Ten Years After the National Academy of Sciences’ Landmark Report on Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward – Where are We?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry T. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Forensic Science ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

scholarly journals A Template For Enhancing The Impact of The National Academy of Sciences’ Reporting on Forensic Science

2019 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amelia Shooter ◽  
Sarah L. Cooper
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Forensic Science ◽  
Lie Detection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Forensic Analysis ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Bullet Lead ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), established in 1863, is the United States’ leading science and technology think-tank, with an active commitment to advising government. Over the last 150 years, the NAS has, both independently and in conjunction with the federal government, investigated and reported on various issues of importance, ranging from space exploration and biosecurity, to STEM education and immigration. Due to growing concerns about particular disciplines (and specifically their application in legal proceedings), one issue the NAS has reported on between 1992 and 2009 is forensic science. Specifically, the NAS has published six reports commenting on the status of forensic science evidence in the USA, namely DNA Technology in Forensic Science (1992), The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence (1996), The Polygraph and Lie Detection (2003), Forensic Analysis: Weighing Bullet Lead Evidence (2004), Ballistic Imaging (2008), and Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009). The response of stakeholders (including from political, legal, and academic spheres) to these reports has varied, ranging from shifts in practice and full acknowledgement, to considerable struggles to effectuate systemic reform. Using the different experiences of two reports – Forensic Analysis: Weighing Bullet Lead Evidence (2004) and Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009) – as a vehicle, this article suggests how the NAS can strengthen the impact of its forensic science reporting, and how stakeholders can better harness the expertise of the NAS.

Diabetic Data Warehouses

2011 ◽  
pp. 359-363
Author(s):  
Joseph L. Breault
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Massive Data ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Massive Data Sets ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Indicator Variables ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

The National Academy of Sciences convened in 1995 for a conference on massive data sets. The presentation on health care noted that “massive applies in several dimensions . . . the data themselves are massive, both in terms of the number of observations and also in terms of the variables . . . there are tens of thousands of indicator variables coded for each patient” (Goodall, 1995, paragraph 18). We multiply this by the number of patients in the United States, which is hundreds of millions.

Contrastive Analysis of Hedges in a Sample of Chinese and English Molecular Biology Papers

2004 ◽  
Vol 95 (2) ◽  
pp. 487-493
Author(s):  
Xiaofang Gao
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Molecular Biology ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Contextual Analysis ◽  
Contrastive Analysis ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Spoken Discourse ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Chinese And English

Hedge is defined as the expression of provisionalness and possibility that makes scientific messages tentative, vague, and imprecise, thereby reducing the force of claims scientists make. Linguistic study of hedges began in the early 1970s in generative semantics. Since then, the focus has shifted from seeking linguistic properties in spoken discourse to analyzing its pragmatic functions in written contextual communication. The purpose of this paper was to analyze hedges in Chinese and English scientific articles from the perspective of contrastive pragmatics. Based on a contextual analysis of 5 Chinese and 5 English scientific articles, selected randomly, from two journals in molecular biology— Science in China and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, there were significant differences between Chinese and English scientific articles in use of hedges.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document