Are the Votes of Ethics Committees in Germany for the Protection of Clinical Study Trial Subjects “Sovereign Acts?”

A sudden paradigm shift has resulted in governmental measures that greatly impact the scope in which the ethics committees in Germany can perform their task of providing expert opinions for clinical research. The so-called “revaluation” of the Medical Device Law Deutsches Medizinproduktegesetz—MPG) is, in our opinion, not based on sound political and professional judgment. In accordance with the changed regulations, ethics committees are now seen as being sub-organs of the state medical associations or the medical faculties and are therefore official authorities. It follows that the votes of ethics committees are then “sovereign acts” or authoritative measures! However, equality and justice speak against this misleading conclusion and its resulting consequence that an ethics committee’s vote is a sovereign act. This has, in turn, resulted in the public ethics committees obtaining their long-sought goal of having a state-sanctioned monopoly. The private ethics committees are not recognized as being authoritative bodies, nor are they to be seen as such in the future (i.e. such a status has been denied the Freiburg Ethics Commission International (FEKI) in Baden-Württemberg). This political mistake must be corrected, otherwise, conducting clinical research will become increasingly difficult.     

Kongresskalender

Kongresskalender

Kongresskalender     

Further experiments on probability-matching in the pigeon

In a discrete-trials, two-key choice situation, probability-learning by pigeons was studied under a variety of training conditions. Matching was found in simultaneous and in successive problems, but a spatial problem produced only maximizing. In the simultaneous problem, noncorrection produced maximizing, while correction produced matching. Guidance produced maximizing when the animals were required to earn each opportunity for choice by pecking a center key on FR-5, but matching when the center key was not used. In a discrete-trials one-key situation, with latency as the measure, frequency and probability of reinforcement were varied independently. Differences in probability produced differences in latency of response, but differences in frequency did not.     

How Accurate Are National Stereotypes? A Test of Different Methodological Approaches

We compared different methodological approaches in research on the accuracy of national stereotypes that use aggregated mean scores of real people's personality traits as criteria for stereotype accuracy. Our sample comprised 16,713 participants from the Central Europe and 1,090 participants from the Baltic Sea region. Participants rated national stereotypes of their own country using the National Character Survey (NCS) and their personality traits using either the Revised NEO Personality Inventory or the NCS. We examined the effects of different (i) methods for rating of real people (Revised NEO Personality Inventory vs. NCS) and national stereotypes (NCS); (ii) norms for converting raw scores into T‐scores (Russian vs. international norms); and (iii) correlation techniques (intraclass correlations vs. Pearson correlations vs. rank‐order correlations) on the resulting agreement between the ratings of national stereotypes and real people. We showed that the accuracy of national stereotypes depended on the employed methodology. The accuracy was the highest when ratings of real people and national stereotypes were made using the same method and when rank order correlations were used to estimate the agreement between national stereotypes and personality profiles of real people. We propose a new statistical procedure for determining national stereotype accuracy that overcomes limitations of past studies. We provide methodological recommendations applicable to a wider range of cross national stereotype accuracy studies. Copyright © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology     

Beziehungen zwischen Inhalt und Umfang von Begriffen

Ohne Zusammenfassung