Search

Scholars of international trade policy rarely attempt to explain all of history with one unifying theory. In Democracy and International Trade, Daniel Verdier not only offers us a new and [...]

Bullying has become a new-found crusade. Due to recent events involving safety in public schools, the nation is taking a closer look at how to handle aggressive behavior. Many parents worry about the safety of their children. However, the school does not necessarily have the duty to protect that one would expect. Courts have held there is no duty to protect students from third-party actions. This is because there is no "special relationship." A "special relationship" is an exception for when the state has an affirmative duty to protect. However, courts have yet to define the reasoning behind the exception of a "special relationship and therefore, the jurisprudence is murky and unclear. It is important for courts to consider the likelihood of bullying incidents arising again. Creating a clearcut, well-defined test, would allow for easier decisions in the future without the risk of inequitable results. Furthermore, courts should consider a child's right to education and the effect of excluding a child from school. The School-to-Prison pipeline is a phenomenon within the United States where children are criminalized for misconduct in the classroom. This results in earlier prison time, future delinquent behavior, and most importantly, lack of opportunity to further the child's education. The objective of every public school is to educate. Rather than simply brushing the problem aside, schools should attempt to teach children when disciplinary issues arise. Creating a duty to protect against bullies, widens the discretion given to administrators and places a child's education, and further opportunities in life, in peril. Courts should consider this in their analysis when determining a school's duty to protect students from third-party actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investigates the role of specialized courts in the formation and implementation of public policy. Focus on the trade policy of the United States; Institutional relationships between specialized courts and their bureaucracies; Role of the expertise and responsibilities of specialized courts in structuring their decision-making.

Molecular diagnostics is an increasing popular approach for the direct detection and identification of pathogenic bacteria in clinical samples. Conventional culture techniques are time-consuming and therefore causing a delay in the diagnosis of the patient. Alternative techniques based on nucleic acid amplification offer a shorter turn-around-time and the ability to identify fastidious and non-cultivable organisms. However, molecular detection of bacteria in blood, by for example PCR, RT-PCR, or sequencing of the 16S rDNA genes is often complicated by the presence of PCR-inhibitory compounds. Here we describe several different methods for the extraction of bacterial DNA from whole blood samples. The methods differ regarding costs, hands-on time as well as regarding sensitivity. In combination with a model PCR the detection limits that can be reached using the different methods range from 1,000 to 50 cfu/ml.

Bloodstream infections are associated with high mortality rates because of the probable manifestation of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock(1). Therefore, rapid administration of adequate antibiotic therapy is of foremost importance in the treatment of bloodstream infections. The critical element in this process is timing, heavily dependent on the results of bacterial identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing. Both of these parameters are routinely obtained by culture-based testing, which is time-consuming and takes on average 24-48 hours(2, 4). The aim of the study was to develop DNA-based assays for rapid identification of bloodstream infections, as well as rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing. The first assay is a eubacterial 16S rDNA-based real-time PCR assay complemented with species- or genus-specific probes(5). Using these probes, Gram-negative bacteria including Pseudomonas spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli as well as Gram-positive bacteria including Staphylococcus spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus spp., Streptococcus spp., and Streptococcus pneumoniae could be distinguished. Using this multiprobe assay, a first identification of the causative micro-organism was given after 2 h. Secondly, we developed a semi-molecular assay for antibiotic susceptibility testing of S. aureus, Enterococcus spp. and (facultative) aerobe Gram-negative rods(6). This assay was based on a study in which PCR was used to measure the growth of bacteria(7). Bacteria harvested directly from blood cultures are incubated for 6 h with a selection of antibiotics, and following a Sybr Green-based real-time PCR assay determines inhibition of growth. The combination of these two methods could direct the choice of a suitable antibiotic therapy on the same day (Figure 1). In conclusion, molecular analysis of both identification and antibiotic susceptibility offers a faster alternative for pathogen detection and could improve the diagnosis of bloodstream infections.