预防还是增强？——人类增强与预防医学之辨析

基因编辑婴儿事件暗示了预防医学和人类增强之间存在某些联系。预防医学以相对明确的潜在疾病为对象,通过增强人体抵抗疾病的能力从而减少或避免由疾病产生的既得利益损失。人类增强以人类的某种特性为对象,通过增强这些特性或保持这些特性的最佳状态,从而获得额外收益或避免既得利益的损失。在“对象−方法−目的”模型下,预防医学和人类增强表现得极为相似,并且在诉求、技术、概念和形而上学方面的相互交错也进一步模糊了两者之间的界线。然而,人类增强完全市场化分配制度及其对公平的固有破坏性是它与预防医学之间的一个根本区别。

     

人工智能决策的公平感知

不平等问题是全球社会和经济发展需要应对的首要挑战,也是实现全球可持续发展目标的核心障碍。人工智能(artificial intelligence, AI)为缓解不平等、促进社会公平提供了新的途径。然而,新近研究发现,即使客观上AI决策具有公平性和准确性,个体仍可能对AI决策的公平感知较低。因此,近年来越来越多的研究开始关注AI决策公平感知的影响因素。然而,目前研究较为分散,呈现出研究范式不统一、理论不清晰和机制未厘清等特征。这既不利于跨学科的研究对话,也不利于研究者和实践者对AI决策公平感知形成系统性理解。基于此,通过系统的梳理,现有研究可以划分为两类:(1) AI单一决策的公平感知研究,主要聚焦于AI特征和个体特征如何影响个体对AI决策的公平感知;(2) AI-人类二元决策的公平感知研究,主要聚焦于对比个体对AI决策与人类决策公平感知的差异。在上述梳理基础上,未来研究可以进一步探索AI决策公平感知的情绪影响机制等方向。     

社会比较对大学生公平感知的影响：主观社会经济地位的调节作用

本研究考察社会比较对大学生公平感知的影响,并探讨主观社会经济地位在其中的调节作用。控制社会比较的方向、不公平程度及有无代价等因素,结果发现,社会比较会影响大学生的公平感知,在向上社会比较条件下,大学生更愿意选择平等选项;主观社会经济地位能够调节社会比较对大学生公平感知的影响,低主观社会经济地位大学生在向下社会比较时更愿意选择平等选项。大学生具有较强的公平感知,关注自身利益是否最大化。     

What’s Wrong with the Scrum Laws in Rugby Union? — Judgment,Truth and Refereeing

Officiating and the role of officials in sport is are crucial and often decisive factors in sports contests. Justice and desert of sport contests, in part, rely on officiating truths (performances) that arise from an appropriate admixture of epistemic (judgements) and metaphysical (actions) ingredients. This paper provides a rigorous and original philosophical analysis of the problems of obeying and applying the rules of sport. The paper focuses on a the scrum in rugby union. The scrum has become a focus of criticism and bewilderment. Elite rugby is damaged as a spectacle because too much time is wasted setting and re-setting scrums. Furthermore, trust in the fairness of games is eroded because the scrum is a ‘lottery’. In this paper, we identify two fundamental structural problems which contribute to the scrum controversy. First, we argue that officials cannot make reliable judgements about scrums because they cannot see what they need to see. Secondly, we argue that players cannot follow the laws of the scrum even if they have a strong desire to do so. Consequently, the scrum is not only potentially dangerous, but also flawed in terms of its capacity to actualise an intended part of the game.     

The Influence of Diversity Context on White Men's and Racial Minorities' Reactions to Disproportionate Group Harm

Abstract

The author examined the influence of organizational diversity management on White men's and racial minorities' perceptions of fairness when members of their identity group were disproportionately harmed in a layoff. Using a scenario design, the author studied the reactions of 284 White male and racial minority layoff survivors under 2 different diversity contexts. White men saw the layoff as less fair to their group when other White men were laid off disproportionately in an active-diversity context versus an inactive-diversity context. Racial minorities' perceptions of fairness when other minorities were laid off disproportionately were not influenced by the diversity context, but they perceived the layoff as more fair to their group in an active-diversity context when White men were laid off disproportionately. The findings suggest that during layoffs or other significant organizational changes where job insecurity is heightened, different identity groups might perceive diversity management differently.     

幽门螺杆菌cagA基因多态性对临床结局的影响:东亚菌株和西方菌株

CagA蛋白是幽门螺杆菌最重要的毒力因子之一.目前已证实cagA基因存在东亚及西方两种亚型.幽门螺杆菌产生CagA蛋白,注入胃上皮细胞后在其羧基端EPIYA重复序列区进行酪氨酸磷酸化,进而与SHP-2酪氨酸磷酸化酶相互作用,参与上皮细胞的信号传导,导致细胞骨架结构的重排,引起细胞表面形状的改变和细胞动力的增强,造成细胞异常的增殖和运动,在胃癌的发生中起了主要作用.cagA基因的羧基端EPIYA重复序列被认为是区分东亚型和西方型菌株的分子标记,东亚型CagA与SHP-2亲和力大于西方型,最终影响着不同CagA+菌株感染的临床表现.     

Procedural fairness in ultimatum bargaining: Effects of interactional fairness and formal procedure on respondents’ reactions to unequal offers1

Abstract: Ninety‐nine Japanese students received one of three offers in an ultimatum bargaining scenario: unfavorable and unequal; equal; or favorable but unequal. These offers were determined by either the other participant or by a computerized lottery. We also manipulated the arbitrariness of the role assignment procedure. Participants perceived the intentional small offer as more unfair in the interactional sense than the unintentional small offer, while they perceived the same offers as unfair in the distributive sense, regardless of intentionality. The intentional small offer was more likely to be rejected than the unintentional small offer. Participants perceived the arbitrary procedure of the role assignment as highly unfair, whereas the difference of arbitrariness in role assignment procedures had no significant impact on their reactions to the offer. Acceptance of the offer was strongly determined by interactional fairness, as well as by distributive fairness, and these types of fairness were influenced by different situational characteristics, such as intentionality, the size of the offer, and the equality of the offer.     

Rawls and Research on Cognitively Impaired Patients: A Reply to Maio

In his paper, “The Relevance of Rawls’ Principle of Justice for Research on Cognitively Impaired Patients” (Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 23 (2002):45–53), Giovanni Maio has developed athought-provoking argument for the permissibility of non-therapeutic research on cognitively impaired patients. Maio argues that his conclusion follows from the acceptance of John Rawls’s principles of justice, specifically, Rawls’s “liberty principle” Maio has misinterpreted Rawls’s “libertyprinciple” – correctly interpreted it does notsupport non-therapeutic research on cognitivelyimpaired patients. Three other ‘Rawlsian’ arguments are suggested by Maio’s discussion –two “self-respect” arguments and a “presumed consent” argument – but none of them are convincing. However, an alternative argument developed from Rawls’s discussion of “justice in health care” in his most recent book, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, may justify certain kinds of non-therapeutic research on some cognitively impaired patients in special circumstances. We should not expect anything more permissive from a liberal theory of justice. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Validity Issues in Assessing Linguistic Minorities

Throughout the world, tests are administered to some examinees who are not fully proficient in the language in which they are being tested. It has long been acknowledged that proficiency in the language in which a test is administered often affects examinees’ performance on a test. Depending on the context and intended uses for a particular assessment, linguistic proficiency may be relevant to the tested construct and subsequent interpretations, or may be a source of construct-irrelevant variance that undermines accurate interpretation of the test performance of linguistic minorities who are not proficient in the language of the assessment. In this article, we highlight key validity issues to be considered when testing linguistic minorities, regardless of whether language is central or construct-irrelevant. We discuss examples of the different types of studies test users and developers could conduct to evaluate the validity of scores of linguistic minorities. These issues span test development and validation activities. We conclude with a list of critical factors to consider in test development and evaluation whenever linguistic minorities are tested.