Countertransference as object of empirical research?

Abstract

The concept of countertransference as a robust cornerstone of psychoanalytic work has gained momentum over the last five decades. It is a prime example of elastic concepts covering the range from microprocesses to global clinical phenomena. Empirical research on the treatment process has for a long time – and for good reasons – avoided even trying to measure countertransference. We report here on various efforts for approaching a methodology for measuring it. The paper organizes the various approaches in terms of stages of research.     

But is it evolution…?

We applaud Müller & Schumann (M&S) for bringing needed attention to the problem of motivation for common non-addictive drug use, as opposed to the usual focus on exotic drugs and addiction. Unfortunately, their target article has many underdeveloped and sometimes contradictory ideas. Here, we will focus on three key issues.     

But is it Unique to Nanotechnology?

Attempts have been made to establish nanoethics as a new sub-discipline of applied ethics. The nature of this sub-discipline is discussed and some issues that should be subsumed under nanoethics are proposed. A distinction is made between those issue that may ensue once nanotechnology applications become available and procedural issues that should be integrated into the decision structure of the development. A second distinction relates to the central value of the ethical issue. The conditions for the ethical debate differ depending on whether the value(s) in question is internal to the technological development (i.e. health and safety) or external to it (i.e. privacy, equity etc).     

Conflict or harmony? Clinical research and the medical press in Russia

The author relates conditions for conducting clinical trials in Russia, current experiences of ethics committees, areas where conflicts of interest can occur regarding publishing the results of clinical trials in medical journals and the state of medical journalism in Russia today. An earlier version of this paper was presented at an International Conference on “Conflict of Interest and its Significance in Science and Medicine” held in Warsaw, Poland on 5–6 April, 2002. The author is a science editor of Meditsynskaya Gazeta.     

Who is buying bioethics research?

Growing ties to private industry have prompted many to question the impartiality of academic bioethicists who receive financial support from for-profit corporations in exchange for ethics-related services and research. To the extent that corporate sponsors may view bioethics as little more than a way to strengthen public relations or avoid potential controversy, close ties to industry may pose serious threats to professional independence. New sources of support from private industry may also divert bioethicists from pursuing topics of greater social importance, such as the needs of medically underserved communities. To inform ongoing debates about the financing of bioethics and its transparency to those concerned about potential sources of bias, we examined funding disclosures appearing in original research reports in major bioethics journals. Reviewing research published over a 15-year period, we found little evidence that for-profit corporations are influencing bioethics research directly. Instead, we found evidence that a great number of organizations, both public and private, support bioethics research. These findings suggest that worries about the cooption of bioethics research by a few interested stakeholders are greatly overstated and undersupported by available data.     

Spatial coding and central patterns: is there something special about the eyes?

In this study we investigated in a Simon-like task whether task-irrelevant spatial information, delivered by centrally presented patterns, interfered with response selection in the same way as laterally presented stimuli. Second, we asked whether such interference was equal for different kinds of stimuli. Participants were required to respond to the colour of two framed squares, two arrows, or two schematic eyes by pressing one of two lateralized response keys. The results consistently show that the Simon effect occurs independently of the nature of the stimulus, as classically reported for lateralized stimuli. Response times were influenced by the direction and frame-relative position of the stimuli, being faster for responses corresponding to the direction indicated by the stimuli than for noncorresponding responses regardless of stimulus types. Contrary to findings with lateralized nondirectional stimuli, such an effect increased with increasing RTs indicating that for centrally presented patterns the extraction of spatial information is time consuming.     

Is that all there is?

I take issue with two suggestions of Joel Feinberg's: first, that it is incoherent to suppose that human life as such is absurd, and, second, that a particular human life may be absurd and yet saved from being tragic by being fulfilled. I also argue that human life as such may well be absurd and I consider various responses to this.     

Four observations about “six domains of research ethics”

Stimulated by Kenneth Pimple's "Six Domains of Research Ethic", this paper examines four aspects of the responsible conduct of research and scientists' social responsibilities. I argue that scholars and decision-makers concerned with the responsible conduct of research should take notice of the rapidly growing body of scholarship on the social organization of science and the behavior of scientists, integrating that work with ethical principles. Of particular concern are the increasing heterogeneity and interdisciplinary of research, the ambivalences in the practice of peer review, the social tensions of research life, and the heightened concern for social and economic returns from federal research investments. In all, the paper echoes and develops Pimple's call for integrative thinking about the responsible conduct of research.     

What is top-down about contingent capture?

In the present study, we explored the mechanisms involved in the contingent capture phenomenon, using a variant of the classic precuing paradigm of Folk, Remington, and Johnston (1992). Rather than keeping the target fixed over a whole block of trials (as has traditionally been done with contingent capture experiments), we encouraged participants to adopt a top-down set before each trial. If top-down attentional set determines which property captures attention, as is claimed by the contingent capture hypothesis, one would expect that only properties that match the top-down set would capture attention. We showed that even though participants knew what the target would be on the upcoming trial, both relevant and irrelevant properties captured attention (Experiment 1). An intertrial analysis (Experiments 1 and 2) showed that previous contingent capture findings may, to a large extent, be explained by intertrial priming. In addition, when participants were further forced into adopting the required top-down set (Experiments 3 and 4), irrelevant cues were suppressed, suggesting that top-down control might operate through disengagement of attention from the location of a property that does not match top-down goals. The present findings suggest that top-down control and intertrial priming make their own distinct contributions to the contingent capture phenomenon.