How Science Supports and Law Influences Forensic Canine Utilization in the United States: Considerations for Human Scent Evidence (Trailing) and Human Remains Detection Canines

Canines ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 317-378
Author(s):  
Craig Schultz ◽  
Jan J. Topoleski ◽  
Brian Eckenrode ◽  
Christopher Tipple ◽  
Wynn G. Warren ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 90-106
Author(s):  
Elise Pape

Taking its starting point from a socio-anthropological study combining biographical interviews, semi-structured interviews and ethnographic observations collected between 2016 and 2018 in Germany, France and the United States among Ovaherero and Nama activists, and also members of different institutions and associations, this article focuses on the question of human remains in the current struggle for recognition and reparation of the genocide of the Ovaherero and Nama from a transnational perspective. First, the text shows the ways in which the memory of human remains can be considered as a driving force in the struggle of the affected communities. Second, it outlines the main points of mismatches of perspective between descendants of the survivors and the responsible museums during past restitutions of human remains from German anthropological collections. Third, the article more closely examines the resources of Ovaherero in the United States in the struggle for recognition and reparation, the recent discovery of Namibian human remains in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City and the questions that it raises.


Numen ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 57 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 505-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oren Baruch Stier

AbstractIs museum space religious space? Do strategies of display, i.e., the ways certain objects such as human remains and ritual items are presented and/or experienced, make them into sacred objects? Who or what determines whether or not a particular object may be appropriately displayed in a museum context? In focusing on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) and on a series of staged encounters there with spaces, objects, and other people, this article considers the possibility that the USHMM serves as a contemporary Jewish reliquary as well as the implications of such a notion, especially in relation to the performance of different types of Jewish identity at the museum. Using archival sources, it examines the debates over the treatment and display of selected artifacts and how those decisions impact the Museum's Jewish character.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (01) ◽  
pp. 161-176
Author(s):  
Ante Lozina ◽  
Ivana Kružić ◽  
Ana Banovac ◽  
Dea Bogunović ◽  
Željana Bašić ◽  
...  

1987 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham D. Rowles ◽  
Malcolm L. Comeaux

Many people who die in the United States are transported across state boundaries for burial at a place viewed as “home” by the decedent or the next of kin. This article employs an analysis of data from death certificates to explore the transportation of human remains from Arizona where, in 1983, 17.1 percent of those who died were shipped beyond the state. A sample of 783 removals reveals a predominant geographical pattern of flows to the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes states. This pattern is the reverse of recent patterns of both seasonal (“snowbird”) and permanent in-migration of the living to Arizona. A propensity for individuals to be transported back to their state of birth or to their most recent previous residence is also revealed.


Anthropology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell Thornton ◽  
Jamie Geronimo Vela

Hundreds of thousands—some say 1 million—Native American skeletal remains are held in institutions around the world. Probably half are in the United States. How many tribal objects are held is unknown, but the number is in the many millions. Hundreds of remains and thousands of objects are uncovered every year in the United States, mostly by construction projects. That Native American tribes and individuals have been disenfranchised from ancestral remains and important tribal objects is a terrible facet of American history; it is also of great discomfort to Native Americans. The situation is exacerbated as some remains and objects are from atrocities in American Indian history, e.g., the 1890 Wounded Knee and 1864 Sand Creek Massacres. Many objects are symbolic and sacred, necessary in Native American ceremonies and rituals. On occasion, repatriation requests were granted by museums; but Native Americans were virtually at their mercy. Native Americans lobbied for the eventual passage of two federal laws preventing further disenfranchisement from remains and objects, and requiring their repatriation. In 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed. It provided legal protection to Native American and Native Hawaiian graves. It also mandated repatriations to lineal descendants or federally recognized tribes of culturally affiliated human remains, funerary objects (objects associated with burials), objects of cultural patrimony, and sacred objects held in institutions receiving federal funding. A year earlier, the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) Act of 1989 had passed. It called for only the return of human remains and funerary objects held at the Smithsonian. (Given this act, the Smithsonian was excluded from NAGPRA; the NMAI Act was amended in 1996 to include objects of cultural patrimony and sacred objects.) State laws at this time were limited in scope or not applicable, and mostly referred to burials. The most well-known are Iowa’s Burial Protection Act of 1976, and Nebraska’s Unmarked Human Burial Site and Skeletal Remains Protection Act of 1989. Subsequent to NAGPRA, repatriation state laws were enacted, e.g., California developed a law along the lines of NAGPRA. Most relevant institutions now have created repatriation policies in line with, and sometimes going beyond, NAGPRA and state laws. While causation is hard to ascertain, these developments—especially NAGPRA—have influenced international repatriation, either within or between countries. Too, international events have influenced the United States, and the United States has repatriated to other countries, and they to the United States.


Author(s):  
A. Hakam ◽  
J.T. Gau ◽  
M.L. Grove ◽  
B.A. Evans ◽  
M. Shuman ◽  
...  

Prostate adenocarcinoma is the most common malignant tumor of men in the United States and is the third leading cause of death in men. Despite attempts at early detection, there will be 244,000 new cases and 44,000 deaths from the disease in the United States in 1995. Therapeutic progress against this disease is hindered by an incomplete understanding of prostate epithelial cell biology, the availability of human tissues for in vitro experimentation, slow dissemination of information between prostate cancer research teams and the increasing pressure to “ stretch” research dollars at the same time staff reductions are occurring.To meet these challenges, we have used the correlative microscopy (CM) and client/server (C/S) computing to increase productivity while decreasing costs. Critical elements of our program are as follows:1) Establishing the Western Pennsylvania Genitourinary (GU) Tissue Bank which includes >100 prostates from patients with prostate adenocarcinoma as well as >20 normal prostates from transplant organ donors.


Author(s):  
Vinod K. Berry ◽  
Xiao Zhang

In recent years it became apparent that we needed to improve productivity and efficiency in the Microscopy Laboratories in GE Plastics. It was realized that digital image acquisition, archiving, processing, analysis, and transmission over a network would be the best way to achieve this goal. Also, the capabilities of quantitative image analysis, image transmission etc. available with this approach would help us to increase our efficiency. Although the advantages of digital image acquisition, processing, archiving, etc. have been described and are being practiced in many SEM, laboratories, they have not been generally applied in microscopy laboratories (TEM, Optical, SEM and others) and impact on increased productivity has not been yet exploited as well.In order to attain our objective we have acquired a SEMICAPS imaging workstation for each of the GE Plastic sites in the United States. We have integrated the workstation with the microscopes and their peripherals as shown in Figure 1.


2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (01) ◽  
pp. 53-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Rehfeld

Every ten years, the United States “constructs” itself politically. On a decennial basis, U.S. Congressional districts are quite literally drawn, physically constructing political representation in the House of Representatives on the basis of where one lives. Why does the United States do it this way? What justifies domicile as the sole criteria of constituency construction? These are the questions raised in this article. Contrary to many contemporary understandings of representation at the founding, I argue that there were no principled reasons for using domicile as the method of organizing for political representation. Even in 1787, the Congressional district was expected to be far too large to map onto existing communities of interest. Instead, territory should be understood as forming a habit of mind for the founders, even while it was necessary to achieve other democratic aims of representative government.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document