A t least since de Tocqueville, autonomy from |the state has been considered a core feature of American civil society and a source of its many virtues. Recent historical and sociological research, however, shows that civil society and the state are deeply intertwined (Salamon 1995;Skocpol 1999;Smith and Lipsky 1993). Indeed, from some perspectives, it is more accurate to say that at least parts of civil society are dependent on the state rather than autonomous from it, prompting questions about the conse-quences of that dependence for the nature and functioning of civil society. But "dependence" and "autonomy," not to mention "civil society," are vague concepts that require specification to develop sound knowledge about the consequences for civil society of more or less dependence on or autonomy from the state. We contribute to knowledge about this relationship by focusing on a specific sector of civil society (nonprofit organizations), a specific form of dependence on the state (government funding),

No abstract

Sociologists have long been interested in pluralistic ignorance—situations where a majority of individuals assume that most of their peers think differently than themselves when, in fact, their attitudes are similar. Recently, sociologists have suggested that pluralistic ignorance is especially likely to occur when peers are gathered together and may explain why group members often refrain from discussing their ultimate concerns with each other. However, researchers have not indicated what factors besides physical proximity might create pluralistic ignorance. Nor have they employed methods that can specify how causal factors combine to produce multiple routes to pluralistic ignorance. To remedy this situation, this article suggests several factors that may make others' opinions more or less transparent. It also proposes an analytical strategy that can identify which combinations of these factors are associated with misperceptions and illustrates how it might be applied. Implications of this study for future research are discussed.

No abstract

BACKGROUND Despite West Nile virus (WNV) blood donation screening using nucleic acid testing (NAT), donors with low viral loads not detected by mini‐pool‐NAT have led to transfusion transmitted (TT)‐WNV infection. We describe a probable case of fatal TT‐WNV infection from an individual donor (ID)‐NAT non‐reactive apheresis platelet donation. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS An apheresis platelet donation was WNV ID‐NAT reactive and prior donations from the same donor were investigated. A WNV ID‐NAT non‐reactive apheresis platelet unit collected 26 days earlier was transfused during heart transplantation to a patient who subsequently developed WNV neuroinvasive disease and expired. The source of the recipient's WNV infection was investigated. RESULTS Twenty‐six days after collection of the suspect platelet unit, a donation from the same donor was WNV ID‐NAT reactive and WNV IgM and IgG positive. In addition to the suspect platelet unit, the heart transplant recipient who developed WNV infection received 17 blood components from 24 donors. Serologic testing performed on 11 of the remaining 24 donors (46%) was WNV IgM negative. Pre‐transplant recipient and heart donor samples tested WNV RNA and IgM negative. CONCLUSION A probable case of fatal neuroinvasive TT‐WNV was linked to an infectious apheresis platelet unit undetected by WNV ID‐NAT. It is hypothesized that the suspect unit was collected early in the viremic period when viral RNA was below the limit‐of‐detection of the ID‐NAT assay. Implementation of ID‐NAT screening of blood donors has not entirely eliminated the risk of TT‐WNV infections, which may best be addressed by pathogen inactivation technologies.