Who owns the data in a clinical trial?

Data gathered by investigators are used to test the validity of a specific scientific hypothesis. When the hypothesis relates to the biology of a disease or its treatment, then data sets may contain specific and identifiable medical information. Since the information in a clinical data set was gathered to test a specific hypothesis and there is usually a sponsor interested in the outcome, the issue of who owns the data is a critical one. In my opinion, data from both publicly and privately funded research should be made available, in a format that protects confidentiality and intellectual property rights, to interested and responsible parties within a reasonable period of time after publication. 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. J. M. Drazen is Editor-in-Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine and Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.     

Peas in a pod: biases in the measurement of sibling temperament?

The authors of the present study addressed the measurement of temperament by examining the convergence between observational and questionnaire measures and the occurrence of contrast effects in parental ratings of non-twin siblings on the Children's Behavior Questionnaire. Fathers', mothers', and observers' ratings of 94 early-school-age sibling pairs were obtained longitudinally such that siblings were rated at the same time and when they were the same ages. Convergence between laboratory observations and questionnaires was generally modest to moderate for shyness and activity level; low to modest for positive emotionality, fear, and interest; and low for anger and sadness. We found some evidence of contrast effects for activity level and fathers' ratings of shyness and of assimilation effects for anger and sadness. The results highlight the complexity of measuring temperament and suggest that rater biases should be evaluated according to the measurement instrument used.     

Does Cooperation in the Laboratory Reflect the Operation of a Broad Trait?

The Dictator Game, a face valid measure of altruism, and the Trust Game, a face valid measure of trust and trustworthiness, are among the most widely used behavioural measures in human cooperation research. Researchers have observed considerable covariation among these and other economic games, leading them to assert that there exists a general human propensity to cooperate that varies in strength across individuals and manifests itself across a variety of social settings. To formalize this hypothesis, we created an S‐1 bifactor model using 276 participants' Dictator Game and Trust Game decisions. The general factor had significant, moderate associations with self‐reported and peer‐reported altruism, trust, and trustworthiness. Thus, the positive covariation among economic games is not reducible to the games' shared situational features. Two hundred participants returned for a second session. The general factor based on Dictator Game and Trust Game decisions from this session did not significantly predict self‐reported and peer‐reported cooperation, suggesting that experience with economic games causes them to measure different traits from those that are reflected in self‐assessments and peer‐assessments of cooperativeness. © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology     

Is there still a cognitive cost of being a twin in the UK?

ObjectiveTo investigate whether twins still perform below singletons in cognitive ability tests and in national educational attainment examinations in a recent UK cohort of 11-year-olds.DesignPopulation-based cohort study, using a validated method of twin extraction.SettingEnglish state schools.Participants178,599 pupils (mean age 11 years) attending English state schools in 2004, representing 93% of local educational authorities.Main outcome measuresVerbal, quantitative and nonverbal reasoning measured by the Cognitive Abilities Test — Third Edition (CAT3), and educational attainment in English, maths and science from Key Stage 2 national curriculum tests.ResultsTwin-singleton differences in cognitive ability were of negligible effect size. Mean performance of twins was 1% of a SD below singletons on general cognitive ability, 3% lower on verbal reasoning, and less than 1% of a SD lower on quantitative and nonverbal reasoning, with and without adjustment for sex. Almost identical proportions of twins and singletons attained the expected standards of educational performance in English (80.4% versus 80.5%, respectively), maths (77.4% versus 77.3%), and science (90.1% versus 88.8%). There were no differences in rates of twins and singletons achieving higher or lower performance levels.ConclusionThe cognitive cost of being a twin reported in previous cohorts of UK children no longer exists in a large, contemporary and population-representative sample.     

Do the Weak Stand a Chance? Distribution of Resources in a Competitive Environment

When two agents of unequal strength compete, the stronger one is expected to always win the competition. This expectation is based on the assumption that evaluation of performance is complete, hence flawless. If, however, the agents are evaluated on the basis of only a small sample of their performance, the weaker agent still stands a chance of winning occasionally. A theoretical analysis indicates that, to increase the chance of this happening the weaker agent ought to give up on enough occasions so that he or she can match the stronger agent on the remaining ones. We model such a competition in a game, present its game-theoretic solution, and report an experiment, involving 144 individuals, in which we tested whether players (both weak and strong) are actually sensitive to their relative strengths and know how to allocate their resources accordingly. Our results indicate that they do.     

Just a Cog in the Machine? The Individual Responsibility of Researchers in Nanotechnology is a Duty to Collectivize

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) provides a framework for judging the ethical qualities of innovation processes, however guidance for researchers on how to implement such practices is limited. Exploring RRI in the context of nanotechnology, this paper examines how the dispersed and interdisciplinary nature of the nanotechnology field somewhat hampers the abilities of individual researchers to control the innovation process. The ad-hoc nature of the field of nanotechnology, with its fluid boundaries and elusive membership, has thus far failed to establish a strong collective agent, such as a professional organization, through which researchers could collectively steer technological development in light of social and environmental needs. In this case, individual researchers cannot innovate responsibly purely by themselves, but there is also no structural framework to ensure that responsible development of nanotechnologies takes place. We argue that, in such a case, individual researchers have a duty to collectivize. In short, researchers in situations where it is challenging for individual agents to achieve the goals of RRI are compelled to develop organizations to facilitate RRI. In this paper we establish and discuss the criteria under which individual researchers have this duty to collectivize.     

The Rôle of the Acquired Distinctiveness of Cues in the Acquisition of a Motor Skill in Children

The fears of 133 boys and girls aged 7 to 19, classified as educable mentally retarded (EMR), trainable mentally retarded (TMR), and specific learning disabled (SLD), were ascertained through self-report data and compared with those of 106 normal children aged 6 to 12. Similar developmental trends were found in all groups, with younger children reporting more unrealistic fears than older children. When mental age was calculated for the EMR and TMR children, their developmental trends closely approximated those of the normal children. In general, exceptional children were found to have a much wider range and a greater number of fears than normal children. Most fears were found to be realistic, learned, and dependent upon the child's intellectual and maturational level.     

Alpha and the gay issue: a lesson in homophobia?

The Alpha course is possibly the most widespread and best‐known evangelizing initiative of recent times. Billing itself as an introduction into ‘basic Christianity’, Alpha is a programme that has been adopted worldwide by tens of thousands of churches. This paper overviews Alpha’s attitude towards one of the most controversial debates in the Church today, the so‐called ‘gay issue’. The paper, largely based on literature research and a national survey, will explore the broad controversy in the churches and argue that how it is approached through the Alpha programme provides an insight into contemporary views in Christian constituencies.     

Therapists’ Perspectives of the Cotherapy Experience in a Training Setting

The experience of cotherapy has been sparsely addressed in the literature. This qualitative study’s goals were to explore (a) the usefulness of cotherapy as a training model (b) the impact of cotherapy on services provided; (c) the impact of being trained in a cotherapy model; and (d) factors that both facilitated and hindered the process of cotherapy. The authors conducted a focus group interview with seven participants who graduated from a COAMFTE accredited MFT master’s program. Participants unanimously reported they believed cotherapy impacted client outcomes and training. They also expressed that cotherapists’ unwillingness to address issues within the cotherapy team negatively impacted the cotherapy relationship and client outcomes. Data analysis yielded four main themes, including cotherapy as a vehicle for personal growth, accountability in the cotherapy relationship, need for safety in the cotherapy relationship, and cotherapy team’s need for supervision.     

Does a cognitive map guide choices in the radial-arm maze?

Fifteen rats performed in a standard radial-arm maze task (Experiment 1) and in a modified task with a set of forced choices and a 15-min retention interval prior to completion of the maze (Experiment 2). In addition to the standard measure of choice in the radial-arm maze, orientation toward arms was measured and considered to constitute go-no-go "microchoice" decisions. Rats investigated but rejected many arms. A model of choice was developed in which it was assumed that choice decisions about arms were made independently and that microchoices were not selectively guided toward baited arms. The model performed nearly as well as the rats. These results place important limitations on the theory that choice behavior in the radial-arm maze is guided by a cognitive map.     

Being a Traveller—On Traversing the Self-Process in Qualitative Research

This paper addresses certain key questions about researching in psychology from a qualitative perspective. It debates the question of certainty versus variability—are truths fixed and universal or is there something beyond immortal, objective facts? The question of sharability versus particularity is raised—is the complete picture explained by generalisations or does one view the psychological landscape in a way that highlights the difference? The question of objectivity versus subjectivity is dwelled upon—should the researcher be a detached, neutral observer of the Other or should she let her subjectivity flow freely in the researching process? And finally, the question of neutrality versus positionality is examined—does reality come into focus only if the researcher stands at a certain distance or would her lens blur if she stands too close? Through engagement with these questions, the researcher, akin to a traveller who meanders across a littered landscape, attempts to traverse personal territories in the search of truths of human knowledge. The paper also delves into some of the unsettling aspects of qualitative research.     

Income and Wellbeing in a Society on the Verge to Market Integration: The Case of the Tsimane’ in the Bolivian Amazon

Based on findings from prior research on the relation between monetary income and subjective wellbeing, researchers have argued that income might relate to subjective wellbeing only until reaching a consumption satiation point where all basic needs are met; beyond this threshold income would not increase wellbeing. We explore this idea by analyzing a panel data set (2002–2010) collected among 982 Tsimane’, a society of largely self-sufficient foragers and farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. Subjective wellbeing is measured through four self-reported emotions: happiness, anger, fear, and sadness. As Tsimane’ mostly satisfy their basic needs through subsistence activities, if the argument above holds true, then we should not find any association between income and subjective wellbeing. Results from ordered logistic regressions suggest, however, that—even in this relatively autarkic society—income bears a positive relation with happiness and fear, although it does not seem to be associated with sadness and anger. The magnitude of the income coefficients is small compared to the variables that proxy success in subsistence activities and frequency of social interactions. In the studied society, the relation between income and happiness is likely caused by socio-psychological effects, like status gains, and not by the acquisition of material goods. In a context where wellbeing is mostly derived from success in subsistence activities and social relations, if the pursuit of income generating activities deprives individuals from devoting time to these, then income might, in fact come at a cost in terms of subjective wellbeing.     

Is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush? Or,whether scientists should publish intermediate results

A part of the scientific literature consists of intermediate results within a longer project. Scientists often publish a first result in the course of their work, while aware that they should soon achieve a more advanced result from this preliminary result. Should they follow the proverb “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”, and publish any intermediate result they get? This is the normative question addressed in this paper. My aim is to clarify, to refine, and to assess informal arguments about the choice whether to publish intermediate results. To this end, I adopt a rational decision framework, supposing some utility or preferences, and I propose a formal model. The best publishing strategy turns out to depend on the research situation. In some simple circumstances, even selfish and short-minded scientists should publish their intermediate results, and should thus behave like their altruistic peers, i. e. like society would like them to behave. In other research situations, with inhomogeneous reward or difficulty profiles, the best strategy is opposite. These results suggest qualified philosophical morals.