Former Notre Dame sociology professor Maureen Hallinan died Jan. 28 in South Bend at the age of 73 after an illness, according to a University news release.Hallinan, the William P. and Hazel B. White Professor of Sociology Emeritus at Notre Dame joined the College of Arts and Letters in 1984, the release stated. She was the second woman at the University appointed to an endowed chair and the founding director of the Institute for Educational Initiatives and the Center for Research on Educational Opportunity.“It is impossible to think about Notre Dame sociology without thinking of Maureen Hallinan,” department chair Rory McVeigh said in the release. “Her extraordinary research accomplishments and her high visibility in sociology, and in education research more generally, put a spotlight on our department in a way that benefitted her colleagues and attracted strong faculty members and graduate students to Notre Dame.” Hallinan authored or edited nine books and more than 120 peer-reviewed articles in scholarly journals. Her research in the field of sociology of education included work on the effects of school characteristics on student achievement and social development, the formation of interracial friendships in middle and secondary schools and achievement gaps between races. She was renowned for her research on academic tracking and children’s responses to being tracked above or below their capabilities, the release stated.During her 28-year tenure at the University, Hallinan received Notre Dame’s Presidential Award Citation in 1997, the Research Achievement in 2003, the Faculty Award in 2006 and the Excellence in Research on Catholic Education Award in 2007. Beyond her work at Notre Dame, Hallinan served as president of the American Sociological Association in 1996 and president of the Sociological Research Association in 2000.A visitation will be held from 6 to 8 p.m. on Monday at Kaniewski Funeral Home, 3545 N. Bendix Drive, South Bend. A Mass of Christian Burial will be celebrated at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart, followed by interment in Notre Dame’s Cedar Grove Cemetery.Memorial contributions can be made to the University’s Alliance for Catholic Education.Tags: Staff Report
A team of researches led by Professor Shahriar Mobashery and Mayland Chang developed an antibiotic to combat Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, a strain of a certain species of bacteria that is resistant to a considerable number of conventional modern antibiotics.“MRSA is a multi-drug resistant version of a very common bacterium called staph aureus,” Mobashery said. “Staph aureus grows in our skin, grows in our noses, and has been with humanity for a very long time. However, this version, which is drug resistant, first appeared in 1962 in the U.K. and has become a global problem.”Mobashery said understanding the biochemical properties of MRSA that allow it to resist the effects of conventional antibiotics gave them valuable information and resources to develop an antibiotic to respond to the problem.“How does this organism have these biochemical properties that make it so difficult for treatment? That is a question my lab concerns itself with,” Mobashery said. “We want to understand the basis for the drug resistance this very difficult organism has developed over the many decades after its appearance.“When we understand some of the details of the biochemical event, can we subvert them in a way that leads to the demise of the organism? The answer to that question is yes, and we have come up with strategies that lend themselves to specifically addressing the methods that MRSA has devised for resistance,” he said. “We are actually able to take that and turn [them] around to … kill the organism.”Mobashery said finding and developing the drug to exploit the weaknesses he and his team found in MRSA was a massive computational undertaking, narrowing over 1.2 million candidates to just 118 compounds.“1.2 compounds were so called ‘docked’ and ‘scored’ and … then, out of a collection of 2,500 compounds that had promise, we did some further analysis on which one of those were worthy of pursuit because not all of them were easy to synthesize. So we wanted to ideally buy some of these compounds,” he said.“We ended up choosing the 118 compounds … because they were commercially available and synthetically accessible.”Mobashery said the compounds were observed to effectively destroy MRSA in mice infected with the bacteria and that he saw a promising future for his work with the organism with the help of the University and collaboration with other researchers,” Mobashery said.“In principle, the University is very much interested in exploring whether companies will step up and move this class of molecules forward into clinical trials. That is something we won’t be able to do ourselves and we need partners and that’s a possibility. But research is ongoing on MRSA because of our broad interest in this organism and I’ve been at it for something like a dozen years and I trust that in a dozen years I’ll still be at it.”Tags: antibiotic, drug-resistant bacteria, Mayland Chang, MRSA, Shariar Mobashery
April 30, 2003 Regular News Board reviews lawyer advertising appeals Board reviews lawyer advertising appeals Among members of the Bar Board of Governors, debates over lawyer advertising appeals are famous, or perhaps infamous. Discussions are frequently extensive as governors probe the nuances of advertising rules and whether lawyers have infringed on them.The board’s April 4 meeting was no different. The lively discussion at one point prompted Bar President Tod Aronovitz, who will preside at his last meeting May 30 in Key West, to lean over to President-elect Miles McGrane, and jovially say, “Miles, I’m really going to miss the advertising cases.”The issue before the board was whether a testimonial given by a lawyer published in the St. Petersburg Times in an ad promoting the newspaper’s advertising services constitutes an ad by the lawyer under Bar rules.The ad, which has run, included the statement, prepared by the newspaper ad staff, which said of the lawyer: “His clients depend on him for sensible, cost-effective solutions. That’s what they care most about.”That statement would not be allowed in an attorney-paid ad because it would create unjustified expectations about the results the lawyer can achieve.Bar staff and the Standing Committee on Advertising both said it was an ad that should be reviewed by Bar staff and comply with Bar rules. The Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics, which makes recommendations to the board on advertising appeals, disagreed by a 3-2 vote, saying it was not a lawyer ad under Bar rules.After an extensive debate, the board by a divided voice vote upheld the BRCPE.Board member Anthony Abate summed up the dilemmas presented. “How do you define an ad in the absence of a definition [in this case]? Here he did not pay anything to have it printed. Although he is getting exposure, he is not directing it. He did not have editorial control.”“It sounds to me like he has the choice whether to authorize that to run,” board member Hank Coxe said. “It includes self-serving information that is related to his practice that is intended to persuade other people to use him. It sounds like an ad whether it is paid for or not.”But board member Mayanne Downs noted while the ad listed the lawyer’s address, it did not give his phone number, Web site or e-mail address, or other easy ways of contacting him.“Obviously this is an advertisement, but obviously it’s not an advertisement for the lawyer. It’s not placed by him, paid for by him, promoting him or controlled by him,” she said. “This goes a little beyond the purview [of Bar rules.]”Board member Chris Lombardo disagreed, noting the ad promoted the lawyer’s services. He also said the exception could create a loophole where lawyers could negotiate with other publications to get such a testimonial ad — which wouldn’t have to comply with Bar rules — in exchange for regular advertising.Board member Mike Glazer said the issue raised free speech questions, adding,“While we are dealing in the gray area, we have to err in favor of the First Amendment. That doesn’t mean we can’t deal with it in our rules.”It was a more direct issue to board member Richard Tanner, who said, “It’s a contrivance; it’s an ad, and it ought to be regulated. The rules are unclear and we ought to tighten them up.”But the board disagreed and supported the BRCPE recommendation that the ad was not covered by Bar rules.