The Ethics of Academic Journal Editing

This paper amounts to a reply to Professor Donald G. Brown’s thoughtful comment on my “Ethical Issues in Journal Peer-Review”, which appeared in this journal.

Moral Integrity and Academic Research

This paper focuses on some moral issues in academic journal publishing, from the standpoints of Publishers, editors, referees and authors.     

Offensiphobia

This essay provides a critical philosophical assessment of “offensiphobia,” which is the belief that higher educational academic freedom ought to be to some important extent censured because of the mere offensiveness of certain kinds of expressions, whether those expressions are perceived as being racist, sexist, etc., effectively holding that the offensiveness of such expressions is a sufficient condition to justify its prohibition. This paper concisely sets forth the general legal parameters of the United States constitutional First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Subsequently, it follows Joel Feinberg in distinguishing between harms and offenses and explains why the law should only protect against harms and not mere offenses (e.g., language which offends but does not harm). Following this, logical and moral considerations (some based on considerations of philosophy of language) are brought to bear in order to further assess the implicitly supporting view of offensiphobia that faculty and students in higher educational contexts have a claim right to not be offended correlated with a duty of others to not offend them. For example, the use-mention distinction is discussed in order to explain why linguistic intent is crucial for the determination of what genuinely counts as being racist, sexist or otherwise offensive discourse. In the end, there are a variety of reasons for thinking that there is no moral right to not be offended correlated with a moral duty of others to not offend in higher educational contexts and that the law and public policy ought to track this fact. Without a right to not be offended, those who seek to curtail higher educational academic freedom rights by way of censorship stand on unreasonable ethical grounds to do so, though the law seems to permit private institutions to delimit offensive expressions. Offensiphobia ought to be rejected as it is unsupported by the balance of reason.     

Aberrant learning and memory in addiction

Over the past several years, drug addiction has increasingly been accepted to be a disease of the brain as opposed to simply being due to a lack of willpower or personality flaw. Exposure to addictive substances has been shown to create enduring changes in brain structure and function that are thought to underlie the transition to addiction. Specific genetic and environmental vulnerability factors also influence the impact of drugs of abuse on the brain and can enhance the likelihood of becoming an addict. Long-lasting alterations in brain function have been found in neural circuits that are known to be responsible for normal appetitive learning and memory processes and it has been hypothesized that drugs of abuse enhance positive learning and memory about the drug while inhibiting learning about the negative consequences of drug use. Therefore, the addict's behavior becomes increasingly directed towards obtaining and using drugs of abuse, while at the same time developing a poorer ability to stop using, even when the drug is less rewarding or interferes with functioning in other facets of life. In this review we will discuss the clinical evidence that addicted individuals have altered learning and memory and describe the possible neural substrates of this dysfunction. In addition, we will explore the pre-clinical evidence that drugs of abuse cause a progressive disorder of learning and memory, review the molecular and neurobiological changes that may underlie this disorder, determine the genetic and environmental factors that may increase vulnerability to addiction, and suggest potential strategies for treating addiction through manipulations of learning and memory.     

Should inter-collegiate football be eliminated? Assessing the arguments philosophically

Recently, there have been discussions about whether or not inter-collegiate football should be eliminated in the US. This article philosophically assesses the arguments for its elimination as well as the arguments proffered against its elimination. While a variety of arguments are discussed, a new one is brought into the foray of philosophical investigation, one that combines the unfairness and economic arguments: the health care and medical costs to others argument. It is believed that this argument is sufficient to justify the elimination of inter-collegiate football.