Regulation of Peripheral Catecholamine Responses to Acute Stress in Young Adult and Aged F-344 Rats

Young adult (3-month-old) and aged (24-month-old) Fischer-344 male rats received i.v. infusions of 3H-labeled norepinephrine (NE) and epinephrine (EPI) to examine the effects of aging on the neuronal uptake of NE and sympathoadrenal release of NE and EPI. Spillovers of NE and EPI into plasma and their clearance from the circulation were estimated from plasma concentrations of endogenous and 3H-labeled NE and EPI. The efficiency of neuronal uptake was assessed from changes in plasma clearance of NE and concentrations of its intraneuronal metabolite, dihydroxyphenylglycol (DHPG), during immobilization stress or neuronal uptake blockade with desipramine. Stress-induced increases in plasma NE and higher plasma NE concentrations in aged compared to young adult rats were due to both decreases in NE clearance and increases in NE spillover. EPI spillover and clearance were reduced in aged compared to young adult rats, so that plasma EPI levels did not differ between groups. Young adult and aged rats had similar desipramine-induced decreases in NE clearance, whereas desipramine-sensitive decreases and stress-induced increases in plasma DHPG were larger in aged rats. This indicates that neuronal uptake is intact and that increased NE spillover at rest and during stress in aged rats reflects increased NE release from sympathetic nerves. The results show that aging is associated with divergent decreases in EPI release from the adrenal medulla and increases in NE release from sympathetic nerves. Increased plasma concentrations of NE in aged compared to young adult rats also result from decreased circulatory clearance of NE, but this does not reflect any age-related impairment of NE reuptake.     

Intervention in Creativity With Children Aged 10 and 11 Years: Impact of a Play Program on Verbal and Graphic–Figural Creativity

The three way links between creativity, mental illness and synaesthesia have been rarely investigated empirically, despite anecdotal evidence and the insights into creativity such relationships may uncover. The extent to which creativity is predicted by obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and synaesthesia was explored. 210 participants completed a survey measuring the three variables. Statistically significant, moderate effect sizes were found for all pairs of scale correlations when using a proposed ‘Creative Absorption’ (CA) measure as the indication of creativity. Despite all three variables being significantly correlated with each other, and both OCD and synaesthesia being significant predictors of CA, synaesthesia and creativity displayed the strongest relationship.     

Debriefing and accountability in deceptive research

Debriefing is a standard ethical requirement for human research involving the use of deception. Little systematic attention, however, has been devoted to explaining the ethical significance of debriefing and the specific ethical functions that it serves. In this article, we develop an account of debriefing as a tool of moral accountability for the prima facie wrong of deception. Specifically, we contend that debriefing should include a responsibility to promote transparency by explaining the deception and its rationale, to provide an apology to subjects for infringing the principle of respect for persons, and to offer subjects an opportunity to withdraw their data. We also present recommendations concerning the discussion of deception in scientific articles reporting the results of research using deception.     

A framework for risk-benefit evaluations in biomedical research

Essentially all guidelines and regulations require that biomedical research studies have an acceptable risk-benefit profile. However, these documents offer little concrete guidance for implementing this requirement and determining when it is satisfied. As a result, those charged with risk-benefit evaluations currently assess the risk-benefit profile of biomedical research studies in unsystematic ways, raising concern that some research participants are not being protected from excessive risks and that some valuable studies involving acceptable risk are being rejected. The present paper aims to address this situation by delineating the first comprehensive framework, which is based on existing guidelines and regulations as well as the relevant literature, for risk-benefit evaluations in biomedical research.     

Risk standards for pediatric research: rethinking the Grimes ruling

In Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute (KKI), the Maryland Court of Appeals, while noting that U.S. federal regulations include risk standards for pediatric research, endorses its own risk standards. The Grimes case has implications for the debate over whether the minimal risk standard should be interpreted based on the risks in the daily lives of most children (the objective interpretation) or the risks in the daily lives of the children who will be enrolled in a given study (the subjective interpretation). The court's use of the objective interpretation to block studies like the KKI study protects individual children who are worse off than the average child. Unfortunately, this approach also may block research intended to improve the lives of these same individuals. A similar dilemma arises in the context of multinational research, suggesting that a "modified objective standard," proposed to address this dilemma in the multinational setting, may offer a framework for addressing the dilemma in the context of pediatric research as well.     

Should children decide whether they are enrolled in nonbeneficial research?

The U.S. federal regulations require investigators conducting nonbeneficial research to obtain the assent of children who are capable of providing it. Unfortunately, there has been no analysis of which children are capable of assent or even what abilities ground the capacity to give assent. Why should investigators be required to obtain the positive agreement of some children, but not others, before enrolling them in research that does not offer a compensating potential for direct benefit? We argue that the scope of children's research decision making should be based on the principles of respect for autonomy and nonmaleficence. These principles imply that the threshold for assent should be fixed at 14 years of age, and a dissent requirement should be adopted for all children in the context of nonbeneficial research.     

The Duty to Take Rescue Precautions

There is much philosophical literature on the duty to rescue. Individuals who encounter and could save, at relatively little cost to themselves, a person at risk of losing life or limb are morally obligated to do so. Yet little has been said about the other side of the issue. There are cases in which the need for rescue could have been reasonably avoided by the rescuee. We argue for a duty to take rescue precautions, providing an account of the circumstances in which it arises. This novel duty has important implications for public policy. We apply it to the situation of some of the uninsured in the United States. Given the US clinician's duty to provide emergency care to all people regardless of ability to pay, some of the uninsured have a moral duty to purchase health insurance. We defend the duty against objections, including the possibility that a right to rescue can be waived, thus undermining a duty to take rescue precautions, that the duty of many professionals is voluntarily incurred, and that a distinction between actively assumed and passively assumed risks matters morally.     

A new justification for pediatric research without the potential for clinical benefit

Pediatric research without the potential for clinical benefit is vital to improving pediatric medical care. This research also raises ethical concern and is regarded by courts and commentators as unethical. While at least 10 justifications have been proposed in response, all have fundamental limitations. This article describes and defends a new justification based on the fact that enrollment in clinical research offers children the opportunity to contribute to a valuable project. Contributing as children to valuable projects can benefit individuals in two ways. First, individuals may come to "embrace" the contributions they made as children. Second, contributing to valuable projects can lead to a better overall life. Because these potential benefits can outweigh small research risks, they provide a justification for pediatric research without the potential for clinical benefit, when it poses low risks and has the potential to benefit others in important ways.