Children's capacity to agree to psychological research: knowledge of risks and benefits and voluntariness

A series of studies investigated the capacity of children between the ages of 7 and 12 to give free and informed consent to participation in psychological research. Children were reasonably accurate in describing the purpose of studies, but many did not understand the possible benefits or especially the possible risks of participating. In several studies children's consent was not affected by the knowledge that their parents had given their permission or by the parents saying that they would not be upset if the children refused. In contrast, other studies found that children were much more likely to stop their participation if the experimenter said explicitly that she would not be upset if they stopped. We suggest that experimenters should pay more attention to describing the possible risks and benefits of participation in research, and that they should also make it clearer to children that they are free to stop once they have begun.     

Distributive justice and the minnesota health access initiative

As I have suggested, from the perspective of distributive justice MinnesotaCare's reforms are inadequate. But to coin (and alter slightly) a phrase of Kant's, if its authors do not deserve our moral esteem, perhaps they do merit our encouragement, and it is on a note of the latter that I will conclude. MinnesotaCare is an experiment in systemic incremental change being performed in a complex health care system, the only true laboratory for such an experiment. For this reason, it will provide us important information concerning the ethics, economics, [and] the politics of health care reform while improving the position of some Minnesotans in a significant way. Thus, while MinnesotaCare is susceptible to forceful moral criticism, as an experiment in reform it holds out the promise of providing us some of the data necessary for discovering a just solution.     

方法优势与方法的非统一性

自本世纪60年代以来,理论选择的不一致问题吸引了许多探讨科学变革理论的理论家们(如库恩、图尔明、费耶阿本德、夏皮尔、劳丹等)。此问题源于科学家们对于相互竞争的理论的认知价值经常有、而且长期存在着不一致的看法。除了有这种分歧以外,理论争论的不同阵营的科学家们还一次又一次地(而且依然继续地)为他们的理论选择提出不同的理由。以前的实证主义科学哲学家们对方法的统一性假说如此深信不疑,以至对于科学家在选择理论时的不一致,或科学家面对更成功的具有竞争性的理论时追求新生的理论这类现象潜在的合理性,很难作出说明。