Research Participants’ Preferences for Hypothetical Secondary Results from Genomic Research

Secondary or incidental results can be identified in genomic research that increasingly uses whole exome/genome sequencing. Understanding research participants’ preferences for secondary results and what influences these decisions is important for patient education, counseling, and consent, and for the development of policies regarding return of secondary results. Two hundred nineteen research participants enrolled in genomic studies were surveyed regarding hypothetical preferences for specific types of secondary results, and these preferences were correlated with demographic information and psychosocial data. The majority of research participants (73%) indicated a preference to learn about all results offered, with no clear pattern regarding which results were not desired by the remaining participants. Participants who reported greater interest in genetic privacy were less likely to indicate a preference to learn all results, as were individuals who self-identified as Jewish. Although most research participants preferred to receive all secondary results offered, a significant subset preferred to exclude some results, suggesting that an all-or-none policy would not be ideal for all participants. The correlations between preferences to receive secondary results, religious identification, and privacy concerns demonstrate the need for culturally sensitive counseling and educational materials accessible to all education levels to allow participants to make the best choices for themselves.     

What Values in Design? The Challenge of Incorporating Moral Values into Design

Recently, there is increased attention to the integration of moral values into the conception, design, and development of emerging IT. The most reviewed approach for this purpose in ethics and technology so far is Value-Sensitive Design (VSD). This article considers VSD as the prime candidate for implementing normative considerations into design. Its methodology is considered from a conceptual, analytical, normative perspective. The focus here is on the suitability of VSD for integrating moral values into the design of technologies in a way that joins in with an analytical perspective on ethics of technology. Despite its promising character, it turns out that VSD falls short in several respects: (1) VSD does not have a clear methodology for identifying stakeholders, (2) the integration of empirical methods with conceptual research within the methodology of VSD is obscure, (3) VSD runs the risk of committing the naturalistic fallacy when using empirical knowledge for implementing values in design, (4) the concept of values, as well as their realization, is left undetermined and (5) VSD lacks a complimentary or explicit ethical theory for dealing with value trade-offs. For the normative evaluation of a technology, I claim that an explicit and justified ethical starting point or principle is required. Moreover, explicit attention should be given to the value aims and assumptions of a particular design. The criteria of adequacy for such an approach or methodology follow from the evaluation of VSD as the prime candidate for implementing moral values in design.     

Who Reads Outcome Research?

To explore patterns of outcome research consumption, we conducted a national survey of 313 family therapists currently practicing in the United States. Participants were asked about their reading practices, as well as about attitudes toward and barriers to reading marriage/couple and family therapy (M/CFT) outcome research. Results suggest that most therapists perceive outcome research as at least somewhat important. However, they spend relatively little time reading it: The average is 1.7?h per month. Therapist-identified barriers to reading outcome research articles include access, applicability, quality of writing, and quality of research. Recommendations for addressing some of these barriers are offered.     

Darwin, Design and Dawkins’ Dilemma

Richard Dawkins has a dilemma when it comes to design arguments. On the one hand, he maintains that it was Darwin who killed off design and so implies that his rejection of design depends upon the findings of modern science. On the other hand, he follows Hume when he claims that appealing to a designer does not explain anything and so implies that rejection of design need not be based on the findings of modern science. These contrasting approaches lead to the following dilemma: if he claims that Darwinism is necessary for rejecting design, he has no satisfactory response to design arguments based on the order in the laws of physics or the fine-tuning of the physical constants; alternatively, if Humean arguments are doing most of the work, this would undermine one of his main contentions, that atheism is justified by science and especially by evolution. In any case, his Humean arguments do not provide a more secure basis for his atheism because they are seriously flawed. A particular problem is that his argument for the improbability of theism rests on a highly questionable application of probability theory since, even if it were sound, it would only establish that the prior probability of God’s existence is low, a conclusion which is compatible with the posterior probability of God’s existence being high.     

Working with Research Integrity—Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement

This document presents the Bonn PRINTEGER Consensus Statement: Working with Research Integrity—Guidance for research performing organisations. The aim of the statement is to complement existing instruments by focusing specifically on institutional responsibilities for strengthening integrity. It takes into account the daily challenges and organisational contexts of most researchers. The statement intends to make research integrity challenges recognisable from the work-floor perspective, providing concrete advice on organisational measures to strengthen integrity. The statement, which was concluded February 7th 2018, provides guidance on the following key issues:

1. § 1.
   Providing information about research integrity
    
2. § 2.
   Providing education, training and mentoring
    
3. § 3.
   Strengthening a research integrity culture
    
4. § 4.
   Facilitating open dialogue
    
5. § 5.
   Wise incentive management
    
6. § 6.
   Implementing quality assurance procedures
    
7. § 7.
   Improving the work environment and work satisfaction
    
8. § 8.
   Increasing transparency of misconduct cases
    
9. § 9.
   Opening up research
    
10. § 10.
    Implementing safe and effective whistle-blowing channels
     
11. § 11.
    Protecting the alleged perpetrators
     
12. § 12.
    Establishing a research integrity committee and appointing an ombudsperson
     
13. § 13.
    Making explicit the applicable standards for research integrity
     

     

Is Educational Research Any Use?

We begin by examining the widespread scepticism about the value of empirical educational research that is found within sections of the philosophy of education community. We argue that this scepticism, in its strongest form, is incoherent as it suggests that there are no educational facts susceptible of discovery. On the other hand, if there are such facts, then commonsense is not an adequate way of accessing them, due to its own contested and variable nature. We go on to examine the claim that teaching is a moral enterprise whose successful pursuit demands the grasp of moral concepts and their implications. We show that while this is the case, it is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for successful teaching, which also requires a grasp of facts that are relevant to effective teaching and learning. Finally we examine some protocols for educational research. John Gingell, John Gingell is head of philosophy programmes at the University of Northampton, UK. He is the author, with Ed Brandon, of ‘In Defence of High Culture’ (Blackwell 2000) and (with Christopher Winch) ‘Philosophy and Education Policy: a critical introduction’ (Routledge 2004). Christopher Winch teaches at King’s College, London, UK. He is the author of ‘The Philosophy of Human Learning’ (Routledge 1998) and ‘Education, Autonomy and Critical Thinking’ (Routledge, forthcoming, 2005).     

Do Research Intermediaries Reduce Perceived Coercion to Enter Research Trials Among Criminally Involved Substance Abusers?

We examined the efficacy of including a research intermediary (RI) during the consent process in reducing participants' perceptions of coercion to enroll in a research study. Eighty-four drug court clients being recruited into an ongoing study were randomized to receive a standard informed consent process alone (standard condition) or with an RI (intermediary condition). Before obtaining consent, RIs met with clients individually to discuss remaining concerns. Findings provided preliminary evidence that RIs reduced client perceptions that their participation might influence how clinical and judicial staff view them. This suggests that using RIs may improve participant autonomy in clinical studies.     

Do Research Intermediaries Reduce Perceived Coercion to Enter Research Trials Among Criminally Involved Substance Abusers?

We examined the efficacy of including a research intermediary (RI) during the consent process in reducing participants' perceptions of coercion to enroll in a research study. Eighty-four drug court clients being recruited into an ongoing study were randomized to receive a standard informed consent process alone (standard condition) or with an RI (intermediary condition). Before obtaining consent, RIs met with clients individually to discuss remaining concerns. Findings provided preliminary evidence that RIs reduced client perceptions that their participation might influence how clinical and judicial staff view them. This suggests that using RIs may improve participant autonomy in clinical studies.     

A Review of Single-Case Research in Sport Psychology 1997–2012: Research Trends and Future Directions

Single-case research methods are an important facet of applied sport psychology because they provide a framework for researchers and practitioners to outline intervention effects across time with individuals or groups. This paper reviews the research published since Hrycaiko and Martin's (1996) milestone overview of single-case research in sport psychology. Specifically, we examined the literature between 1997 and 2012 and located 66 studies that met our inclusion criteria of assessing interventions in sport psychology. The review summarizes the body of research, outlines trends, considers the limitations of the extant literature, and identifies areas that require further investigation for future single-case research.     

Design Match 2008持续一年的中欧盛大展览

Design Match 2008这个被期待已久的设计盛事于2008年3月在捷克的布拉格国家展厅拉开了举办的序幕。这是该项活动第二次举办,第一次举办还是2006年的事情。这个将持续一年,游走4个国家的展览竞赛非常特别的一点就是它将展出包括捷克、斯洛伐     

Research Ethics Board (REB) Members’ Preparation for,and Perceived Knowledge of Research Ethics

The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) was first developed to establish a standard of practice in research ethics by the three federal agencies responsible for funding institutional research in Canada: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). In 2010, a second edition of the policy, known as the TCPS 2, was released with updated information and expanded coverage of research ethics issues. According to the TCPS 2, the Agencies’ mandate is “to promote research that is conducted according to the highest ethical standards,” and the TCPS 2 serves as a benchmark for this with respect for human dignity as its underlying value. Research institutions receiving Agency funding are to comply with this policy statement by forming Research Ethics Boards (REBs) to review all research involving human participants. The intention behind this review requirement is to provide a proportionate assessment of the benefit-to-risk ratio of the research, and in that process, to safeguard “respect for persons”, express a “concern for welfare”, and uphold “justice” (CIHR, SSHRC, NSERC 2010, p. 8). Research may not proceed until ethics approval is granted by an institution’s REB. The current study evaluates REB members’ perspectives on their knowledge of research ethics, and juxtaposes these perceptions with those of researchers. Specifically, we are interested in the extent to which REB members with less experience read the TCPS 2, and whether those with less experience have decreased confidence in their ethics knowledge.     

Responsible Research: What is Expected?

"Responsible research" and "good science" are concepts with various meanings depending on one's perspective and assumptions. Fellow researchers, research participants, policy makers and the general public also have differing expectations of the benefits of research ranging from accurate and reliable data that extend the body of knowledge, to solutions to societal concerns. Unless these differing constituencies articulate their differing views they may fail to communicate and undermine the value of research to society.     

Scientific Research–Who Should Govern?

I argue that the title question needs to be taken seriously because there are important questions about how the scientific agenda should be set. Natural answers to the question – declarations of the proper autonomy of science or expressions of faith in market forces – are found inadequate. Instead, I propose a form of democracy with respect to scientific research that will avoid the obvious dangers of a tyranny of ignorance. I conclude with some modest proposals about how the ideal of a democratic science might be implemented and with a response to common objections.

Marital and Family Therapist’s Action Research in Light of Some Research Problems: A One-Cycle Example

Some major problems in marital and family therapy (MFT) research remain evident. Practitioners often see research as insufficiently related to their concerns and want it to be more applicable. Often-used integrative (or eclectic) practices in MFT and their idiographic nature make the applicability of research even more problematic. Greater use of action research, which often has been overlooked in MFT, could be useful for addressing some of these problems. There are many types of action research; one of the most common uses repeating cycles of the four basic steps (observing and gathering information, reflecting, planning, and acting). In this article the authors’ use of these four steps for studying MFT is presented and discussed in the light of some research trends and problems. A one-cycle case example is used to illustrate the process.