Reliability as a virtue

This paper explores what constitutes reliability in persons, particularly intellectual reliability. It considers global reliability, the overall reliability of persons, encompassing both the theoretical and practical realms; sectorial reliability, that of a person in a subject-matter (or behavioral) domain; and focal reliability, that of a particular element, such as a belief. The paper compares reliability with predictability of the kind most akin to it and distinguishes reliability as an intellectual virtue from reliability as an intellectual power. The paper also connects reliability with insight, reasoning, knowledge, and trust. It is argued that insofar as reliability is an intellectual virtue, it must meet both external standards of correctitude and internal standards of justification.

The ethics of belief: doxastic self-control and intellectual virtue

Most of the literature on doxastic voluntarism has concentrated on the question of the voluntariness of belief and the issue of how our actual or possible control of our beliefs bears on our justification for holding them and on how, in the light of this control, our intellectual character should be assessed. This paper largely concerns a related question on which less philosophical work has been done: the voluntariness of the grounding of belief and the bearing of various views about this matter on justification, knowledge, and intellectual virtue. In part, my concern is the nature and extent of our voluntary control over our responses to reasons for believing—or over what we take to be such reasons. This paper provides a partial account of such control and, on the basis of the account, will clarify the criteria for appraising intellectual virtue.     

Longitudinal Changes in Intellectual Development in Children with Fragile X Syndrome

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine the development of intellectual functioning in 145 school-age pairs of siblings. Each pair included one child with Fragile X syndrome (FXS) and one unaffected sibling. All pairs of children were evaluated on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III) at time 1 and 80 pairs of children received a second evaluation at time 2 approximately 4 years later. Compared to their unaffected siblings, children with FXS obtained significantly lower percentage correct scores on all subtests of the WISC at both time points. During the time between the first and second assessments, the annual rate of intellectual development was approximately 2.2 times faster in the unaffected children compared to the children with FXS. Levels of the fragile X mental retardation protein (FMRP) were highly associated with intellectual ability scores of the children with FXS at both time points (r=0.55 and 0.64 respectively). However, when gender, age, and the time between assessments were included as covariates in the structural equation model, FMRP accounted for only 5% of the variance in intellectual ability scores at time 1 and 13% of the variance at time 2. The results of this study suggest that slower learning contributes to the low and declining standardized IQ scores observed in children with FXS.     

U.S. Patent Policy: Crafting a 21st Century National Blueprint for Global Competitiveness

The paper begins with an overview of the legal, institutional, and public policy bases of the U.S. patent granting system and subsequently examines major deficiencies acknowledged in the existing U.S. patent system. The paper then catalogs the essence of four patent reform proposals of the Federal Trade Commission, the National Research Council, and academic economists (Jaffe/Lerner and Maskus), all of which focus on ameliorating alleged major weaknesses in the U.S. patent system. The paper concludes with an analysis of the above cited patent reform proposals, arguing for a proposed set of workable policy recommendations (reflecting recent changes in public policy) focused on patent cost controls, patent quality, patent uncertainty, and patent reform legislation, all designed to contribute to a globally competitive 21st century patent policy for the U.S. economy.

Plagiarism: Words and Ideas

Plagiarism is a crime against academy. It deceives readers, hurts plagiarized authors, and gets the plagiarist undeserved benefits. However, even though these arguments do show that copying other people's intellectual contribution is wrong, they do not apply to the copying of words. Copying a few sentences that contain no original idea (e.g. in the introduction) is of marginal importance compared to stealing the ideas of others. The two must be clearly distinguished, and the 'plagiarism' label should not be used for deeds which are very different in nature and importance.     

Corrective Justice and the Possibility of Rectification

In this paper, I ask how – and whether – the rectification of injury at which corrective justice aims is possible, and by whom it must be performed. I split the injury up into components of harm and wrong, and consider their rectification separately. First, I show that pecuniary compensation for the harm is practically plausible, because money acts as a mediator between the damaged interest and other interests. I then argue that this is also a morally plausible approach, because it does not claim too much for compensation: neither can all harms be compensated, nor can it be said when compensation is paid that the status quo ante has been restored. I argue that there is no conceptual reason for any particular agent paying this compensation. I then turn to the wrong, and reject three proposed methods of rectification. The first aims to rectify the wrong by rectifying the harm; the second deploys punitive damages; the third, punishment. After undermining each proposal, I argue that the wrong can only be rectified by a full apology, which I disaggregate into the admission of causal and moral responsibility, repudiation of the act, reform, and, in some cases, disgorgement and reparations, which I define as a good faith effort to share the burden of the victim’s harm. I argue, further, that only the injurer herself can make a full apology, and it is not something that can be coerced by other members of society. As such, whether rectification of the wrong can be a matter of corrective justice is left an open question.

What is a chemical property?

Despite the currently perceived urgent need among contemporary philosophers of chemistry for adjudicating between two rival metaphysical conceptual frameworks—is chemistry primarily a science of substances or processes?—this essay argues that neither provides us with what we need in our attempts to explain and comprehend chemical operations and phenomena. First, I show the concept of a chemical property can survive the abandoning of the metaphysical framework of substance. While this abandonment means that we will need to give up essential properties, contingent properties can give us all the stability we need to account for chemical continuity as well as change. I then go on to show that this attention to clusters of contingent properties does not force us into the arms of an alternative process metaphysical framework either. Finally, I sketch a view I call particularism with respect to chemical properties on analogy with moral particularism. I conclude by sketching some of the implications for the field of philosophy of chemistry of my proposal that we abandon our interest in the metaphysical question of what chemistry is primarily about in favor of a broadly scientific particularism with respect to kinds and properties.     

Intellectual property and the commercialization of research and development

Concern about the commercialization of research is rising, notably in testing new drugs. The problem involves oversimplified, polarizing assumptions about research and development (R&;D) and intellectual property (IP). To address this problem this paper sets forth a more complex three phase RT&;D process, involving Scientific Research (R), Technological Innovation (T), and Commercial Product Development (D) or the RT&;D process. Scientific research and innovation testing involve costly intellectual work and do not produce free goods, but rather require IP regulation. RT&;D processes involve an unrecognized IP shift from a common IP right in public goods like information and knowledge to private IP in products and other hard assets. The question then is, what kind of IP right: private or common? Since scientific research and innovation testing require openness about adverse findings, and wide, low cost diffusion of results, they require a common, inclusive IP right. Common IP is appropriate to both sharing knowledge goods and recovering the cost of production. Research is furthermore compatible with commercialization and support by other social interests. On the other hand it is incompatible with the exclusionary private IP rights that permit restrictive publication or total suppression of information. Private IP rather than commercialization conflicts with the openness requirements of scientific research and innovation testing. Commercial funding, however, is in principle compatible with research and testing, especially when regulated by a common IP right. This reflects a pragmatic view of the fundamental interconnections of knowledge and other social interests.     

The council of Europe’s instruments on biomedical research: how is conflict of interest addressed?

Conflict of interest is an issue that has been put in the spotlight by the commercial application of the new biomedical technologies. This paper presents the approach of the Council of Europe and the binding legal instruments to deal with this problem. The main focus is on the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, and its draft additional Protocol on Biomedical Research. An earlier version of this paper was presented at an International Conference on “Conflict of Interest and its Significance in Science and Medicine” held in Warsaw, Poland on 5–6 April, 2002. The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect any official position of the Council of Europe.     

先秦社会心理思想管窥

先秦时期出现了一些富有时代特色的社会心理思想。主要包括：同人心、恒产恒心、上行下效、赏罚贵信等。其中“同人心”是先秦社会心理思想的总纲,其它社会心理思想都是以此为出发点和归宿的。先秦思想家们使用了一套与现代社会心理学不同的概念体系。他们凭借这套概念体系准确反映出特定历史条件下中国人的社会心态,至今仍有借鉴价值。