Saint Louis University
Saint Louis University School of Law Research: Scholarship CommonsNot a member yet
3119 research outputs found
Sort by
The Psychology of Science Denialism and Lessons for Public Health Authorities
Get PDFAs it wreaked tragedy on the world, the outbreak of COVID-19 helped expose a pandemic of a different kind, one steeped in distrust and contrarianism. This movement, termed science denialism, has been lurking and undermining public health efforts for decades. Specifically, it is “the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists.” Unlike skepticism, which is “doubt as to the truth of something” and works to progress both science and society, denialism is characterized by individuals’ acceptance of only the evidence that confirms their prior beliefs. The battle cries of denialists are easily recognizable: “vaccines cause autism,” “climate change is a hoax,” and “the flu kills more people than COVID-19,” to name a few. The hallmarks of this thinking include seeing consensus as a conspiracy, using fake experts to give weight to their claims, cherry-picking data, holding impossibly high expectations for science, and relying on misrepresentation and logical fallacies to support their beliefs. With bold statements and calculated tactics, denialists pose a major problem for public health authorities as they undermine research-backed messaging and erode the public’s trust in these authorities’ leadership.
In response, authorities must seek to understand denialists’ thinking on both an individual and group level, using these lessons to better craft policies and outreach. On the individual psychological level, denialists form and maintain their beliefs based on motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, psychological reactance, heuristics, belief perseverance, and an array of cognitive biases. Similarly, interacting with their community of denialists further bolsters these beliefs through the mechanisms of cultural cognition, in-group bias, and group polarization. An understanding of these influences can help public health authorities institute a multi-pronged approach to counter denialism and its spread. Some techniques include appealing to denialists’ senses of identity, narrative framing, presenting guidance as permissive, showcasing public health measures as gains instead of losses, using pluralistic advocacy to ensure credible experts of diverse values and backgrounds are represented during debates, rebutting claims and logical fallacies, inoculating audiences against misinformation, and conducting motivational interviews rooted in respect and empathy. With these research-backed approaches in hand, public health authorities can better connect with denialists, rebuild the public’s trust, and fulfill their calling to safeguard society’s health and welfare
Common Sense Recommendations for the Application of Tax Law to Digital Assets
Get PDFIn response to the Joint Committee on Taxation’s July 2023 request for comments on application of various Internal Revenue Code sections on digital assets, we propose a consistent set of rules to apply current law to digital assets. We highlight that the underlying economics and characteristics of transactions should be the primary concern for the application of rules and the valuation of digital assets. We believe any digital asset rules should (1) treat classes of digital assets with unique characteristics differently based on their economics, (2) minimize incentives for users to engage in tax-motivated structuring of transactions, and (3) allow the Internal Revenue Service authority to react to and regulate new classes of digital assets as they are created. We do not believe that the unique features of digital assets are a challenge to applying current law or warrant special tax preferred treatment
Overview of Missouri Appellate Briefing Rules and the Case of Hicks v. Northland-Smithville
Get PDFStarting with the Missouri Supreme Court\u27s 2022 opinion in Lexow v. Boeing Co., appellate courts have put renewed emphasis on the requirements of Rule 84.04. The recent opinion by the Western District Court of Appeals, Hicks v. Northland-Smithville, and several predecessor opinions to Hicks, are a lesson and reminder to practitioners to strictly adhere to the Missouri Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically Rule 84.04. In this article, Steve Lockwood will discuss Hicks and the implications of the opinion.https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lawjournalonline/1116/thumbnail.jp
FOOL ME ONCE … WHY THE AMERICAN DATA PRIVACY ACT PROPOSAL FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DETER DATA PRIVACY VIOLATIONS
Get PDFThe recent Supreme Court decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u27s Health Organization raises many questions regarding the privacy of health data. In this article, Melissa Mann discusses some concerns that may arise with the use health applications to track personal data and potential privacy laws that could be enacted to protect these users.https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lawjournalonline/1121/thumbnail.jp
The Constitutionality of DACA: Balancing the Rights of Undocumented Individuals and Constitutional Considerations
Get PDF
Running a Different Route: How YouTube TV Plans to Avoid Antitrust Violations
Get PDFAfter reaching a deal this past December, YouTube TV is now the sole option for NFL Sunday Ticket subscribers. By providing out-of-market sports games in a bundled package, YouTube TV runs the risk of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. In this article, Brody Shea addresses how YouTube TV can avoid future litigation.https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lawjournalonline/1110/thumbnail.jp
Peer Review in Advanced Legal Writing Course
Get PDFThis Article adds to the conversation about peer review, discussing specifically the numerous benefits peer review brings to an advanced legal writing course. The Article illustrates how to effectively integrate peer review into an advanced legal writing course. Peer reviews can support student learning and improve students’ legal analysis and writing, among other things. Thus, the Article encourages law professors to experiment with peer review exercises and incorporate them into their advanced legal writing courses
“With Friends Like These . . . .” Doctors and Nurses Criticizing Co-Employed Colleagues. Are These Criticisms Admissible as Vicarious Opposing Party’s Statements?
Get PDFHealthcare provider incivility includes non-collegial conduct such as physicians criticizing co-employed physicians when speaking with patients. This conduct is, obviously, disruptive, and does not help to establish productive, collegial, employee relationships.
Additionally, this incivility may have evidentiary consequences in medical/hospital negligence litigation. If the healthcare providers are employed by a hospital or other healthcare organization, the criticisms of co-employed colleagues which are communicated to patients may be admissible against the employer in medical/hospital negligence litigation as vicarious opposing party’s statements. This paper explores this evidentiary curiosity
2022 Keynote Speaker --The Business of the Supreme Court: The Evolution and Devolution of the Supreme Court\u27s Docket
No full textThis year’s annual Childress Lecture, to be delivered by University of Texas School of Law Professor Stephen Vladeck, will provide both a historical introduction to and a modern reassessment of the shape and size of the Supreme Court’s docket — and will argue that both academic and public discourse about the work of the Court has increasingly failed to account for holistic shifts in the kinds of cases that the Justices are (and aren’t) choosing to decide. A proper accounting of the ‘Business of the Supreme Court,’ Professor Vladeck will argue, helps to show just how significantly the Court’s role in our legal system has changed in recent years — without almost anyone noticing.https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/childress_lecture/1002/thumbnail.jp