Back to Search
Start Over
Authors' Response.
- Source :
-
Journal of Forensic Sciences . Sep2019, Vol. 64 Issue 5, p1579-1582. 4p. - Publication Year :
- 2019
-
Abstract
- As a consequence of an inability to disassociate their preconceived notions of Code "rules" from what it is we in fact wrote [1], Dr. Albanese and Dr. Cardoso inadvertently entangle themselves in multiple and often contradictory nonissues with regards to the Code. As a disclosure tool, which is I voluntary i and I nonenforceable i , Dr. Albanese and Dr. Cardoso have seemingly little to fear - our Code amounts on paper to nothing more than a suggestion and one that collection managers are free to ignore if they so choose. The Code was never intended to represent the "be-all and end-all" of skeleton curation practice as Dr. Albanese and Dr. Cardoso [13] emotionally project. If collection managers are unable to maintain individual privacy when addressing the Code, as Dr. Albanese and Dr. Cardoso suggest, then this in itself raises substantial red flags to curation practices. [Extracted from the article]
- Subjects :
- *FORENSIC anthropology
*DEHUMANIZATION
*HUMAN skeleton
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 00221198
- Volume :
- 64
- Issue :
- 5
- Database :
- Academic Search Index
- Journal :
- Journal of Forensic Sciences
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 138413827
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14079