Journal articles on the topic 'Charleston (S.C.)'

Abstract The ages of seismically induced paleoliquefaction features located in the Charleston, S. C. area suggest that the return period between large events similar to the 1886 earthquake is much longer than the historic record. If large prehistoric earthquakes have occurred elsewhere along the Atlantic Seaboard, then evidence of liquefaction features associated with them should be present in unconsolidated Pleistocene and Holocene deposits. To establish a comprehensive control data base for a regional analysis, liquefaction sites and features located in the Charleston area have been evaluated. Over 100 liquefaction sites were identified on the basis of a detailed review of historical accounts of the 1886 earthquake, and results of recent field studies. These studies then centered on characterizing the geologic, stratigraphic, and hydrologic setting of these sites and identifying criteria by which similar locales could be recognized elsewhere in the Atlantic Coastal Plain. This investigation also included the development of recognition criteria to distinguish seismically induced liquefaction features from pseudoliquefaction features (other features which look similar but are not seismic in origin). Guided by these findings, a systematic search for paleoliquefaction features outside the epicentral area of the 1886 Charleston earthquake is now underway.

Abstract The seaboard area from Rhode Island to Maryland has not experienced an earthquake larger than magnitude 5.1 since European settlement. The rate of occurrence of small earthquakes for the last 200 years suggests that the 500-year earthquake might be about magnitude 5.2. An earthquake comparable to the 1886 Charleston, S. C. earthquake (magnitude 6.7) has an average recurrence period calculated to exceed ten thousand years. The effect of variability in the seismic activity rate and possible incompleteness of the record of activity makes the accuracy of recurrence estimates for this region uncertain.

Watermelon [Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai] is one of the Cucurbitaceae species and subtropical crops that exhibit chilling injury (CI) when exposed to low temperatures. Watermelon seedlings were tested for chilling tolerance using methods modified from cucumber. Three experiments were conducted using different combinations of chilling durations of 6, 12, 24, or 36 hours and chilling temperatures of 2 or 4 °C. Watermelon seedlings were more resistant to low temperatures than cucumber seedlings, so it was necessary to use long chilling durations to induce significant foliar damage. A diverse set of 16 watermelon cultigens was tested: Allsweet, Black Diamond, Chubby Gray, Charlee, Charleston Gray, Dixielee, Golden, Golden Honey, New Winter, NH Midget, Sugar Baby, Sugarlee, Sunshade, PI 189225, PI 244018, and PI 595203. Experiments were conducted in a controlled environment with a light intensity of 500 mmol·m−2·s−1 photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD). Optimal conditions for chilling treatment were 36 hours at 4 °C or 24 hours at 2 °C. The most resistant cultigen was PI 244018, and the most susceptible cultigens were NH Midget and Golden.

Interest in commercial production of common St.-John's-wort (Hypericum perforatum L.), an herb that is dried, processed, and used as an anti-depressant medication, is increasing. In August 1998, St.-John's-wort growing in the field at Charleston, SC, showed blight symptoms. Leaves on prostrate branches turned reddish-yellow, then brown, and then abscised. As the disease progressed, branches and approximately 10% of the plants were killed. Coarse, white mycelia were present on the bases of dead branches. Segments cut from symptomatic branches were disinfested in 0.5% sodium hypochlorite and placed on potato dextrose agar (PDA) at 25°C. Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc. was isolated from one of 12 branches with discolored leaves and six of six dead branches. For pathogenicity tests, sclerotia were harvested from 6-week-old cultures on PDA. Ten-week-old St.-John's-wort plants, growing in potting mix in 10-cm pots, were inoculated by placing four sclerotia on the soil surface 1 to 1.5 cm from the main stem of each plant. Plants were grown in a greenhouse at 90% relative humidity and 25 to 35°C. Single blighted branches were observed on three plants 12 days after inoculation and all plants were blighted 28 days after inoculation. S. rolfsii was recovered from 10 and 9 of 10 plants inoculated with isolates of S. rolfsii from St.-John's-wort and tomato, respectively. All 10 noninoculated plants remained symptomless. The pathogenicity test was repeated and the results were similar. This is the first report of S. rolfsii causing Southern blight on St.-John's-wort in the United States.

Abstract Photoperiod-sensitive (short day) plants were found in okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench] PI 291124. These plants did not flower at Charleston, S.C., until mid-October. Segregation of populations derived from crosses with ‘Clemson Spineless’ (CS) indicated that photoperiod sensitivity was conditioned by a single recessive gene. Inheritance of hirsute seed, found in PI 172677, was determined by 2 separate genetic systems. The F1 of PI 172677 (hirsute) × ‘C S’ (glabrous) had hirsute hila and glabrous testae. In the F2, when data from seed parts were analyzed separately, hirsute hila was conditioned by 2 dominant genes, and glabrous testae was conditioned by 2 other dominant genes. When data on both seed parts were combined and independent assortment was assumed, 4 expected phenotypes were missing in the F2. Indirect evidence from the F2 and backcross populations indicated that there were linkages among the alleles which determine presence or absence of trichomes on okra seed. The possible linkage groups are described. An albino mutant, found in progeny of irradiated ‘CS’, was conditioned by a single recessive gene. The gene symbols sd and a are proposed for the genes conditioning the short day response and the albino mutant, respectively; the genes conditioning hirsute seed will not be named until linkage relationships can be resolved.

Bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria (Mol.) Standl.) is an important rootstock in watermelon production in several countries such as Japan, China, and Israel where 60 to 70% of watermelons are grafted (2). We are evaluating bottle gourds for their ability to improve disease resistance when used as rootstock for watermelon (3). In the summer of 2007, symptoms of wilting and crown necrosis appeared on bottle gourd seedlings 1 month after transplanting in a field in Charleston, SC. Infection was observed on commercial cv. Emphasis and four advanced breeding lines. In October of 2007, 35 of 85 plants examined (41%) had stem rot at the crown area just above the soil line where coarse, white mycelia and abundant sclerotia were observed. The fungus tentatively identified as Sclerotium rolfsii produced sclerotia that were white or light to dark brown and measured 0.6 to 2.5 mm in diameter (mean = 1.1 mm). Diseased tissues with sclerotia from four plants were disinfested for 1 min in 0.5% sodium hypochlorite and plated on acidified potato dextrose agar (APDA). Fungal colonies that produced white mycelia and tan-to-brown sclerotia were isolated from four wilted plants. A single PCR product of approximately 680 bp was amplified from DNA extracted from two isolates using the primers ITS1 and ITS4 (4). One PCR product was cloned into the TOPO TA cloning vector (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and sequenced (GenBank Accession No. EU338381). BLASTN analysis of the sequence in the NCBI databases revealed 99% similarity to the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences of S. rolfsii and Athelia rolfsii (perfect stage of S. rolfsii), confirming that the pathogen was indeed S. rolfsii. Two S. rolfsii isolates were used to test pathogenicity. Each isolate was used to inoculate five young seedlings and five adult (10-week-old) bottle gourd plants. For inoculation, 10 sclerotia obtained from the APDA plates were placed on the surface of the potting soil 0.5 to 1 cm from the collar region of each bottle gourd plant growing in 10-cm pots. Inoculations were done carefully to ensure that the plants were not injured. After inoculation, the plants were maintained at high humidity and 25°C for 3 days and then transferred to laboratory benches. Four young seedlings and three adult noninoculated plants kept under the same conditions served as controls. The pathogenicity test was repeated once with similar results. All inoculated plants developed symptoms of southern blight. The inoculated plants developed symptoms of wilting 4 to 5 days after inoculation and completely wilted within 7 to 10 days. Symptoms of wilting were soon followed by the appearance of white-to-light brown sclerotia on the collar region. No symptoms were observed on the noninoculated plants. S. rolfsii was reisolated from the inoculated plants on APDA. Although southern blight caused by S. rolfsii has been reported on many crop plants in the southern United States, to our knowledge, this disease has not been reported previously on bottle gourd in North America. However, the disease has been reported on bottle gourd in India (1). Identifying sources of resistance to southern blight in bottle gourds may be necessary to make them suitable as rootstocks in areas where S. rolfsii is present. References: (1) K. S. Amin. Indian Phytopathol. 34:253, 1981. (2) R. Cohen et al. Plant Dis. 91:916, 2007. (3) K. S. Ling and A. Levi. HortScience 42:1124, 2007. (4) T. J. White et al. PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Amplifications. Academic Press, San Diego, 1990.

In early 2013, greenhouse cucumber growers in Alberta, Canada, observed virus-like disease symptoms on mini-cucumber (Cucumis sativus) crops (e.g., ‘Picowell’). Two types of symptoms were commonly observed, green mottle mosaic and necrotic spots. In the early infection, young leaves of infected cucumber plants displayed light green mottle and blisters. The infected plants were stunted in growth, with darker green blisters and green mottle mosaic symptoms on mature leaves. Disease incidence varied from one greenhouse to another. In some severe cases, diseased plants were widely distributed inside the greenhouse, resulting in 10 to 15% yield losses based on grower's estimation. Nine symptomatic samples were collected and subjected to total RNA isolation using the TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). Laboratory analyses were conducted using real-time RT-PCR systems for Cucumber green mottle mosaic virus (CGMMV) (1), Melon necrotic spot virus (MNSV, Ling, unpublished), and Squash mosaic virus (SqMV) (3). All nine samples were positive for CGMMV and seven of them were in mixed infections with MNSV. Two samples were selected for validation for the presence of CGMMV using conventional RT-PCR (2) with a new primer set (CGMMVMP F1: 5′-ATGTCTCTAAGTAAGGTGTC-3′ and CGMMV3′UTR R1: 5′-TGGGCCCCTACCCGGGG-3′) and two previous online published primer sets, one for CGMMV MP (5′ TAAGTTTGCTAGGTGTGATC-3′, GenBank Accession No. AJ250104 and 5′ ACATAGATGTCTCTAAGTAAG-3′, AJ250105), and another for CGMMV CP (5′ ACCCTCGAAACTAAGCTTTC-3′, AJ243351 and 5′ GAAGAGTCCAGTTCTGTTTC-3′, AJ243352). The expected sizes of RT-PCR products were obtained and sequenced directly. Sequences from these three products overlapped and generated a 1,282-bp contig (KF683202). BLASTn analysis to the NCBI database showed 99% sequence identity to CGMMV isolates identified in Asia, including China (GQ277655, KC852074), India (DQ767631), Korea (AF417243), Myanmar (AB510355), and Taiwan (HQ692886), but only 92% sequence identity to other CGMMV isolates identified in Europe, including Spain (GQ411361) and Russia (GQ495274), and 95% to CGMMV isolate from Israel (KF155231). The strong sequence identity to the CGMMV Asian isolates suggests that the Canadian CGMMV isolate identified in Alberta was likely of Asian origin. In two bioassay experiments using one sample prepared in 0.01 M phosphate buffer, the similar green mottle mosaic symptoms were observed on systemic leaves in the mechanically inoculated plants and the presence of CGMMV, but not MNSV, was confirmed through real-time RT-PCR on four different cucurbits, including three Cucumis sativus cultivars (six plants in ‘Marketer,’ five plants in ‘Poinsett 76,’ six plants in ‘Straight 8’), seven plants of C. melo ‘Athena,’ six plants of C. metulifer (PI201681), and two plants of Citrullus lanatus ‘Charleston Gray.’ To our knowledge, CGMMV has only been reported in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, and this is the first report of CGMMV in the American continents. CGMMV is highly contagious and is seed borne on cucurbits. With the increasing trend in growing grafted watermelon and other cucurbits in the United States and elsewhere, it is even more important now that a vigilant seed health test program for CGMMV should be implemented. References: (1) H. Chen et al. J. Virol. Methods 149:326, 2008. (2) K.-S. Ling et al. Plant Dis. 92:1683, 2008. (3) K.-S. Ling et al. J. Phytopathol. 159:649, 2011.

Verticillium dahliae (Kleb.) is known worldwide as a destructive soilborne pathogen with a wide host range (2). Reports of V. dahliae attacking cucurbits are generally limited to ‘Casaba’ and ‘Persian’ type melons. During August and September of 2004 to 2006, fields of seedless watermelon (Citrullus lanatus [Thunb.] Matsum. & Nak.) and pollinators in Yoakum County, Texas, exhibited severe symptoms of vine decline. There was no apparent difference between diploid and triploid watermelon cultivars. Night-time temperatures during July, August, and September averaged 20°C or less. Losses were estimated in excess of one-half million dollars. Symptoms consisted of leaf yellowing, wilting, and gradual death of the leaves, but stems generally remained green. The xylem exhibited a uniform tan-to-light brown discoloration that often extended throughout the vine. Dead plants had numerous microsclerotia embedded throughout the root and crown. Crown and root sections (1 cm long) from triploid plants were surface disinfected in 0.5% NaOCl for 30 s, transferred to water agar with 100 ppm of streptomycin sulfate, and incubated at 25°C. Slow-growing colonies were transferred to potato dextrose agar after approximately 72 h. V. dahliae was identified on the basis of morphology (3). Pathogenicity of four selected isolates was determined on the watermelon cultivars used to identify races of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. niveum (Fon). Flasks containing 100 ml of medium (1) were inoculated with a 1-ml spore suspension at 1 × 105 spores/ml for each isolate and placed on an orbital shaker for 6 days at 100 rpm with continuous near-UV/fluorescent lighting at 25°C. Roots of approximately 40 plants of each of five watermelon cultivars (1 to 2 true-leaf stage) were trimmed to 2 cm long and root dipped for 2 min in the spore suspension (1 × 106/ml) of each isolate. Each cultivar/isolate combination and controls were transplanted into 10 pots (1.5 liter) with four plants per pot. The pots were transferred to the greenhouse where soil temperatures ranged between 15 and 25°C and were fertilized (Jack's fertilizer solution) every 7 days. Plants were rated at the end of 28 days as 1 = healthy, 2 = stunting (≤50% of controls), 3 = wilting, and 4 = dead. Initial wilting was observed within 7 to 10 days postinoculation. All four isolates caused varying degrees of vascular discoloration, stunting, wilting, and plant death. The pathogen was reisolated from symptomatic plants but not the controls. Mean disease ratings for the most virulent Texas isolate (28-040215) on ‘Black Diamond’, ‘Charleston Gray’, ‘Dixie Lee’, ‘Calhoun Gray’, and ‘PI 296341 FR’ were 2.7, 3.0, 3.0, 2.9, and 2.9, respectively. All watermelon Fon differentials were equally susceptible to V. dahliae in these studies. Historically, Verticillium wilt has been a problem in this area, which has been in cotton production for approximately 100 years. In the past decade, watermelon production has increased substantially to approximately 3,600 ha in the Texas High Plains. To our knowledge, this is the first known report of Verticillium wilt on watermelon in Texas. References: (1) R. G. Esposito and A. M. Fletcher. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 93:369, 1961. (2) G. F. Pegg and B. L. Brady. Verticillium Wilts. CABI Publishing, New York, 2002. (3) H. C. Smith. N. Z. J. Agr. Res. 8:450, 1965.

At least 24 species of cucurbits from 13 genera are known to be susceptible to gummy stem blight, caused by three species of Stagonosporopsis. Cankers that are formed on crowns and stems play an important role in the disease cycle and the survival of the pathogen. Fourteen cucurbit species of unknown susceptibility representing 12 genera, four taxonomic tribes, and four geographic origins were inoculated with Stagonosporopsis citrulli in Charleston, SC, in spring 2015, spring 2016, and fall 2016 to evaluate their level of susceptibility to gummy stem blight and the ability of the pathogen to reproduce on crown cankers. An additional species, Cucumis melo, was included as a reference due to its known high susceptibility. Data sets of area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC) for foliar severity and crown cankers, final percentage of diseased leaf area, final percentage of plants with cankers, final percentage of plants with fruiting bodies, and rates of increase in canker incidence were analyzed to evaluate susceptibility. Results were similar for datasets of AUDPC and final ratings but there were more differences for AUDPC. In all experiments, Apodanthera sagittifolia, Ecballium elaterium, and Kedrostis leloja were at least as susceptible to foliar blight as the reference C. melo. K. leloja was as susceptible to crown cankers as C. melo in all experiments and A. sagittifolia and E. elaterium were among the species most susceptible to crown cankers in two experiments. Coccinia grandis was highly resistant to gummy stem blight and had a few cankers only in fall 2016. Sicana odorifera and Zehneria pallidinervia also consistently grouped with the most resistant species. Incidence of crown cankers on Cucumis melo and K. leloja increased at the fastest rate of all species in all experiments and had, along with E. elaterium, the highest incidence of crowns with fruiting bodies. In general, the most susceptible species also were most suitable for reproduction of the pathogen and had the fastest disease progression. The tribes Benincaseae and Cucurbiteae had consistently lower levels of foliar blight than Bryonieae and Coniandreae. The tribe Benincaseae had a consistently lower AUDPC for canker incidence than Bryonieae and Coniandreae. The species originating from Europe (E. elaterium) was consistently most susceptible to both symptoms, while African species grouped with the least susceptible species in all experiments. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of susceptibility to gummy stem blight of 14 species and the first report of susceptibility of the cucurbit tribes Coniandreae and Gomphogyneae. This expands the host range of Stagonosporopsis citrulli to 37 species representing 21 genera and seven tribes in the family Cucurbitaceae. This study demonstrates the importance of crown cankers as reproductive sites for S. citrulli.

Laurel wilt disease, caused by Raffaelea lauricola (T.C. Harr., Fraedrich & Aghayeva sp. nov.), which is a fungal symbiont of the nonnative redbay ambrosia beetle (Xyleborus glabratus Eichhoff), has caused widespread mortality of native redbay (Persea borbonia (L.) Spreng) in Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida since 2002. The disease has been noted on other species in the Lauraceae including sassafras in Georgia (1), and more recently, on avocado and camphor in Florida (4). Since 2005, wilted shoots, branch dieback, and tree death have been observed in sassafras trees (Sassafras albidum (L.)) in Liberty, McIntosh, Chatham, Effingham, Bulloch, Evans, and Screven counties in Georgia; Bamberg, Beaufort, Charleston, Colleton, Hampton, and Orangeburg counties in South Carolina; and Putnam County in Florida. Symptomatic sassafras trees ranged from 1 to 12 m high and 2.5 to 25 cm in diameter at breast height. In contrast to red bay trees that retain wilted foliage, symptomatic sassafras defoliate rapidly as trees wilt and die. Multiple symptomatic ramets originating from a common root system have been observed. Removal of bark from stem and root sections from wilted trees revealed black-to-brownish staining in the sapwood, characteristic of laurel wilt. Wood chips from symptomatic areas of branches and roots were surface sterilized and plated on cycloheximide-streptomycin malt agar as previously described (1) and R. lauricola was routinely isolated. Small subunit (18S) sequences from rDNA were amplified by PCR and sequenced using primers NS1 and NS4 (3) for isolates from sassafras from Florida and South Carolina. BLASTn searches revealed homology to Raffaelea sp. C2203 (GenBank Accession No. EU123076, 100% similarity) described by Fraedrich et al. (1) from redbay and later named R. lauricola (2). The small subunit rDNA sequences for these isolates have been deposited into GenBank ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/index.html ) and assigned Accession Nos. EU980448 (Florida) and GQ329704 (South Carolina). Koch's postulates have been completed with R. lauricola on this host previously (1). Laurel wilt on sassafras often was geographically isolated from other symptomatic hosts in Georgia and South Carolina and appears to occur on this host independently of proximity to redbay. Further studies to determine the epidemiology of laurel wilt on sassafras, potential resistance, and impact on sassafras life history and distribution are needed. Given the clonal nature of sassafras, the disease would appear to have the potential to move through roots of trees once established in a stand. References: (1) S. W Fraedrich et al. Plant Dis. 92:215, 2008. (2) T. C. Harrington et al. Mycotaxon 104:399, 2008. (3) M. A. Innis et al. PCR Protocols, A Guide to Methods and Applications. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1990. (4) J. A. Smith et al. Plant Dis. 93:198, 2009.

Foliar, stem, and fruit lesions were observed on watermelon (Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai) and pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima Duchesne) in two separate research fields in the district of Arusha, Tanzania during the warm, rainy season from February to April 2010. Similar symptoms were observed in commercial watermelon fields and intercropped pumpkin fields in Same and Moshi districts with as much as 100% fruit loss in watermelon. Disease symptoms on watermelon were dark brown, V-shaped leaf lesions. On pumpkin, V-shaped leaf lesions were light brown. On both hosts, stems showed water-soaked lesions after rain, which dried up and cracked. On pumpkin, a gummy, amber exudate was seen after rain on stem and fruit lesions. Flowers and fruits of both hosts developed black rot spots and aborted. Isolation of the causal agent on potato dextrose agar (PDA) from leaf and stem pieces of watermelon and pumpkin plants in Arusha showed white-to-olivaceous green mycelium. Pycnidia formed on one-quarter-strength PDA and produced hyaline, oblong conidia mainly with two guttules, nonseptate, 5 to 11 × 3 to 5 μm. Pathogenicity was tested with three isolates from watermelon and one from pumpkin on four 1-month-old plants per watermelon cvs. Sugar Baby and Charleston Grey and pumpkin cv. Small Sugar per isolate. The test was repeated on the watermelon cultivars. One site on the main stem and two leaves per plant were misted, pricked with a scalpel, inoculated with 3-day-old mycelial plugs (5 × 5 mm), and kept humid at 20 to 30°C in cellophane bags for 3 days. All plants developed leaf and/or stem lesions. Detached, misted leaves were also laid on 2% water agar and inoculated as above. Water-soaked lesions developed around inoculation sites and microscopy of infected tissue revealed pycnidia with conidia as described above. All isolates infected both hosts. A set of control plants and detached leaves, mock inoculated with agar plugs, remained symptomless. The fungus was reisolated from infected leaves and stems of both hosts. On the basis of the morphological characteristics, the fungus was identified as Didymella bryoniae (Auersw.) Rehm (anamorph Phoma cucurbitacearum (Fr.:Fr.) Sacc.) (1,3) and this was confirmed by amplification of species-specific PCR products. The isolates from both hosts were cultured in liquid medium, and DNA was extracted using a DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA). PCR and multiplex PCR involving D. bryoniae-unique primer sequences D6 and D7S, in combination with primer UNLO28S22, produced the expected band sizes (2). To our knowledge, this is the first report of gummy stem blight and black fruit rot of watermelon caused by D. bryoniae in Tanzania, which confirms a previous report of leaf spot on pumpkin (4), and the first report of black fruit rot on pumpkin. The disease was previously an unidentified problem in watermelon and the severe outbreak was associated with favorable weather conditions. References: (1) A. P. Keinath et al. Phytopathology 85:364, 1995. (2) C. A. Koch and R. S. Utkhede. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 26:291, 2004. (3) E. Punithalingam and P. Holliday. No. 332 in: Descriptions of Pathogenic Fungi and Bacteria. CMI, Kew, Surrey, UK, 1972. (4) E. A. Riley. Mycol. Pap. 75:1, 1960.

Martin K. Sorge. The Other Price of Hitler's War. German Military and Civilian Losses Resulting from World War II. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1986. Pp. xx, 175. Cloth, $32.95; M. K. Dziewanowski. War At Any Price: World War II in Europe, 1939-1945. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987. Pp. xiv, 386. Paper, $25.67. Review by Lawrence S. Rines of Quincy Community College. David Goldfield. Promised Land: The South Since 1945. Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1987. Pp. xiii, 262. Cloth, $19.95, Paper, $9.95; Alexander P. Lamis. The Two Party South. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. Pp. x, 317. Cloth, $25.00; Paper, $8.95. Review by Ann W. Ellis of Kennesaw College. Walter J. Fraser, Jr., R. Frank Saunders, Jr., and Jon L. Wakelyn, eds. The Web of Southern Social Relations: Women, Family, and Education. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1985. Pp. XVII, 257. Paper, $12.95. Review by Thomas F. Armstrong of Georgia College. William H. Pease and Jane H. Pease. The Web of Progress: Private Values and Public Styles in Boston and Charleston, 1828-1842. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Pp. xiv, 334. Paper, $12.95. Review by Peter Gregg Slater of Mercy College. Stephen J. Lee. The European Dictatorships, 1918-1945. London and New York: Methuen, 1987. Pp. xv, 343. Cloth, $47.50; Paper, $15.95. Review by Brian Boland of Lockport Central High School, Lockport, IL. Todd Gitlin. The Sixties: Days of Hope, Days of Rage. New York: Bantam, 1987. Pp. 483. Cloth, $19.95; Maurice Isserman. IF I HAD A HAMMER... : The Death of the Old Left and the Birth of the New Left. New York: Basic Books, 1987. Pp. xx, 244. Cloth, $18.95. Review by Charles T. Banner-Haley of Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Inc. Donald Alexander Downs. Nazis in Skokie: Freedom, Community, and the First Amendment. Notre Dame IN: Notre Dame Press, 1985. Pp. 227. Paper, $9.95. Review by Benjamin Tate of Macon Junior College. Paul Preston, The Triumph of Democracy in Spain. London and New York: Methuen, 1986. Pp. 227. Cloth, $32.00. Review by Victoria L. Enders of Northern Arizona University. Robert B. Downs. Images of America: Travelers from Abroad in the New World. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1987. Pp. 232. Cloth, $24.95. Review by James F. Marran of New Trier Township High School, Winnetka, IL. Joel H. Silbey. The Partisan Imperative: The Dynamics of American Politics Before the Civil War. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Pp. viii, 234. Paper, $8.95. Review by John T. Reilly of Mount Saint Mary College. Barbara J. Howe, Dolores A. Fleming, Emory L. Kemp, and Ruth Ann Overbeck. Houses and Homes: Exploring Their History. Nashville: The American Association for State and Local History, 1987. Pp. xii, 168. Paper, $13.95; $11.95 to AASLH members. Review by Marsha L. Frey of Kansas State University. Thomas C. Cochran. Challenges to American Values: Society, Business and Religion. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Pp. 147. Paper, $6.95. Review by H. Roger Grant of University of Akron. M.S. Anderson. Europe in the Eighteenth Century, 1713-1783. London and New York: Longman, 1987. Third Edition. Pp. xii, 539. Cloth, $34.95. Review by Robert Lindsay of the University of Montana.

Abstract Background Eravacycline (ERV) is a next-generation tetracycline approved for complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) with in-vitro activity to multidrug-resistant organisms such as carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae, extended spectrum beta-lactamase, and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB). The purpose of this study was to identify the utility of ERV in clinical practice. Methods Retrospective case series was conducted on patients at AdventHealth that received at least two doses of ERV. Primary endpoint for the study was clinical success while on ERV, meeting none of the following criteria: changing therapy, mortality, or lack of improvement from sign/symptoms. Results Of 23 patients, 74% were males with a mean age of 55 ±18 years and mean body weight of 79 ±27 kg. Mean APACHE II and Charleson scores were 20 (±11) and 6 (±4), respectively. 91% received ERV for an off-label indication or organism. Infection types were respiratory (44%), cIAI (35%), skin (9%), and other (13%). All patients had positive cultures, while 61% were treated as a polymicrobial infection and 17% had bacteremia. Microorganisms included A. xylosoxidans, S. maltophilia, CRAB, and K pneumoniae. 48% had ERV susceptibilities from .06-4 mcg/mL, including two MIC ≥32mcg/mL for S. maltophilia. 70% were given another antibiotic prior to ERV with a median duration of 5 (1-35) days. Median duration of ERV was 8 (3-30) days. 83% percent received ERV in combination with another antibiotic. During treatment, 26% had a Child-Pugh Class C at baseline and 30% had elevated liver function tests. No adverse drug reactions were reported. Upon discharge, 35% continued ERV. Clinical success was observed in 57% (12/21) of patients. Clinical outcome by infection type is summarized in Figure 1. Of 9 cases of clinical failure, 14% were changed to alternative, 19% died while on ERV, and 10% failed to resolve signs/symptoms. Two cases of M. abscessus infections had insufficient follow-up to assess clinical outcome. Figure 1. Eravacycline Clinical Outcome by Infection Type Conclusion Initial real-world experience with ERV differs significantly from the trials regarding severity of illness, types of infection, and clinical outcomes. Further evaluation is necessary for using ERV as combination therapy and in off-label indications. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Photo by niu niu on Unsplash ABSTRACT Shackling prisoners has been implemented as standard procedure when transporting prisoners in labor and during childbirth. This procedure ensures the protection of both the public and healthcare workers. However, the act of shackling pregnant prisoners violates the principles of ethics that physicians are supposed to uphold. This paper will explore how shackling pregnant prisoners violates the principle of justice and beneficence, making the practice unethical. INTRODUCTION Some states allow shackling of incarcerated pregnant women during transport and while in the hospital for labor and delivery. Currently, only 22 states have legislation prohibiting the shackling of pregnant women.[1] Although many states have anti-shackling laws prohibiting restraints, these laws also contain an “extraordinary circumstances” loophole.[2] Under this exception, officers shackle prisoners if they pose a flight risk, have any history of violence, and are a threat to themselves or others.[3] Determining as to whether a prisoner is shackled is left solely to the correctional officer.[4] Yet even state restrictions on shackling are often disregarded. In shackling pregnant prisoners during childbirth, officers and institutions are interfering with the ability of incarcerated women to have safe childbirth experiences and fair treatment. Moreover, physicians cannot exercise various ethical duties as the law constrains them. In this article, I will discuss the physical and mental harms that result from the use of restraints under the backdrop of slavery and discrimination against women of color particularly. I argue that stereotypes feed into the phenomenon of shackling pregnant women, especially pregnant women of color. I further assert that shackling makes it difficult for medical professionals to be beneficent and promote justice. BACKGROUND Female incarceration rates in the United States have been fast growing since the 1980s.[5] With a 498 percent increase in the female incarceration population between 1981 and 2021, the rates of pregnancy and childbirth by incarcerated people have also climbed.[6],[7] In 2021, over 1.2 million women were incarcerated in the United States.[8] An estimated 55,000 pregnant women are admitted to jails each year.[9],[10] Many remain incarcerated throughout pregnancy and are transported to a hospital for labor and delivery. Although the exact number of restrained pregnant inmates is unclear, a study found that 83 percent of hospital prenatal nurses reported that their incarcerated patients were shackled.[11] I. Harms Caused by Shackling Shackling has caused many instances of physical and psychological harm. In the period before childbirth, shackled pregnant women are at high risk for falling.[12] The restraints shift pregnant women’s center of gravity, and wrist restraints prevent them from breaking a fall, increasing the risk of falling on their stomach and harming the fetus.[13] Another aspect inhibited by using restraints is testing and treating pregnancy complications. Delays in identifying and treating conditions such as hypertension, pre-eclampsia, appendicitis, kidney infection, preterm labor, and especially vaginal bleeding can threaten the lives of the mother and the fetus.[14] During labor and delivery, shackling prevents methods of alleviating severe labor pains and giving birth.[15] Usually, physicians recommend that women in labor walk or assume various positions to relieve labor pains and accelerate labor.[16] However, shackling prevents both solutions.[17] Shackling these women limits their mobility during labor, which may compromise the health of both the mother and the fetus.[18] Tracy Edwards, a former prisoner who filed a lawsuit for unlawful use of restraints during her pregnancy, was in labor for twelve hours. She was unable to move or adjust her position to lessen the pain and discomfort of labor.[19] The shackles also left the skin on her ankles red and bruised. Continued use of restraints also increases the risk of potentially life-threatening health issues associated with childbirth, such as blood clots.[20] It is imperative that pregnant women get treated rapidly, especially with the unpredictability of labor. Epidural administration can also become difficult, and in some cases, be denied due to the shackled woman’s inability to assume the proper position.[21] Time-sensitive medical care, including C-sections, could be delayed if permission from an officer is required, risking major health complications for both the fetus and the mother.[22] After childbirth, shackling impedes the recovery process. Shackling can result in post-delivery complications such as deep vein thrombosis.[23] Walking prevents such complications but is not an option for mothers shackled to their hospital beds.[24] Restraints also prevent bonding with the baby post-delivery and the safe handling of the baby while breast feeding.[25] The use of restraints can also result in psychological harm. Many prisoners feel as though care workers treat them like “animals,” with some women having multiple restraints at once— including ankles, wrists, and even waist restraints.[26] Benidalys Rivera describes the feeling of embarrassment as she was walking while handcuffed, with nurses and patients looking on, “Being in shackles, that make you be in stress…I about to have this baby, and I’m going to go back to jail. So it’s too much.”[27] Depression among pregnant prisoners is highly prevalent. The stress of imprisonment and the anticipation of being separated from their child is often overwhelming for these mothers.[28] The inhumane action has the potential to add more stress, anxiety, and sadness to the already emotionally demanding process of giving birth. Shackling pregnant prisoners displays indifference to the medical needs of the prisoner.[29] II. Safety as a Pretense While public safety is an argument for using shackles, several factors make escape or violence extremely unlikely and even impossible.[30] For example, administering epidural anesthesia causes numbness and eliminates flight risk.[31] Although cited as the main reason for using shackles, public safety is likely just an excuse and not the main motivator for shackling prisoners. I argue that underlying the shackling exemplifies the idea that these women should not have become pregnant. The shackling reflects a distinct discrimination: the lawmakers allowing it perhaps thought that people guilty of crimes would make bad mothers. Public safety is just a pretense. The language used to justify the use of restraint of Shawanna Nelson, the plaintiff in Nelson v. Correctional Medical Services, discussed below, included the word “aggressive.”[32] In her case, there was no evidence that she posed any danger or was objectively aggressive. Officer Turnesky, who supervised Nelson, testified that she never felt threatened by Nelson.[33] The lack of documented attempts of escape and violence from pregnant prisoners suggests that shackling for flight risk is a false pretense and perhaps merely based on stereotypes.[34] In 2011, an Amnesty International report noted that “Around the USA, it is common for restraints to be used on sick and pregnant incarcerated women when they are transported to and kept in hospital, regardless of whether they have a history of violence (which only a minority have) and regardless of whether they have ever absconded or attempted to escape (which few women have).”[35] In a 2020 survey of correctional officers in select midwestern prisons, 76 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with restraining pregnant women during labor and delivery.[36] If a correctional officer shackles a pregnant prisoner, it is not because they pose a risk but because of a perception that they do. This mindset is attributed to select law enforcement, who have authority to use restraints.[37] In 2022, the Tennessee legislature passed a bill prohibiting the use of restraints on pregnant inmates. However, legislators amended the bill due to the Tennessee Sherriff Association’s belief that even pregnant inmates could pose a “threat.”[38] Subjecting all prisoners to the same “precautions” because a small percentage of individuals may pose such risks could reflect stereotyping or the assumption that all incarcerated people pose danger and flight risk. To quell the (unjustified) public safety concern, there are other options that do not cause physical or mental harm to pregnant women. For example, San Francisco General Hospital does not use shackles but has deputy sheriffs outside the pregnant women’s doors.[39] III. Historical Context and Race A. Slavery and Post-Civil War The treatment of female prisoners has striking similarities to that of enslaved women. Originally, shackling of female slaves was a mechanism of control and dehumanization.[40] This enabled physical and sexual abuses. During the process of intentionally dehumanizing slaves to facilitate subordination, slave owners stripped slave women of their feminine identity.[41] Slave women were unable to exhibit the Victorian model of “good mothering” and people thought they lacked maternal feelings for their children.[42] In turn, societal perception defeminized slave women, and barred them from utilizing the protections of womanhood and motherhood. During the post-Civil War era, black women were reversely depicted as sexually promiscuous and were arrested for prostitution more often than white women.[43] In turn, society excluded black women; they were seen as lacking what the “acceptable and good” women had.[44] Some argue that the historical act of labeling black women sexually deviant influences today’s perception of black women and may lead to labeling them bad mothers.[45] Over two-thirds of incarcerated women are women of color.[46] Many reports document sexual violence and misconduct against prisoners over the years.[47] Male guards have raped, sexually assaulted, and inappropriately touched female prisoners. Some attribute the physical abuse of black female prisoners to their being depicted or stereotyped as “aggressive, deviant, and domineering.”[48] Some expect black women to express stoicism and if they do not, people label them as dangerous, irresponsible, and aggressive.[49] The treatment of these prisoners mirrors the historical oppression endured by black women during and following the era of slavery. The act of shackling incarcerated pregnant women extends the inhumane treatment of these women from the prison setting into the hospital. One prisoner stated that during her thirty-hour labor, while being shackled, she “felt like a farm animal.”[50] Another pregnant prisoner describes her treatment by a guard stating: “a female guard grabbed me by the hair and was making me get up. She was screaming: ‘B***h, get up.’ Then she said, ‘That is what happens when you are a f***ing junkie. You shouldn’t be using drugs, or you wouldn’t be in here.”[51] Shackling goes beyond punishing by isolation from society – it is an additional punishment that is not justified. B. Reproductive Rights and “Bad Mothers” As with slaves not being seen as maternal, prisoners are not viewed as “real mothers.” A female prison guard said the following: “I’m a mother of two and I know what that impulse, that instinct, that mothering instinct feels like. It just takes over, you would never put your kids in harm’s way. . . . Women in here lack that. Something in their nature is not right, you know?”[52] This comment implies that incarcerated women lack maternal instinct. They are not in line with the standards of what society accepts as a “woman” and “mother” and are thought to have abandoned their roles as caretakers in pursuit of deviant behaviors. Without consideration of racial discrimination, poverty issues, trauma, and restricted access to the child right after delivery, these women are stereotyped as bad mothers simply because they are in prison. Reminiscent of the treatment of female black bodies post-civil war and the use of reproductive interventions (for example, Norplant and forced sterilization) in exchange for shorter sentences, I argue that shackles are a form of reproductive control. Justification for the use of shackles even includes their use as a “punitive instrument to remind the prisoner of their punishment.”[53] However, a prisoner’s pregnancy should have no relevance to their sentence.[54] Using shackles demonstrates to prisoners that society tolerates childbirth but does not support it.[55] The shackling is evidence that women are being punished “for bearing children, not for breaking the law.”[56] Physicians and healthcare workers, as a result, are responsible for providing care for the delivery and rectifying any physical problems associated with the restraints. The issues that arise from the use of restraints place physicians in a position more complex than they experience with regular healthy pregnancies. C. Discrimination In the case of Ferguson v. City of Charleston, a medical university subjected black woman to involuntary drug testing during pregnancy. In doing so, medical professionals collaborated with law enforcement to penalize black women for their use of drugs during pregnancy.[57] The Court held the drug tests were an unreasonable search and violated the Fourth Amendment. Ferguson v. City of Charleston further reveals an unjustified assumption: the medical and legal community seemed suspicious of black women and had perhaps predetermined them more likely to use drugs while pregnant. Their fitness to become mothers needed to be proven, while wealthy, white women were presumed fit.[58] The correctional community similarly denies pregnant prisoners’ medical attention. In the case of Staten v. Lackawanna County, an African American woman whose serious medical needs were treated indifferently by jail staff was forced to give birth in her cell.[59] This woman was punished for being pregnant in prison through the withholding of medical attention and empathy. IV. Failure to Follow Anti-Shackling Laws Despite 22 states having laws against shackling pregnant prisoners, officers do not always follow these laws. In 2015, the Correctional Association of New York reported that of the 27 women who gave birth under state custody, officers shackled 23 women in violation of the anti-shackling laws.[60] The lawyer of Tracy Edwards, an inmate who officers shackled unlawfully during her twelve-hour labor stated, “I don’t think we can assume that just because there’s a law passed, that’s automatically going to trickle down to the prison.”[61] Even with more restrictions on shackling, it may still occur, partly due to the stereotype that incarcerated women are aggressive and dangerous. V. Constitutionality The Eighth Amendment protects people from cruel and unusual punishment. In Brown vs. Plata, the court stated, “Prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons.”[62] In several cases, the legal community has held shackling to be unconstitutional as it violates the Eighth Amendment unless specifically justified. In the case of Nelson v. Correctional Medical Services, a pregnant woman was shackled for 12 hours of labor with a brief respite while she pushed, then re-shackled. The shackling caused her physical and emotional pain, including intense cramping that could not be relieved due to positioning and her inability to get up to use a toilet.[63] The court held that a clear security concern must justify shackling. The court cited a similar DC case and various precedents for using the Eighth Amendment to hold correctional facilities and hospitals accountable.[64] An Arkansas law similarly states that shackling must be justified by safety or risk of escape.[65] If the Thirteenth Amendment applied to those convicted of crimes, shackling pregnant incarcerated people would be unconstitutional under that amendment as well as the Eighth. In the Civil Rights Cases, Congress upheld the right “to enact all necessary and proper laws for the obliteration and prevention of slavery with all its badges and incidents.”[66] Section two of the Thirteenth Amendment condemns any trace or acts comparable to that of slavery. Shackling pregnant prisoners, stripping them of their dignity, and justification based on stereotypes all have origins in the treatment of black female slaves. Viewed through the lens of the Thirteenth Amendment, the act of shackling would be unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the Thirteenth Amendment explicitly excludes people convicted of a crime. VI. Justice As a result of the unconstitutional nature of shackling, physicians should have a legal obligation, in addition to their ethical duty, to protect their patients. The principle of justice requires physicians to take a stand against the discriminatory treatment of their patients, even under the eye of law enforcement.[67],[68] However, “badge and gun intimidation,” threats of noncompliance, and the fear of losing one’s license can impede a physician’s willingness to advocate for their patients. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) finds the use of physical restraints interferes with the ability of clinicians to practice medicine safely.[69] ACOG, The American Medical Association, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, and other organizations oppose using restraints on pregnant incarcerated people.[70] Yet, legislators can adopt shackling laws without consultation with physicians. The ACOG argues that “State legislators are taking it upon themselves to define complex medical concepts without reference to medical evidence. Some of the penalties [faced by OBGYNs] for violating these vague, unscientific laws include criminal sentences.”[71] Legislation that does not consider medical implications or discourages physicians’ input altogether is unjust. In nullifying the voice of a physician in matters pertaining to the patient’s treatment, physicians are prevented from fulfilling the principle of justice, making the act of shackling patients unethical. VII. Principle of Beneficence The principle of beneficence requires the prevention of harm, the removal of harm, and the promotion of good.[72] Beneficence demands the physician not only avoid harm but benefit patients and promote their welfare.[73] The American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation states that physicians must work with other professionals to increase patient safety and improve the quality of care.[74] In doing so, physicians can adequately treat patients with the goal of prevention and healing. It is difficult to do good when law enforcement imposes on doctors to work around shackles during labor and delivery. Law enforcement leaves physicians and healthcare workers responsible not only to provide care for the delivery, but also rectify any ailments associated with the restraints. The issues arising from using restraints place physicians in a position more complex than they experience with other pregnancies. Doctors cannot prevent the application of the shackles and can only request officers to take them off the patient.[75] Physicians who simply go along with shackling are arguably violating the principle of beneficence. However, for most, rather than violating the principle of beneficence overtly, physicians may simply have to compromise. Given the intricate nature of the situation, physicians are tasked with minimizing potential harm to the best of their abilities while adhering to legal obligations.[76] It is difficult to pin an ethics violation on the ones who do not like the shackles but are powerless to remove them. Some do argue that this inability causes physicians to violate the principle of beneficence.[77] However, promoting the well-being of their patients within the boundaries of the law limits their ability to exercise beneficence. For physicians to fulfill the principle of beneficence to the fullest capacity, they must have an influence on law. Protocols and assessments on flight risks made solely by the officers and law enforcement currently undermine the physician’s expertise. These decisions do not consider the health and well-being of the pregnant woman. As a result, law supersedes the influence of medicine and health care. CONCLUSION People expect physicians to uphold the four major principles of bioethics. However, their inability to override restraints compromises their ability to exercise beneficence. Although pledging to enforce these ethical principles, physicians have little opportunity to influence anti-shackling legislation. Instead of being included in conversations regarding medical complexities, legislation silences their voices. Policies must include the physician's voice as they affect their ability to treat patients. Officers should not dismiss a physician's request to remove shackles from a woman if they are causing health complications. A woman's labor should not harm her or her fetus because the officer will not remove her shackles.[78] A federal law could end shackling pregnant incarcerated people. Because other options are available to ensure the safety of the public and the prisoner, there is no ethical justification for shackling pregnant prisoners. An incarcerated person is a human being and must be treated with dignity and respect. To safeguard the well-being of incarcerated women and the public, it is essential for advocates of individual rights to join forces with medical professionals to establish an all-encompassing solution. - [1] Ferszt, G. G., Palmer, M., & McGrane, C. (2018). Where does your state stand on shackling of Pregnant Incarcerated Women? Nursing for Women’s Health, 22(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nwh.2017.12.005 [2] S983A, 2015-2016 Regular Sessions (N.Y. 2015). https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2015/S983A [3] Chris DiNardo, Pregnancy in Confinement, Anti-Shackling Laws and the “Extraordinary Circumstances” Loophole, 25 Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy 271-295 (2018) https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/djglp/vol25/iss2/5 [4] Chris DiNardo (2018) [5] U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1980. " Prisoners in 1980 – Statistical Tables”. Retrieved April 20, 2023 (https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/p80.pdf). [6] U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2022. " Prisoners in 2021 – Statistical Tables”. Retrieved April 20, 2023 (https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/p21st.pdf). [7] U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1980) [8] Sufrin C, Jones RK, Mosher WD, Beal L. Pregnancy Prevalence and Outcomes in U.S. Jails. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(5):1177-1183. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003834 [9] Kramer, C., Thomas, K., Patil, A., Hayes, C. M., & Sufrin, C. B. (2022). Shackling and pregnancy care policies in US prisons and jails. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 27(1), 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-022-03526-y [10] House, K. T., Kelley, S., Sontag, D. N., & King, L. P. (2021). Ending restraint of incarcerated individuals giving birth. AMA Journal of Ethics, 23(4). https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2021.364 [11] Goshin, L. S., Sissoko, D. R., Neumann, G., Sufrin, C., & Byrnes, L. (2019). Perinatal nurses’ experiences with and knowledge of the care of incarcerated women during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 48(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogn.2018.11.002 [12] Shackling and separation: Motherhood in prison. (2013). AMA Journal of Ethics, 15(9), 779–785. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2013.15.9.pfor2-1309 [13] King, L. (2018). Labor in chains: The shackling of pregnant inmates. Policy Perspectives, 25, 55–68. https://doi.org/10.4079/pp.v25i0.18348 [14] King, L. (2018). [15] AMA Journal of Ethics (2013) [16] Lawrence, A., Lewis, L., Hofmeyr, G. J., & Styles, C. (2013). Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, (8). [17] Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses. (2011). AWHONN position statement: Shackling incarcerated pregnant women. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 40(6), 817–818. doi:10.1111/j.1552-6909.2011.01300.x [18] Ferszt, G. G., Palmer, M., & McGrane, C. (2018). Where does your state stand on shackling of Pregnant Incarcerated Women? Nursing for Women’s Health, 22(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nwh.2017.12.005 [19] Thompson, E. (2022, August 30). Woman sues NC state prison system for mistreatment while pregnant. North Carolina Health News. Retrieved March 12, 2023, from https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2022/05/25/woman-sues-nc-state-prison-system-for-mistreatment-while-pregnant/ [20] CBS Interactive. (2019, March 13). Shackling pregnant inmates is still a practice in many states. CBS News. Retrieved March 12, 2023, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/shackling-pregnant-inmates-is-still-a-practice-in-many-states/ [21] Griggs, Claire Louise. "Birthing Barbarism: The Unconstitutionality of Shackling Pregnant Prisoners." American University Journal of Gender Social Policy and Law 20, no. 1 (2011): 247-271. [22] American Civil Liberties Union. (2012, October 12). ACLU briefing paper: The shackling of pregnant women & girls in U.S ... American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/anti-shackling_briefing_paper_stand_alone.pdf [23] King.L (2018) [24] Griggs, Claire Louise (2011) [25] American Civil Liberties Union. (2012) [26] Clarke, J. G., & Simon, R. E. (2013). Shackling and separation: Motherhood in prison. AMA Journal of Ethics, 15(9), 779–785. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2013.15.9.pfor2-1309 [27] Berg, M. D. (2014, April 18). Pregnant prisoners are losing their shackles - The Boston Globe. BostonGlobe.com. Retrieved March 12, 2023, from https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2014/04/18/taking-shackles-off-pregnant-prisoners/7t7r8yNBcegB8eEy1GqJwN/story.html [28] Levi, R., Kinakemakorn, N., Zohrabi, A., Afanasieff, E., & Edwards-Masuda, N. (2010). Creating the bad mother: How the U.S. approach to pregnancy in prisons violates the right to be a mother. UCLA Women's Law Journal, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/l3181017816 [29] Chris DiNardo (2018) [30] Griggs, Claire Louise (2011). [31] Allen, J. E. (2010, October 21). Shackled: Women Behind Bars Deliver in Chains. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/pregnant-shackled-women-bars-deliver-chains/story?id=11933376&page=1 [32] Nelson v. Correctional, 533 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 2009) [33] Nelson v. Correctional(2009) [34] House, K. T., Kelley, S., Sontag, D. N., & King, L. P. (2021). Ending restraint of incarcerated individuals giving birth. AMA Journal of Ethics, 23(4). https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2021.364 [35] Amnesty International USA. (1999, March). “Not part of my sentence” Violations of the Human Rights of Women in Custody. Amnesty International USA. Retrieved March 12, 2023, from https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/usa-not-part-of-my-sentence-violations-of-the-human-rights-of-women-in-custody/ [36] Pendleton, V., Saunders, J. B., & Shlafer, R. (2020). Corrections officers' knowledge and perspectives of maternal and child health policies and programs for pregnant women in prison. Health & justice, 8(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-019-0102-0 [37] Elizabeth Alexander, Unshackling Shawanna: The Battle Over Chaining Women Prisoners during Labor and Delivery, 32 U. ARK. LITTLE ROCK L. REV. 435 (2010). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview/vol32/iss4/1 [38] Hernandez, J. (2022, April 22). More states are restricting the shackling of pregnant inmates, but it still occurs. NPR. Retrieved March 12, 2023, from https://www.npr.org/2022/04/22/1093836514/shackle-pregnant-inmates-tennessee [39] Sufrin, C. (2012, June 24). End practice of shackling pregnant inmates. SFGATE. Retrieved March 12, 2023, from https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/End-practice-of-shackling-pregnant-inmates-3176987.php [40] Mullings, L. (1997). On our own terms: Race, class, and gender in the lives of African American women. Routledge [41] Ocen, Priscilla A., (2011). [42] Ladd-Taylor, M. (1998). "Bad" mothers: The politics of blame in Twentieth-century America. New York Univ. Press. [43] Hine, D. C. (1998). Hine Sight: Black women and the re-construction of American history. Indiana University Press. [44] Baldwin, L. (2019). Excluded from good motherhood and the impact of prison: Motherhood and Social Exclusion, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvk12qxr.13 [45] Ocen, Priscilla A., Punishing Pregnancy: Race, Incarceration, and the Shackling of Pregnant Prisoners (October 3, 2011). California Law Review, Vol. 100, 2012, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1937872 [46] Johnson, P. C. (2004). Inner lives: Voices of african american women in prison. New York University Press. [47] Thomas, D. Q. (1996). All too familiar: Sexual abuse of women in U.S. state prisons. Human Rights Watch. [48] Ocen, Priscilla A., (2011). [49] Ashley W. The angry black woman: the impact of pejorative stereotypes on psychotherapy with black women. Soc Work Public Health. 2014;29(1):27-34. doi: 10.1080/19371918.2011.619449. PMID: 24188294. [50] CBS Interactive. (2019, March 13). Shackling pregnant inmates is still a practice in many states. CBS News. Retrieved March 12, 2023, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/shackling-pregnant-inmates-is-still-a-practice-in-many-states/ [51] Guardian News and Media. (2020, January 24). Pregnant and shackled: Why inmates are still giving birth cuffed and bound. The Guardian. Retrieved March 25, 2023, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/24/shackled-pregnant-women-prisoners-birth [52] Oparah, J. C. (2015). Birthing justice: Black women, pregnancy, and childbirth. Routledge. [53] Chris DiNardo (2018) [54] Griggs, Claire Louise (2011). [55] Chris DiNardo (2018) [56] Griggs, Claire Louise (2011). [57] Song, Ji Seon, Policing the Emergency Room (June 10, 2021). 134 Harvard Law Review 2646 (2021), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3864225 [58] Ocen, Priscilla A., (2011). [59] Staten v. Lackawanna Cnty., No. 4:07-CV-1329, 2008 WL 249988, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2008) [60] Lovett, K. (2018, April 9). Pregnant inmates at New York prisons will no longer be shackled under new law. New York Daily News. Retrieved March 12, 2023, from https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-york-pregnant-inmates-no-longer-shackled-article-1.2474021 [61] Thompson, E. (2022, August 30). Woman sues NC state prison system for mistreatment while pregnant. North Carolina Health News. Retrieved March 12, 2023, from https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2022/05/25/woman-sues-nc-state-prison-system-for-mistreatment-while-pregnant/ [62] Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011) [63] Nelson v. Correctional Medical Serices, et al., Nelson v. Correctional Med. Servs, 583 F.3d 522 (8th Cir. 2009) [64] Nelson citing Women Prisoners of D.C. Dep't of Corr. v. District of Columbia, 877 F.Supp. 634, 668-69 (D.D.C. 1994), modified in part on other grounds, 899 F.Supp. 659 (D.D.C. 1995). [65] Ark. Dep't of Corr. Admin. Reg. 403 § V (1992) [66] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) [67] Physician charter. ABIM Foundation. (2022, October 18). Retrieved March 10, 2023, from https://abimfoundation.org/what-we-do/physician-charter#:~:text=Principle%20of%20social%20justice.&text=Physicians%20should%20work%20actively%20to,or%20any%20other%20social%20category. [68] Riddick FA Jr. The code of medical ethics of the american medical association. Ochsner J. 2003 Spring;5(2):6-10. PMID: 22826677; PMCID: PMC3399321. [69] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women (2021). Reproductive Health Care for Incarcerated Pregnant, Postpartum, and Nonpregnant Individuals: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 830. Obstetrics and gynecology, 138(1), e24–e34. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004429 [70] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women (2021). [71] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women (2021). [72] Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press. [73] Varkey, B. (2020). Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000509119 [74] Medical professionalism in the new millennium: A physician charter. (2002). Annals of Internal Medicine, 136(3), 243. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-136-3-200202050-00012 [75] Allen, J. E. (2010, October 21). Shackled: Women Behind Bars Deliver in Chains. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/pregnant-shackled-women-bars-deliver-chains/story?id=11933376&page=1 [76] Jonsen, A. R. (2010). The Birth of Bioethics. Oxford University Press. [77] Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). [78] Amnesty International USA. (1999, March). “Not part of my sentence” Violations of the Human Rights of Women in Custody. Amnesty International USA. Retrieved March 12, 2023, from https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/usa-not-part-of-my-sentence-violations-of-the-human-rights-of-women-in-custody/

Fig. 1: “Pink Flamingo Furby” (2000), “Peachy Furby Baby” (1999), and “Owl Furby” (1999) Sunlight Up (“Dah-ay-loh oo-tye”): Introduction As playthings at the junction of human experience and imagination, toys like Furby present an interesting touch point to explore cultural imaginations, hopes, and fears about zoomorphic robots and AI toys. This year marks their 25th anniversary. Created by Dave Hampton and Caleb Chung, Furby publicly debuted at the American International Toy Fair in 1998. Originally released by Tiger Electronics, this toy was later sold to Hasbro in 2005 to 2007. Since their introduction to the market, Furbys have been occupying our shelves and basements, perceived as “annoying little owl-like dolls with embedded sound-recording chips” (Gullin) that speak their own language “furbish” (shown throughout in parenthesis). Early reportage likened Furby to all kinds of cute critters: mogwais, hamsters, and Star Trek’s tribbles. Narratively Furbys are framed as a benevolent, alien species, living in space in a cloud known as Furbyland. For motivations not revealed, Furbys, in looking down on our planet, were so struck by the beautiful view of nature and its signs of peacefulness — “no worry (boo boh-bay)” — that they jumped, plummeting to us like tiny fluffy asteroids. Little did they know that their arrival would spark an intergalactic diplomatic incident. During its introduction in 1998, the initial discourse in media reportage emphasised anxieties of the unknown. What lies beneath the surface of Furby, as a toy that might blur the line between the real and imagined for children? What technologies might it harbour? As a hybrid of technology and animal, Furby appeared as a creepy-cute cultural icon that simultaneously delighted and horrified children and adults alike. Today adult fans reimagine Furby through play and customisation as part of their reflections on their childhood experiences of this cultural moment, and as a way of exploring new futures. Furby provides an opportunity to reflect on adults’ interactions with toys, including parents, members of the public, and fans motivated by nostalgia. At the time of its release Furby presented adults with moments of “dissonance” towards new horrifying technologies that “might occur at the seams [of] … monumental cultural shifts” (Powell 4). But for adult fans today, as a childhood memory, the toy represents both strangeness and future possibilities; it has become a tool of “disrupt[ing] and challeng[ing] beliefs and connections” (Rand 9). In this article I primarily analyse the “original” Furbys of 1998 to 2002, but also mention a range of later versions. This includes: the Emoto-tronic Furbys (2006) which were designed to have more expressive faces; the Furby Boom (2003), a toy whose personality changes according to the level of care it is provided with; and the Furby Connect (2016), which has bluetooth capacity. This discussion is supported by a thematic analysis of 3800 news articles about Furby from 1998 to 2000, visual analysis of both the original and customised iterations of Furby, as well as my reflections as a member of the Furby fandom community. You Play? (U-nye-loo-lay-doo?): Furby Encounters A key part of the discourse around Furby since its introduction in 1998 was, “who would want one?” Indeed, the answer at the time appeared to be “several million of us, the toy demons hope” (Weeks). After their release in American toy stores on 2 October 1998 in limited supplies, a Furbish frenzy ensued, resulting in altercations between shoppers and staff (e.g. Munroe; Warmbir; Associated Press). Aged 10, I recall my little black and white Furby, Coco, waiting for me on the shelves of the electronics section of Big W in Australia, fortunately with no such commotion. Furby is classed by the Guinness World Records as the world’s first AI toy, but it was certainly not the first electronic toy to enter the market; at the time of Furby’s release, Tickle Me Elmo and My Interactive Pooh presented competition, and by the late 1980s there was already concern about how electronic pet toys might erode emotion and connection (Turkle, “Authenticity”; Turkle, “Nascent”). Speculation over the reason for the Furby mass hysteria ensued. Some suggested the appeal was the toy’s status symbol status (Beck), whereas others cited its broad appeal: “it's not gender specific; it doesn't appeal to a particular age group; and most important, it's affordable and doesn't require additional equipment or a computer” (Davis). Some experts offered their commentary of the cyberpet phenomena in general, suggesting that it is a way of dealing with isolation and loneliness (Yorkshire Post). Indeed, all of these features are important to note when we consider the transformation of Furby into queer icon. Central to Furby’s cultural narrative is the idea of contact, or a meeting between robot and user; through play children “teach” their new pet Earth’s new ways (Marsh, “Coded”; Marsh, “Uncanny”). And with this contact also comes a sense of the unknown: what lies beneath the creature’s surface? In their study of zoomorphic robots, Hirofumi Katsumi and Daniel White suggest that Donna Haraway’s work on animal encounters might help us understand this idea of contact. As “animal-like” creature, Furby recalls the transformative potentials of meeting with the more-than-human. Furby’s presence on toy shelves, in classrooms and in homes was one of the first times society had to consider what it meant to “enter the world of becoming with” zoomorphic robots, and to reflect on “who or what ... is precisely at stake” in this entanglement (Haraway 19). What do we learn about ourselves and the unknown through our encounters with Furby? “Monster” (Moh-moh): Technological Threat, Monstrous Other In media reportage, Furby is framed as both new and innovative, but also as a threatening fluffy anarchist. With its technology largely unknown, Furby at the time of its release presented society with a sense of “technohorror” and “imaginings of [social] collapse” (Powell 24). A common concern was that Furby might record and repeat inappropriate language in an act of rebellion. Occasionally tabloid newspapers would report claims such as, "MUM … was horrified when she sat down to play with her daughter's new Furby toy and it squeaked: "F*** me" (The Sun). Some concerns were quite serious, including that Furby could emit electromagnetic fields that would create interference for medical devices and aircraft instruments; this was later disproven by engineers (Tan and Hinberg; Basky; Computer Security). Other urban myths pointed to a more whimsical Furby, whose sensors had the capacity to launch spacecraft (Watson). One persistent concern was the surveillance potentials of Furby. In 1999 the US National Security Agency (NSA) issued a ban on Furby in their Fort Mead headquarters, with concern that they might record and repeat confidential information (Gullin; Ramalho; Borger). This was denied by Tiger Electronics, who emphatically stated “Furby is not a spy” (Computer Security). Engineers performing “autopsies” on Furbys quickly put much of this anxiety to rest (Phobe). This was met with mirthful rebuttals of how future Furbys might be transformed into cute and ubiquitous “wireless furby transmitters” to gather intelligence in warzones (Gullin). As a result, the initial anxiety about surveillance and toys dissipated. However, academics continue to remind us of the real risks of smart toys (e.g. Lupton; Milkaite and Lievens). The 2016 Furby Connect, equipped with voice recognition and Bluetooth capacities has been shown to be hackable (Williams). Further, Maria Ramalho has reported Snowden’s 2014 claims that both NSA and the UK Government Communication Headquarters have been accessing the data collected. In this context, Furby has become “Big Brother transmogrified into ambiguous, cute” unaccountable creature (Ramalho). Through this, we can see how our entanglement with Furby as an object of technohorror speaks both to our anxieties and the real possibilities of technology. In order to craft a narrative around Furby that speaks to this monstrous potential, many have drawn comparisons between Furby and the character Gizmo from the Gremlins franchise. This reference to Gizmo appears in the majority of the media articles sampled for this research. Gizmo is a “mogwai” (trans. demon) with both cute and monstrous potential; like Furby, it also has the potential to transform into a threat to “good society” (Chesher 153-4). This comparison speaks to Gremlins as an anti-technology statement (Sale). However, when we consider how media rhetoric has framed Furby as something to be tamed and controlled, it’s important we approach this comparison with caution in light of the Orientalist underpinnings of the Gremlins franchise. Wendy Allison Lee highlights how Gremlins reflects xenophobic themes of invasion and assimilation. While Gizmo is a “cute, well-behaved” character who “strives to assimilate” much like how Furby might, through play with children, it also harbours a threat to order. In this encounter are resonances of “racist love” that can sometimes underpin our affection for cuteness (Bow). Further reflection is needed on how we might unentangle ourselves from this framing and imagine more inclusive futures with toys like Furby. Fig. 2: Interactive Gizmo, a “Furby Friend” produced by Hasbro, Tiger and Warner Bros in 1999 Big Fun! (Dah doo-ay wah!): Queer Re-Imaginings of Furby Fig. 3: Party time! Adult fans around the world now gather under the “Furby” banner, participating in a colourful array of playful mischief. Reddit forum r/furby (11,200 subscribers) creates a fun space to enjoy the whimsy of Furby, transforming the figure into a sweet and kind companion. Under this umbrella, r/oddbodyfurby (997 subscribers) explore the horrifying potentials of Furby to its playful and surprising ends, which I discuss in this section. In other forums, such as Furby Collectors and Customisers (4.1k members) on Facebook, these different interests come together in a playful and creative space. There was also an active community on Tumblr, where some of the most creatively generative activities around Furby have occurred (Tiffany). In Japan, there is a lively community of fans on Twitter who dress and photograph Emoto-tronic Furbys in a range of cute and charming ways. This forms part of a broader network of creatives, such as “Circuit Benders” who tear down toys and rework them into instruments in a process known as “frankensteining”, such as Look Mum No Computer’s Furby Organ (Deahl). As fans and artists, people act as “queer accessories” to help Furby escape the world and narrative that sought to enclose it, so it might enact its revenge or transcend as a non-binary queer icon (Rand 9-11). As small, collectible and customisable friends, images of happy and creepy Furbys are part of a network of cute media that provides my generation with a source of comfort during times of precarity, occupying our spaces with their own vitality and presence as soothing companions (e.g. Stevens; Allison; Yano). Cuteness as media also lends itself to hybridisation; a mixing and matching with seemingly “opposing” aesthetics. For many fans, the charm of Furby lies in its nostalgic pull as a creature of childhood creepy-cute nightmares. Indeed, it seems that early concerns that Furby may “blur the line between the real and imagined for many children” were in fact valid (Knowlton). While we knew they weren’t “alive” in the true sense, to us they appeared “sort of alive” as our everyday environments became increasingly technological with a dazzling array of electronics (Turkle, “Authenticity”). As Allison (179) explains, we had to “adjust to a world where the border between the imaginary and the real” began to shift rapidly, leaving us open to dream, imagine, and craft narratives populated by a fear of the mechanised undead. Many Millennials were convinced as children that their Furby was waiting for them in the dark, watching, chuckling (“he he heeeee”). Patrick Lenton, diarising his adventures with a rescue Furby this year recalls his childhood toy as “a riot of noise and fury, the kind of demonic household terror”. Some adults, recalling these memories now refer to Furby as “it” or “evil” (Marsh, “Uncanny” 59). In 2020, adult Furby fans, thinking back to their childhood toys, speculated if the positioning of Furby’s eyes at the front of its head meant it was a predator (Watson). Some suggested that their short legs meant they are ambush predators, their infra-red sensor enabling them to detect prey in the dark. Other playful lore suggested that they were made of real cat and dog fur. Through this act of imaginative play, adults reach back to the playful horrors of their childhoods, combining their sense of dread with glee. This has been recently animated by films such as The Mitchells vs. The Machines (2021), where Furbys equipped with “PAL” chips transmogrify into a horrific pack of menacing creatures, and exact revenge. The main contributing factor to this experience is in part the puppetry of Furby. The 1999 Furby presents an exaggerated performance that is both “alive” and “unalive”, its wild rocking, owlish blinking, and cackling creating a sense of “dread and creeping horror” (Freud 2; Marsh, “Uncanny”). Through a blend of animation and imagination, agency is diffused between toy and child to give Furby “life” (Silvio 423). Interestingly, studies of the 2016 Furby Connect and its friendly and social programming that is designed to encourage positive care and engagement has counteracted some of this experience for children (Marsh, “Uncanny” 54). Likewise, in discussing the 2013 Furby Boom Chesher (151) describes this animation as “zany”, working with Sianne Ngai’s conceptualisation of this aesthetic and its relationship to cuteness. While some might praise these later developments in the Furby franchise as having saved another generation of children from nightmares, compared to the original Furby these later editions are less popular among fans; perhaps there is less “material” to work with. Fans as adults now draw on Furby as a playful and cute text to experiment with and hybridise with a variety of horrifying and surprising potentials. This leans into Furby’s design as a chimera, as it uses a combination of cute features to create a “short-hand” for life and also evoke the “idea” or “character” of appealing animals that form part of cultures “charismatic megafauna” (Nishimura 179; Stuck and Rogers; Gn). With cat-like ears, a tuft of hair that drifts with sympathetic movement, two wide eyes, framed with coquettish false lashes, a bird’s beak, and two paws, Furby both suspends and confounds our disbelief. Following the principles of the Kindchenschema (Lorenz) to a “100% ratio” its body is reduced to a round form, its most dominant feature its large eyes (Borgi, Cogliati-Dezza, Brelsford Meints, and Cirulli). While large eyes generally are thought to have an affective pull to them (Harris 4), their fixed placement in the original Furby’s skull creates a dead-pan gaze, that morphs into a Kubrik stare as the toy tilts forward to greet the viewer. Fig. 4: Kindschenschema at work in Furby’s design Furby fans mischievously extend this hybridisation of Furby’s body further through a range of customisation practices. Through “skinning”, Furby’s faux fur surfaces are removed and replaced with a fantastic array of colours and textures. Through breaking into their mechatronic shell – a practice known as “shucking” – their parts are repaired or modified. This results in a range of delightfully queer, non-binary representations of Furby with a range of vibrant furs, piercings, and evocative twinkling and gentle eyes (“tee-wee-lah!”). These figures act as both avatars and as companions for fans. Sporting earrings and rainbow bead necklaces, they are photographed resting in grassy fields, soft crochet rainbows, and bookshelves: they are an expression of all that is joyful in the world. Some fans push the customisation further to create whimsical creatures from another dimension. Some Furbys appear with moss and lichen for fur, sprouting tiny toadstools. Furbys are also transformed into “oddbodies” of varying species. Some appear both as winged fairies, and as transcendental multi-eyed and winged “biblically accurate” angels. Others are hybridised with plush toys or are reworked into handbags. Some veer into the realm of body horror, using doll limbs and bodies to create humanoid forms. The most iconic is the “long furby”, created by Tumblr user FurbyFuzz in 2018. Elongated and insect-like, the Long Furby wriggles into homes and curls up on soft furnishings. Collectors gather “haunted photos from the dark recesses of the internet” to document their escapades (Long Furby). Sometimes, hybridised Furbys appear not through creator interventions but rather emerge from nature itself. One such mythical creature is Murby, an original Furby unearthed in 2013 on an old farm property. Once toy, now woodland spirit, Murby gazes upon and blesses fans with dreamy, clouded eyes, its body an entanglement of thick moss, rich earth and time. Furby’s queerness, strangeness, and hybridity speaks to fans in different ways. Personally, as a neurodivergent person, I experience the coding and the playful reimaginings of Furby as a reflection of my own life experience. Neurodivergent people have a high capacity for care and empathy for objects as curiosities, supports, and friends (e.g. Atherton and Cross; White and Remington; Clutterbuck, Shah and Livingston). Like Furby, I am an alien whom people want to tame. My body and movement are treated with the same infantilising bemusement and suspicion. I feel like a chimera myself; an entanglement of many parts that make a whole, each on their own charming, but together forming a chaotic attempt to connect with neurotypicals. For me, what lies beneath Furby’s surface is my own psyche; rescuing and customising Furbys is a symbolic act, a creative expression of my desire to transcend and resist ableist forces. Together my Furbys and I revel in our strangeness in solidarity, plotting our mischievous revenge (“party time!”). This micro-level resistance will not overturn ableism but brings me a sense of reprieve as I work with my allies to bring socio-cultural change. Fig. 5: The author, Furby Queen. Photo by Sherbet Birdie Photography. Through their creative work, fans explore how Furbys could be reimagined. While fannish activities may at first glance appear fringe or frivolous, they hold up a mirror to our own limitations, anxieties, and practices as a society. The future is Furby. Go to Sleep Now (U-nye-way-loh-nee-way): Conclusions As a source of technohorror and queer potential, Furby provides a vessel by which we can imagine the futures of toys. Through encounter and contact, this seemingly harmless fluffy robot brought about disruption and chaos as a threat to securities and social fabrics. Adult fans, now recalling this cultural moment, lean into this creature’s promise of new possibilities, queering its cultural narrative. Through exploring adults’ interactions with toys, we explore new potentials for change and futures that are playful and creative. Acknowledgments This article was produced with the support of a Vitalities Lab Scholarship and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society. I also thank Deborah Lupton and David Eastwood for their support in the production of an arts-based project that draws on this research into cyberpet histories. References Allison, Anne. Millennial Monsters: Japanese Toys and the Global Imagination. Berkeley: U of California P, 2006. Associated Press. “Two Injured in Flurry over Furby.” Charleston Daily Mail 28 Nov. 1998. Atherton, Gray, and Liam Cross. “Seeing More than Human: Autism and Anthropomorphic Theory of Mind.” Frontiers in Psychology 9 (2018): 1–18. Basky, Greg. “Furby Not Guilty as ‘Charged’.” The Western Journal of Medicine 172 (2000): 59. Beck, Rachel. “‘Must-Have’ Toys Created by Intense Publicity Campaigns.” AP Business Writer 16 Oct. 1998. Borgi, Marta, Irene Cogliati-Dezza, Victoria Brelsford, Kerstin Meints, and Francesca Cirulli. “Baby Schema in Human and Animal Faces Induces Cuteness Perception and Gaze Allocation in Children.” Frontiers in Psychology 5 (2014): 1–12. Borger, Julian. “Secret Agent Furby Sneaks into Spies’ Inner Sanctum.” The Guardian 14 Jan. 1999. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/14/julianborger1>. Bow, Leslie. Racist Love: Asian Abstraction and the Pleasures of Fantasy. Durham: Duke UP. Chesher, Chris. “Toy Robots on YouTube: Consumption and Peer Production at the Robotic Moment.” Convergence 25 (2019): 148–160. Clutterbuck, Rachel A., Punit Shah, and Lucy A. Livingston. “Anthropomorphic Tendencies in Autism: A Conceputal Replication and Extension of White and Remington (2019) and Preliminary Development of a Novel Anthropomorphism Measure.” Autism 26.4 (2021): 940–950. Computer Security. “Furby Alert: A National Security Concern?” Computer Security 36 (1999): 87–88. Davis, Pamela. “Too Cute to Mute?” St. Petersburg Times 9 Nov. 1998. Deahl, Dani. “Circuit Bending: Hacking a Furby in the Name of Music.” The Verge 14 Sep. 2018. Francescani, Christopher, and Tracy Connor. “Hot Toy’s a Doll Order; $30 Cuddlers Now Going for $100.” New York Post 29 Nov. 1998: 5. Freud, Sigmund. The Uncanny. Trans. D. McLintok. London: Penguin, 1919 [2003]. Gn, Joel. “Designing Affection: On the Curious Case of Machine Cuteness.” The Aesthetics and Affects of Cuteness. Eds. Joshua Paul Dale, Joyce Goggin, Julia Leyda, Anthony McIntyre, and Diane Negra. New York: Routledge, 2017. Gremlins. Dir. Joe Dante. Warner Bros, 1984. Gremlins 2. Dir. Joe Dante. Warner Bros, 1990. Guinness World Records. “First AI Robot Toy.” Guinness World Records, 2023. <https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/100867-first-ai-robot-toy>. Gullin, Paul. “The Future Is Furbys.” Computerworld 33 (1999): 30. Harris, David. Cute, Quaint, Hungry and Romantic: The Aesthetics of Consumerism. New York: Basic. Katsuno, Hirofumi, and Daniel White. “Haptic Creatures: Tactile Affect and Human-Robot Intimacy in Japan.” Consumer Culture Theory in Asia: History and Contemporary Issues. Eds. Yuko Minowa and Russell Belk. New York: Routledge. 242–262. Knowlton, Brian. “If Raggedy Ann Could Talk.” International Herald Tribune 9. Nov 1998. Long Furby. 2018. <https://www.longfurby.com/>. Lorenz, Konrad. “Die angeborenen Formen möglicher Erfahrung [The Innate Condition of the Possibility of Experience].” Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 5.2 (1943): 245–409. Lupton, Deborah, and Ben Williamson. “The Datafied Child: The Dataveillance of Children and Implications for Their Rights.” New Media & Society 19 (2017): 780–794. Marsh, Alison. “Coded for Cuteness.” IEE Spectrum 56.1 (2019): 60. Marsh, Jackie. “The Uncanny Valley Revisited: Play with the Internet of Toys.” The Internet of Toys: Practices, Affordances and the Political Economy of Children’s Smart Play. Eds. Giovanna Mascheroni and Donell Holloway. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. Milkaite, Ingrida, and Eva Lievens. “The Internet of Toys: Playing Games with Children’s Data?” The Internet of Toys: Practices, Affordances and the Political Economy of Children’s Smart Play. Eds. Giovanna Mascheroni and Donell Holloway. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. Lee, Wendy Allison. “Cute. Dangerous. Asian American. 'Gremlins' @ 35.” Public Books, 2019. <https://www.publicbooks.org/cute-dangerous-asian-american-gremlins-35/>. Lenton, Patrick. “Happy 25th Birthday Furby, the Toy That Stole a Generation’s Hearts.” Sydney Morning Herald 6 Apr. 2023. <https://www.smh.com.au/culture/comedy/happy-25th-birthday-furby-the-toy-that-stole-a-generation-s-hearts-20230403-p5cxoe.html>. The Mitchells vs. The Machines. Dir. Mike Rianda. Sony Pictures Animation, 2021 Munroe, Tony. “Fur Flies at Mass. Malls over Hasbro’s Furby Doll.” Reuters, 28 Nov. 1998. Ngai, Sianne. Our Aesthetic Categories: Zany, Cute, Interesting. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2012. Nishimura, Keiko. Communication Robot: Animating a Technological Solution in Twenty-First Century Japan. Dissertation. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2021. Phobe. Furby Autopsy, 1998. <http://www.phobe.com/furby/>. Powell, Daniel. Horror Culture in the New Millennium: Digital Dissonance and Technohorror. Washington, D.C.: Lexington, 2018. Ramalho, Maria Irene. “The Private Is Public or Furbies Are Us.” e-cadernos 27 (2017). <http://journals.openedition.org/eces/2199>. Rand, Erica. Barbie’s Queer Accessories. Carolina: Duke UP. Sale, Kirkpatrick. Rebels against the Future. London: Quartet Books, 1996. Silvio, Terry. “Animation: The New Performance.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 20: 422–438. Stevens, Carolyn. “Cute But Relaxed: Ten Years of Rilakkuma in Precarious Japan.” M/C Journal 17.2 (2014). <https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.783>. Stuck, Rachel E., and Wendy A. Rogers. “Older Adults Perceptions of Supporting Factors of Trust in a Robot Care Providers.” Journal of Robotics (2018): 6519713. The Sun. “Frisky Furby Fun.” 31 Dec. 1999. Tan, Kok-Swang, and Irwin Hinberg, “Furby Does Not Interfere with Medical Devices.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 161 (1999): 971. Tiffany, Kaitlyn. “Every Furby Gets a Home.” Vox, 21 Dec. 2018. <https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/12/21/18149004/furby-collectors-tumblr-vintage-robots-fandom>. Turkle, Sherry. “Authenticity in the Age of Digital Companions.” Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 8 (2007): 501–517. Turkle, Sherry. “A Nascent Robotics Culture: New Complicities for Companionship.” Machine Ethics and Robot Ethics. London: Routledge, 2017. Warmbir, Steve. “Mild Weather Draws Shoppers Out into the Sun. But Furby Frenzy Drives Desperate into Long Lines.” Chicago Daily Herald, 28 Nov. 1998: 4. Watson, Averie. “A Dark Furby Theory May Reveal Them as Flesh-Devouring Predators.” CBR, 20 Nov. 2021. <https://www.cbr.com/dark-furby-predator-theory/>. White, Rebecca, and Anna Remington. “Object Personification in Autism: This Paper Will Be Very Sad If You Don’t Read It.” Autism 23.4 (2018): 1042–1045. Williams, Al. “Mission Impossible: Infiltrating Furby.” Hackaday, 26 Nov. 2017. <https://hackaday.com/2017/11/26/mission-impossible-infiltrating-furby/>. Weeks, Linton. “The Great Furby Fuss.” The Washington Post, 24 Nov. 1998. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1998/11/24/the-great-furby-fuss/30a0a340-658a-4609-ae07-f38ff368c7c4/>. Yano, Christine. “Reach Out and Touch Someone: Thinking through Sanrio’s Social Communication Empire.” Japanese Studies 31.1 (2011): 23–36. Yorkshire Post. “Cyberpets – Harmless Fun or Addictive Craze?” 9 Nov. 1998: 9.