite the potential value of this knowledge, several rules of evidence and the general nature of the Anglo-American trial process make it difficult to tender such evidence. For instance, trials prefer live testimony of expert witnesses over other means of conveying exogenous knowledge. These limitations place impecunious parties in regional areas at a disadvantage because they may struggle to find qualified experts. As a result, cross-examined pre-recorded modules about IPV (e.g., factors that prevent in iduals from leaving abusive relationships, IPV as coercive control) may be helpful in some cases.
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Date: 07-07-2016
DOI: 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780199935352.013.28
Abstract: The CSI effect posits that exposure to television programs that portray forensic science (e.g., CSI: Crime Scene Investigation) can change the way jurors evaluate forensic evidence. We review (1) the theory behind the CSI effect (2) the perception of the effect among legal actors (3) the academic treatment of the effect and, (4) how courts have dealt with the effect. We demonstrate that while legal actors do see the CSI effect as a serious issue, there is virtually no empirical evidence suggesting it is a real phenomenon. Moreover, many of the remedies employed by courts may do no more than introduce bias into juror decision-making or even trigger the CSI effect when it would not normally occur. We end with suggestions for the proper treatment of the CSI effect in courts and directions for future scholarly work.
Publisher: The Journal of Rheumatology
Date: 15-02-2018
Abstract: We tested the discriminatory capacity of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) and its potential as an objective measure of treatment response to tumor necrosis factor inhibition in ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Three cohorts were studied prospectively: (1) 18 AS patients with Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index 4, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate 25 and/or C-reactive protein 10 meeting the modified New York criteria for AS (2) 20 cases of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) as defined by the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria and (3) 20 non-AS patients with chronic low back pain, aged between 18 and 45 years, who did not meet the imaging arm of the ASAS criteria for axSpA. Group 1 patients were studied prior to and following adalimumab treatment. Patients were assessed by DWI and conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and standard nonimaging measures. At baseline, in contrast to standard nonimaging measures, DWI apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values showed good discriminatory performance [area under the curve (AUC) 80% for Group 1 or 2 compared with Group 3]. DWI ADC values were significantly lower posttreatment (0.45 ± 0.433 before, 0.154 ± 0.23 after, p = 0.0017), but had modest discriminating capacity comparing pre– and posttreatment measures (AUC = 68%). This performance was similar to the manual Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) scoring system. DWI is informative for diagnosis of AS and nr-axSpA, and has moderate utility in assessment of disease activity or treatment response, with performance similar to that of the SPARCC MRI score.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2023
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 05-2008
Publisher: University of Alberta Libraries
Date: 31-10-2016
DOI: 10.29173/ALR460
Abstract: When opening an RRSP or RRIF, investors typically designate a beneficiary. We expect that when making this choice, most investors intend that their designated beneficiary will indeed benefit from the investment on their death. If there is a dispute between the designated beneficiary and the investor’s estate, we further expect investors intend that their choice of beneficiary will prevail. Surprisingly, this is not the case in many provincial appellate courts, which in fact favour the estate in such disputes. More specifically, most Canadian courts apply the presumption of resulting trust to beneficiary designations: they assume, absent other evidence, that the designated beneficiary holds the proceeds of the RRSP or RRIF in trust for the deceased investor’s estate. Only Saskatchewan has taken a contrary position. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in Morrison Estate (Re) recently weighed both options and endorsed the approach that applies the presumption of resulting trust.In this article, we analyze the doctrine of resulting trust, its rationale as presented by several leading cases, and empirical evidence evaluating the intentions of Canadian investors. We conclude that applying the presumption of resulting trust to beneficiary designations betrays both the theory and purpose of the presumption. It also runs counter to the intentions of most Canadians and creates uncertainties in millions of beneficiary designations. Finally, we present several solutions for bringing the law in line with the intentions of investors and, indeed, common sense.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 30-04-2018
DOI: 10.1002/PATH.5081
Publisher: Hindawi Limited
Date: 08-02-2018
DOI: 10.1111/PEDI.12638
Abstract: To assess the utility of whole-exome sequencing (WES) for mutation detection in maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) and congenital hyperinsulinism (CHI). MODY and CHI are the two commonest monogenic disorders of glucose-regulated insulin secretion in childhood, with 13 causative genes known for MODY and 10 causative genes identified for CHI. The large number of potential genes makes comprehensive screening using traditional methods expensive and time-consuming. Ten subjects with MODY and five with CHI with known mutations underwent WES using two different exome capture kits (Nimblegen SeqCap EZ Human v3.0 Exome Enrichment Kit, Nextera Rapid Capture Exome Kit). Analysis was blinded to previously identified mutations, and included assessment for large deletions. The target capture of five exome capture technologies was also analyzed using sequencing data from >2800 unrelated s les. Four of five MODY mutations were identified using Nimblegen (including a large deletion in HNF1B). Although targeted, one mutation (in INS) had insufficient coverage for detection. Eleven of eleven mutations (six MODY, five CHI) were identified using Nextera Rapid (including the previously missed mutation). On reconciliation, all mutations concorded with previous data and no additional variants in MODY genes were detected. There were marked differences in the performance of the capture technologies. WES can be useful for screening for MODY/CHI mutations, detecting both point mutations and large deletions. However, capture technologies require careful selection.
Publisher: The Journal of Rheumatology
Date: 12-2018
Abstract: Opioid analgesics may be prescribed to ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients with pain that is unresponsive to antirheumatic treatment. Our study assessed factors associated with opioid usage in AS. A prospective cohort of 706 patients with AS meeting modified New York criteria followed at least 2 years underwent comprehensive clinical evaluation of disease activity and functional impairment. These were assessed by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI). Radiographic severity was assessed by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Radiology Index and modified Stokes Ankylosing Spondylitis Scoring System. Medications taken concurrently with opioids, as well as C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), were determined at each study visit, performed every 6 months. Analyses were carried out at baseline, and longitudinal multivariable models were developed to identify factors independently associated with chronic and intermittent opioid usage over time. Factors significantly associated with opioid usage, especially chronic opioid use, included longer disease duration, smoking, lack of exercise, higher disease activity (BASDAI) and functional impairment (BASFI), depression, radiographic severity, and cardiovascular disease. Patients taking opioids were more likely to be using anxiolytic, hypnotic, antidepressant, and muscle relaxant medications. Multivariable analysis underscored the association with smoking, older age, antitumor necrosis factor agent use, and psychoactive drugs, as well as with subjective but not objective determinants of disease activity. Opioid usage was more likely to be associated with subjective measures (depression, BASDAI, BASFI) than objective measures (CRP, ESR), suggesting that pain in AS may derive from sources other than spinal inflammation alone.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 21-05-2018
Abstract: Canadian courts are loathe to admit expert evidence from psychological scientists when that evidence does not concern a disposition, typically a psychological disorder. As a result, psychological evidence concerning the unconscious processes and situational forces that underlie mistaken eyewitness identifications and wrongful confessions are regularly excluded from courtrooms. Courts justify these exclusions on the basis that the evidence is not beyond the ken of the trier of fact – the psychologist would simply be describing an experience shared by judge and jury. This reasoning stands on a fundamental misunderstanding of psychology. In fact, psychological science finds that the situation drives behaviour in a manner that regularly evades the trier of fact’s ken. This is because these situational forces rely on unconscious cognitive processes, and humans rarely have introspective access to these processes. As a result, humans cling to several deep misconceptions about memory processes and confessions. In this Article, we first discuss the mechanics of the mischief: why humans fail to account for unconscious processes and the situation, and instead focus on disposition. Then we provide evidence for this type of reasoning in decisions to exclude expert evidence about eyewitness identifications and false confessions. We conclude with recommendations to manage prejudicial evidence in a manner that is based on a more nuanced understanding of human psychology.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 31-03-2020
Abstract: In response to many miscarriages of justice attributed to forensic science, stakeholders in the justice system have proposed several reforms. One such reform is the broader use of expert witness codes of conduct to control the way in which forensic scientific evidence is reported in legal proceedings. In this article, the authors attempt to continue this discussion in three ways. They (1) review the use of expert witness codes of conduct in Australia and (2) compare that to their use in the civil context in Canada. The authors rely on that analysis to (3) suggest that a consensus-based code of conduct, modeled on reforms going on outside of forensic science, may assist in encouraging fuller and more cautious reporting by forensic scientists in Canadian courts.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2019
DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.3345225
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2018
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 15-07-2017
Abstract: In R v Bingley, the Supreme Court considered a controversial subjective methodology used by police officers trained as drug recognition experts (DREs) pursuant to the Criminal Code. At issue was the admissibility of these experts’ evidence. A 5-2 majority held that Parliament conclusively established the reliability the DRE program’s methodology and the DRE’s qualifications to perform that methodology, and thus trial judges may not exclude DREs for those reasons. Bingley is problematic on multiple fronts. Most fundamentally, the Majority’s statutory interpretation was insensitive to the science behind the drug recognition program. Their analysis put this subjective methodology on the same footing as objective forms of evidence, like breathalyser analysis, where human judgment and bias play almost no role. More broadly, the Majority’s decision comes in light of recent findings that several forensic scientific disciplines are not as reliable as they purport to be. The Majority’s reasoning seemed largely driven by concerns about judicial economy, and in particular the worry that evaluating DREs would take too much court time. In response, we provide a more scientifically rigorous but less time-consuming way for trial judges to scrutinize DREs.
Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd
Date: 08-02-2023
DOI: 10.12688/F1000RESEARCH.127563.1
Abstract: Background : Scientists are increasingly concerned with making their work easy to verify and build upon. Associated practices include sharing data, materials, and analytic scripts, and preregistering protocols. This shift towards increased transparency and rigor has been referred to as a “credibility revolution.” The credibility of empirical legal research has been questioned in the past due to its distinctive peer review system and because the legal background of its researchers means that many often are not trained in study design or statistics. Still, there has been no systematic study of transparency and credibility-related characteristics of published empirical legal research. Methods : To fill this gap and provide an estimate of current practices that can be tracked as the field evolves, we assessed 300 empirical articles from highly ranked law journals including both faculty-edited journals and student-edited journals. Results : We found high levels of article accessibility, especially among student-edited journals. Few articles stated that a study’s data are available. Preregistration and availability of analytic scripts were very uncommon. Conclusion : We suggest that empirical legal researchers and the journals that publish their work cultivate norms and practices to encourage research credibility. Our estimates may be revisited to track the field’s progress in the coming years.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2018
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 22-02-2022
DOI: 10.1177/0067205X211066140
Abstract: Exclusion of evidence when its probative value is exceeded by its risk of creating unfair prejudice has long been a fundamental safeguard against unfair trials and wrongful convictions. In 2016, IMM v The Queen (IMM) curtailed that safeguard by holding that trial judges should assess probative value on the assumption that the evidence is reliable and credible. The IMM majority placed emphasis on the capacity of the evidence. In doing so, it provided a mysterious qualification: some evidence may lack probative value not because it is unreliable, but because it is ‘simply unconvincing’. The majority illustrated unconvincingness with the ex le of an unreliable eyewitness identification. Courts and legal scholars criticised the majority judgment for its harmful implications and for its apparent incoherence. From a review of almost 4 years of post- IMM jurisprudence and deeper exploration into one particular case, we find that ‘simply unconvincing’ has accentuated the confusion and inconsistency in Australian evidence jurisprudence.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 10-2020
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 20-03-2018
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 08-03-2018
DOI: 10.1002/JBM4.10033
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2018
DOI: 10.1016/J.JNEUROIM.2018.07.016
Abstract: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is considered to have an immune-mediated basis, but the genetic contribution to GBS is unclear. We conducted a GWAS involving 215 GBS patients and 1,105 healthy controls. No significant associations of in idual SNPs or imputed HLA types were observed. We performed a genome-wide complex trait analysis for evaluation of the heritability of GBS, and found that common SNPs contribute up to 25% of susceptibility to the disease. Genetic risk score analysis showed no evidence of overlap in genetic susceptibility factors of GBS and multiple sclerosis. Given the unexplained heritability of the trait further larger GWAS are indicated.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 05-03-2018
DOI: 10.1111/BJD.15781
Abstract: Invasive dermatophyte infection, with extension beyond the dermis, in immunocompetent hosts is exceptionally rare. Dermatophytes are keratinophilic and are usually confined to the stratum corneum, hair and nails. Susceptibility to dermatophyte infections is incompletely understood, but inherited mutations in key signalling pathways of the innate immune system have been identified. We report the first case of an invasive dermatophyte infection associated with abrupt onset of a prurigo-induced pseudoperforation and a loss-of-function mutation in signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3).
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 06-1201
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 04-2018
DOI: 10.1111/BJD.16275
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 30-05-2017
Abstract: Litigators seeking to improve their interviewing skills may have noticed a recent addition to the market, a book titled Unlocking Memories: Cognitive Interviewing for Lawyers. Written by former English police officer Geoff Coughlin, it’s marketed as a way to “elicit up to 40% more information from your witness interviews” in a manner that is both accurate and efficient. Unlocking Memories falls short in many respects. The book’s organization is disjointed. It jumps from topic to topic rather than provide a step-by-step guide. The poor organization results from the book, despite its name, spending little time and attention on the actual cognitive interviewing part. Instead, Coughlin takes many ergences: some are helpful (a handy note-taking method), but others are factually inaccurate (a discredited technique for inferring mental states from eye movements).
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 19-08-2021
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 09-07-2019
DOI: 10.1093/JLB/LSZ009
Abstract: The mainstream sciences are experiencing a revolution of methodology. This revolution was inspired, in part, by the realization that a surprising number of findings in the bioscientific literature could not be replicated or reproduced by independent laboratories. In response, scientific norms and practices are rapidly moving towards openness. These reforms promise many enhancements to the scientific process, notably improved efficiency and reliability of findings. Changes are also underway in the forensic. After years of legal-scientific criticism and several reports from peak scientific bodies, efforts are underway to establish the validity of several forensic practices and ensure forensic scientists perform and present their work in a scientifically valid way. In this article, the authors suggest that open science reforms are distinctively suited to addressing the problems faced by forensic science. Openness comports with legal and criminal justice values, helping ensure expert forensic evidence is more reliable and susceptible to rational evaluation by the trier of fact. In short, open forensic science allows parties in legal proceedings to understand and assess the strength of the case against them, resulting in fairer outcomes. Moreover, several emerging open science initiatives allow for speedier and more collaborative research.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 06-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2011
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2018
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 10-2020
Publisher: Annual Reviews
Date: 13-10-2021
DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-121620-085055
Abstract: As part of a broader methodological reform movement, scientists are increasingly interested in improving the replicability of their research. Replicability allows others to perform replications to explore potential errors and statistical issues that might call the original results into question. Little attention, however, has been paid to the state of replicability in the field of empirical legal research (ELR). Quality is especially important in this field because empirical legal researchers produce work that is regularly relied upon by courts and other legal bodies. In this review, we summarize the current state of ELR relative to the broader movement toward replicability in the social sciences. As part of that aim, we summarize recent collective replication efforts in ELR and transparency and replicability guidelines adopted by journals that publish ELR. Based on this review, ELR seems to be lagging other fields in implementing reforms. We conclude with suggestions for reforms that might encourage improved replicability.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 28-11-2021
DOI: 10.1177/00219347211057201
Abstract: In comparison to white students, the study of Black student attitudes toward crime reporting on college c uses is deficient, especially in historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Using approximately 100 completed student questionnaires, statistical results suggest that the majority of students express a willingness to report a c us-related crime to c us police. The highest reported explanation for refusing to report a crime is based upon the prospect of being labeled in a negative manner. The highest reported explanation for reporting a crime is based upon the receipt of a financial reward and anonymity. Bivariate calculations indicate that age, gender, and residential status are significantly associated with crime reporting decisions. Policy implications, areas of further research, and limitations are provided.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2018
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 12-01-2023
DOI: 10.1007/S44202-022-00062-2
Abstract: This comment examines a threat to the development of law and psychology as a “public science” (i.e., one that goes beyond theory to address important issues in society), a failure to think critically about effect sizes. Effect sizes estimate the strength or magnitude of the relationship between variables and therefore can help decision makers understand whether scientific results are relevant to some legal or policy outcome. Accordingly, I suggest that those conducting and reporting law and psychology research should: (1) justify why observed effect sizes are meaningful and report them candidly and transparently, (2) scrutinize effect sizes to determine if they are plausible, and (3) plan studies such that they fit with the researchers’ inferential goals. I explore these points by way of case studies on influential law and psychology studies, such as implicit bias in the courtroom. I end with suggestions for implementing my recommendations, including a metaresearch agenda for law and psychology.
Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Date: 2008
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2020
Publisher: Queensland University of Technology
Date: 28-07-2021
DOI: 10.5204/LTHJ.1875
Abstract: Fields closely related to empirical legal research (ELR) are enhancing their methods to improve the credibility of their findings. This includes making data, analysis codes and other materials openly available on digital repositories and preregistering studies. There are numerous benefits to these practices, such as research being easier to find and access through digital research methods. However, ELR appears to be lagging cognate fields. This may be partly due to a lack of field-specific meta-research and guidance. We sought to fill that gap by first evaluating credibility indicators in ELR, including a review of guidelines for legal journals. This review finds considerable room for improvement in how law journals regulate ELR. The remainder of the article provides practical guidance for the field. We start with general recommendations for empirical legal researchers and then turn to recommendations aimed at three commonly used empirical legal methods: content analyses of judicial decisions, surveys and qualitative studies. We end with suggestions for journals and law schools.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 03-07-2018
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 28-04-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2018
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 30-05-2017
Abstract: Canadian courts regularly affirm their commitment to gatekeeping scientific evidence, saying it is fundamentally important to determine the admissibility of such evidence before it can impact the ultimate decision. The significance of gatekeeping is underscored by the fact that unreliable science has been at the heart of many high-profile wrongful convictions. In fact, a leading study demonstrated that invalid forensic science was present in approximately 60% of wrongful convictions. But while pronouncements of commitment to gatekeeping are laudable, they are empty if not rigorously followed. In fact, a recent trend has seen a more permissive approach take hold, with scientific evidence characterized as “specialized knowledge”, and evaluated primarily on the basis of the expert’s qualifications. Exacerbating this issue, trial judges sitting alone are regularly more permissive in their gatekeeping role than those sitting with a jury. Both trends, which insulate scientific evidence from scrutiny, came to a head in a recent 2-1 decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal. In this case, R v Awer, the Crown’s expert presented a theory about DNA transfer supported by his own previous informal observations and journal articles penned by a police crime lab (and of questionable reliability). Despite the Crown’s characterization of the expert’s testimony as science, the majority of the Court of Appeal characterized it as specialized knowledge, and refrained from any inquiry into how the expert performed his tests, his s le size, or any controls for bias. Similarly, despite characterizing the journal articles as science, the majority did not scrutinize them at all. As a result, two highly prejudicial forms of evidence were allowed to impact a critical legal decision with no analysis as to their reliability.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 28-12-2018
Abstract: Canadian courts draw a tenuous distinction between expert scientific evidence and what they characterize as specialized knowledge gained through the expert witness’s experience, training, and research. This characterization is based on unclear criteria and has significant consequences. Notably, specialized knowledge regularly receives considerably less scrutiny than that which is characterized as science, while still often serving as powerful inculpatory evidence in criminal trials. Moreover, specialized knowledge is often provided by figures that carry an air of authority, like police officers and scientists. This article focuses on the leading opinion on specialized knowledge, the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in R v Abbey. An analysis of Abbey’s application to three fields of contested specialized knowledge (including the evidence the Abbey Court admitted, but fresh evidence revealed as fundamentally unreliable) provides two general insights. First, while Abbey could be interpreted as providing for a flexible and probing analysis of all expert evidence, courts have often relied on it to justify giving almost no scrutiny to specialized knowledge. Second, this review of the post-Abbey jurisprudence suggests that scrutiny focused on the transparency of the expert’s data and analysis, and whether that analysis can reliably be applied to the relevant factual question, may provide a valuable way to evaluate expertise.
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Date: 08-2014
DOI: 10.1037/LAW0000012
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 06-2007
DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.127
Abstract: Feeling duped is an aversive emotional response to the perception of having been taken advantage of in a interpersonal transaction (primarily those involving economic exchange), partly as a result of one's own decisions. The actual likelihood of being duped, as well as the heightened vigilance for it, should increase as a function of opportunity (e.g., information asymmetry that gives one side a big advantage in knowledge) and motivation (e.g., an exceptionally huge payoff may make it worth defrauding a long-term business partner). Being duped produces an aversive self-conscious emotion with a threat of self-blame. There appears to be stable in idual differences in the motivation (called sugrophobia) to avoid being a sucker. High sugrophobes will be vigilant and skeptical of potential deals. Low sugrophobes may not even realize in some instances that they were duped. The aversive reaction to feeling duped stimulates counterfactual ruminations that may intensify sugrophobia but also aids in extracting useful lessons.
Publisher: Consortium Erudit
Date: 13-12-2018
DOI: 10.7202/1054352AR
Abstract: This article examines the vanishingly thin line between lay and expert opinion evidence in Canada. In Parts I and II, we set the stakes — the dangers involved in expanding the scope of admissible opinion evidence. Canadian trial courts have been warned by peak scientific bodies and public commissions like the Goudge Inquiry about the dangers of attorning to persuasive expert witnesses. Thus, expert evidence faces new hurdles, both substantively and procedurally. This scrutiny has inspired parties to seek refuge in the more flexible and discretionary lay opinion evidence rules. But newfound vigilance to expert opinion is invalidated if the same evidence can be admitted as lay opinion. Parts III and IV illustrate these problems as we examine three cases in which authoritative lay witnesses opined on topics requiring specialized training and expertise. Three hazards are readily apparent from this analysis: (1) the lay witnesses opined on matters in which there are established methodologies to control for unconscious bias, but did not follow these methodologies (2) the lay witnesses–– police officers––though authority figures, were not qualified experts in the area they were opining on, and (3) the lay opinion jurisprudence has failed to meaningfully distinguish between lay and expert opinion. In Part V, we seek to fill this void by proposing a new analytic approach—Lay Opinion 2.0—which draws on both the practical and epistemological distinction between lay and expert opinion to provide an efficient and fair test for the admission of lay opinion evidence.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 05-01-2019
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 14-05-2018
DOI: 10.1038/S41467-018-03646-6
Abstract: Central corneal thickness (CCT) is a highly heritable trait associated with complex eye diseases such as keratoconus and glaucoma. We perform a genome-wide association meta-analysis of CCT and identify 19 novel regions. In addition to adding support for known connective tissue-related pathways, pathway analyses uncover previously unreported gene sets. Remarkably, % of the CCT-loci are near or within Mendelian disorder genes. These included FBN1 , ADAMTS2 and TGFB2 which associate with connective tissue disorders (Marfan, Ehlers-Danlos and Loeys-Dietz syndromes), and the LUM-DCN-KERA gene complex involved in myopia, corneal dystrophies and cornea plana. Using index CCT-increasing variants, we find a significant inverse correlation in effect sizes between CCT and keratoconus ( r = −0.62, P = 5.30 × 10 −5 ) but not between CCT and primary open-angle glaucoma ( r = −0.17, P = 0.2). Our findings provide evidence for shared genetic influences between CCT and keratoconus, and implicate candidate genes acting in collagen and extracellular matrix regulation.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 12-2017
DOI: 10.1038/CTI.2017.49
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 13-06-2018
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Date: 06-2022
DOI: 10.1037/MAC0000026
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 02-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 04-2018
DOI: 10.1016/J.BONE.2017.08.032
Abstract: The Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva (FOP) Connection Registry is an international, voluntary, observational study that directly captures demographic and disease information initially from patients with FOP (the patient portal) and in the near future from treating physicians (the physician portal) via a secure web-based tool. It was launched by the International FOP Association (IFOPA) with a guiding vision to develop and manage one unified, global, and coordinated Registry allowing the assembly of the most comprehensive data on FOP. This will ultimately facilitate greater access and sharing of patient data and enable better and faster development of therapies and tracking their long-term treatment effectiveness and safety. This report outlines the FOP Connection Registry's design and procedures for data collection and reporting, as well as the long-term sustainability of Registry. Patient-reported, aggregate data are summarized for the first 196 enrolled patients, representing participation from 42 countries and approximately 25% of the world's known FOP population. Fifty-seven percent of the current Registry participants are female with a mean age of 23.8years (median=21years, range=1, 76years). Among the Registry participants who provided their FOP type, 51% reported FOP Classic (R206H), 41% reported FOP Type Unknown, and 8% reported FOP Variant. Patients reported 5.4years (median=3.0years, range=0, 45.8years) as the mean age at which they noticed their first FOP symptoms and a mean age at final FOP diagnosis of 7.5years (median=5.0years, range=0.1, 48.4years). Information on the patients' diagnostic journeys in arriving at a correct diagnosis of FOP is also presented. These early patient-reported data suggest that the IFOPA's vision of one, unified, global, and coordinated approach to the FOP Connection Registry is well underway to being realized. In addition, the positive response from the FOP patient community to the initial launch of the Registry's patient portal has created a solid foundation upon which to build the largest international registry for monitoring the clinical progression of FOP among patients.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 17-07-2018
Abstract: Proprietary estoppel provides one of equity’s most powerful remedies. Estoppel is an equitable doctrine which arises when one party acts on the reliance of the promise of another. The promise and corresponding reliance creates a quasi-contract with reliance acting as an alternative to the consideration usually required in contracts. Proprietary estoppel is distinct from other equitable estoppels in that a proprietary estoppel can act as a ‘sword’ and form the basis of a cause of action. If all of the parts of proprietary estoppel are made out, a court can modify or create property rights to satisfy the equity.With regard to the Canadian experience, the Court of Appeal for Ontario recently noted that proprietary estoppel has received “somewhat uneven treatment in Canada.” It is within this context that the Court of Appeal for British Columbia split on the proper scope for the Supreme Court of Canada. In Cowper-Smith v Morgan, the Supreme Court of Canada has both clarified the test for — and arguably expanded the scope of — proprietary estoppel in the context of promises exchanged between children over their mother’s care during her lifetime. The fact that a party lacks an interest in the disputed property at the time of the promise does not negate the obligation of fulfilling the promise. Instead, when the party responsible for the expectation has or acquires sufficient interest in the property, proprietary estoppel will attach to that interest and protect the equity. This article will discuss the law of proprietary estoppel in other jurisdictions and how the Supreme Court of Canada has infused this remedy with greater flexibility to satisfy the equity.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2022
DOI: 10.1016/J.SCIJUS.2022.02.006
Abstract: What drives public beliefs about the credibility of a scientific field? This question is increasingly important, with recent discussion of a "reproducibility crisis" affecting many fields. Such discussions are vital in forensic science, a discipline that has experienced severe scrutiny from both the media and large oversight bodies. In this paper, we make three contributions to this discussion. First, we bring together and compare several studies in which laypeople were asked about the reliability of forensic science practices. This review suggests that forensic practices do not enjoy uniformly high reliability ratings from the public and these ratings are not calibrated with the scientific consensus. We then review three empirically-tested ways that other fields are dealing with their own crises, all centred around transparency and openness. Finally, we make recommendations for how forensic science can leverage transparency and openness to improve and maintain its long-term credibility. As part of these recommendations, we find that empirical research supports the Houston Forensic Science Center's recent claims that it has improved its credibility through openness and transparency.
Publisher: The Royal Society
Date: 11-2022
DOI: 10.1098/RSOS.221076
Abstract: Research assessing the validity and reliability of many forensic science disciplines has been published however, the quality of this research varies depending on the methodologies employed. This was a major point of contention with the United States' President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, who recognized the existing literature but found the majority lacking because of methodological issues. Questionable scientific methodologies have undermined the forensic science community's ability to defend the scientific foundations and examination protocols used to examine evidence in criminal cases. Such scientific failures have significant legal implications. Registered reports, which strengthen the quality of scientific research and reliability of laboratory protocols, can provide transparency, validity and a stronger scientific foundation for forensic science.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 29-08-2017
Abstract: Scientific evidence is easily misunderstood. One of the most insidious instances of misunderstanding arises when scientific experts and those receiving their evidence assign different meanings to the same words. We expect scientific evidence to be difficult to understand. What is unexpected, and often far more difficult to detect, is the incorrect understanding of terms and phrases that appear familiar. In these circumstances, misunderstandings easily escape notice. We applied an evidence-based approach to investigating this phenomenon, asking two groups, one with legal education and one with scientific education, to define five commonly-used phrases with both lay and scientific connotations. We hypothesised that the groups would significantly erge in the definitions they provided. Employing a machine learning algorithm and the ratings of trained coders, we found that lawyers and scientists indeed disagreed over the meanings of certain terms. Notably, we trained a machine learning algorithm to reliably classify the authorship of the definitions as scientific or legal, demonstrating that these groups rely on predictably different lexicons. Our findings have implications for recommending avoidance of some of these particular words and phrases in favour of terminology that promotes common understanding. And methodologically, we suggest a new way for governmental and quasi-governmental bodies to study and thereby prevent misunderstandings between the legal and scientific communities.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 21-08-2019
Abstract: Biased expert witnesses pose a distinct challenge to the legal system. In the criminal sphere, they have contributed to several wrongful convictions, and in civil cases, they can protract disputes and reduce faith in the legal system. This has inspired a great deal of legal-psychological research studying expert biases and how to mitigate them. In response to the problem of biased experts, courts have historically employed procedural mechanisms to manage partiality, but have generally refrained from using exclusionary rules. Canada erged from this position in 2015, developing an exclusionary rule in White Burgess Langille Inman v Abbott and Haliburton Co. In this article, we assembled a database of 229 Canadian bias cases pre- and post-White Burgess to evaluate the impact that this case had on the jurisprudence. The data suggests that White Burgess increased the frequency of challenges related to expert biases, however, did not noticeably affect the proportion of experts that were excluded. This suggests that the exclusionary rule introduced in White Burgess did not significantly impact the practical operation of expert evidence law, as it pertains to bias. We conclude by recommending that one way for courts to better address the problem of biased experts is to recognize the issue of contextual bias.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2018
Publisher: Elsevier
Date: 2018
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 03-2020
Abstract: We are very pleased to introduce this special issue of The University of Queensland Law Journal on expert evidence. As many readers will be aware, expert evidence remains a contentious issue both in Australia and abroad. Questions have been raised, for instance, about the reliability of many traditional fields of expert evidence, biases experts may carry with them into court, and the risk of trials transforming into battles of experts. We hope that this special issue contributes to the ongoing discussion.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 30-05-2017
Abstract: In 2015 Brian Nosek and several collaborators performed perhaps the most important scientific study of the year, and they did it by attempting to copy the work of others. That is not as contradictory as it sounds, or at least it shouldn’t be.While the conventional wisdom is that most scientific findings have been vetted and reproduced many times before they reach scientific consensus, the reality is that such rigor is exceedingly rare. Nosek sought to remedy this, wrangling up a group of 270 other researchers (The Open Science Collaboration) and attempting to redo 100 psychology experiments already published in leading peer reviewed journals. The question: would these recreations find the same results as the initial studies? Prior to Nosek’s endeavor, the conventional wisdom was that while published science contains some false positives, they are a small minority and are quickly identified through a robust self-correction process. The conventional wisdom was wrong, and to an extent most never dreamed of – only 36% of the studies were reproducible.In this article I first provide a brief review of the legal standard for the admission of scientific evidence. Then, I provide the context in which Nosek’s findings sit – the replicability crisis. I suggest the current legal standard is capable of effectively screening out unreliable science, but it requires legal actors be aware of the issue and demand science’s best rather that what’s been generally accepted. I conclude with some tangible recommendations for the justice system.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 06-03-2020
Abstract: Can procedural reforms effectively regulate expert witnesses? Expert procedures, like codes of conduct and court appointed experts, remain controversial among academics and courts. Much of this discussion, however, has been orced from the science of the reforms. In this article, the authors draw from emerging work in behavioural ethics and metascience that studies procedures analogous to those that are being used in courts. This work suggests that procedures can be effective, as they have been in science, if directed at key vulnerabilities in the research and reporting process. The authors’ analysis of the metascientific and behavioural ethical literature also suggests several nuances in how expert evidence procedure ought to be designed and employed. For instance, codes of conduct require specific and direct wording that experts cannot interpret as ethically permissive. Further, drawing on a recent case study, courts have an important role to play in establishing a culture that takes codes as serious ethical responsibilities, and not simply pro forma.
Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Date: 2007
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 27-02-2019
Abstract: Recent reviews by peak scientific bodies have concluded that forensic bitemark identification is not a demonstrably valid science. In the United States, the practice of forensic bitemark identification has been linked to at least 14 wrongful convictions and has been the subject of considerable academic study. Much less is known about the use of forensic bitemark identification in Canadian courts. To remedy this lack of knowledge, we performed an exhaustive search of the reported Canadian case law. We found 14 cases in which courts relied on a forensic bitemark identification, a number that likely underestimates the use of this practice. Still, in the cases we found, forensic bitemark experts overstated the accuracy and reliability of their practice, and did not appear to disclose the considerable controversy in the field. Furthermore, and despite repeated directions from the Supreme Court of Canada that trial judges should exercise a robust gatekeeper role in the face of invalid science, none of the courts excluded bite mark analysis, nor expressly questioned the scientific validity of the practice. We discuss these findings and provide recommendations based on the principle of transparency.
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Date: 11-2012
DOI: 10.1037/A0027968
Abstract: Tests of working memory capacity (WMC) and fluid intelligence (gF) are thought to capture variability in a crucial cognitive capacity that is broadly predictive of success, yet pinpointing the exact nature of this capacity is an area of ongoing controversy. We propose that mind-wandering is associated with performance on tests of WMC and gF, thereby partially explaining both the reliable correlations between these tests and their broad predictive utility. Existing evidence indicates that both WMC and gF are correlated with performance on tasks of attention, yet more decisive evidence requires an assessment of the role of attention and, in particular, mind-wandering during performance of these tests. Four studies employing complementary methodological designs embedded thought s ling into tests of general aptitude and determined that mind-wandering was consistently associated with worse performance on these measures. Collectively, these studies implicate the capacity to avoid mind-wandering during demanding tasks as a potentially important source of success on measures of general aptitude, while also raising important questions about whether the previously documented relationship between WMC and mind-wandering can be exclusively attributed to executive failures preceding mind-wandering (McVay & Kane, 2010b).
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 2021
Abstract: As part of a broader methodological reform movement, scientists are increasingly interested in improving the replicability of their research. Replicability allows others to perform replications to explore potential errors and statistical issues that might call the original results into question. Little attention, however, has been paid to the state of replicability in the field of empirical legal research (ELR). Quality is especially important in this field because empirical legal researchers produce work that is regularly relied upon by courts and other legal bodies. In this review article, we summarize the current state of ELR relative to the broader movement towards replicability in the social sciences. As part of that aim, we summarize recent collective replication efforts in ELR and transparency and replicability guidelines adopted by journals that publish ELR. Based on this review, ELR seems to be lagging other fields in implementing reforms. We conclude with suggestions for reforms that might encourage improved replicability.
Start Date: 10-2023
End Date: 10-2026
Amount: $525,427.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded Activity