Behavioral Implications of Knockout for the Dyslexia-Risk Gene Dcdc2 in Mice

Several genetic linkage and epidemiological studies have provided strong evidence that DCDC2 is a candidate gene for developmental dyslexia, a disorder that impairs a person’s reading ability despite adequate intelligence, education, and socio-economic status. Studies investigating embryonic intra-ventricular RNA interference (RNAi) of Dcdc2, a rat homolog of the DCDC2 gene in humans, indicate disruptions in neuronal migration in the rat cortex during development. Interestingly, these anatomical anomalies are consistent with post mortem histological analysis of human dyslexic patients. Other rodent models of cortical developmental disruption have shown impairment in rapid auditory processing and learning maze tasks in affected subjects. The current study investigates the rapid auditory processing abilities of mice heterozygous for Dcdc2 (one functioning Dcdc2 allele) and mice with a homozygous knockout of Dcdc2 (no functioning Dcdc2 allele). It is important to note that this genetic model for behavioral assessment is still in the pilot stage. However, preliminary results suggest that mice with a genetic mutation of Dcdc2 have impaired rapid auditory processing, as well as non-spatial maze learning and memory ability, as compared to wildtypes. By genetically knocking out Dcdc2 in mice, behavioral features associated with Dcdc2 can be characterized, along with other neurological abnormalities that may arise due to the loss of the functioning gene.

Beyond Racial Precedents: Loving v. Virginia as an Appropriate Legal Model and Strategy for Same-Sex Marriage Litigation

This thesis explores how LGBT marriage activists and lawyers have employed a racial interpretation of due process and equal protection in recent same-sex marriage litigation. Special attention is paid to the Supreme Court's opinion in Loving v. Virginia, the landmark case that declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. By exploring the use of racial precedent in same-sex marriage litigation and its treatment in state court cases, this thesis critiques the racial interpretation of due process and equal protection that became the basis for LGBT marriage briefs and litigation, and attempts to answer the question of whether a racial interpretation of due process and equal protection is an appropriate model for same-sex marriage litigation both constitutionally and strategically. The existing scholarly literature fails to explore how this issue has been treated in case briefs, which are very important elements in any legal proceeding. I will argue that through an analysis of recent state court briefs in Massachusetts and Connecticut, Loving acts as logical precedent for the legalization of same-sex marriage. I also find, more significantly, that although this racial interpretation of due process and equal protection represented by Loving can be seen as an appropriate model for same-sex marriage litigation constitutionally, questions remain about its strategic effectiveness, as LGBT lawyers have moved away from race in some arguments in these briefs. Indeed, a racial interpretation of Due Process and Equal Protection doctrine imposes certain limits on same-sex marriage litigation, of which we are warned by some Critical Race theorists, Latino Critical Legal theorists, and other scholars. In order to fully incorporate a discussion of race into the argument for legalizing same-sex marriage, the dangers posed by the black/white binary of race relations must first be overcome.