Standards,Harmonization and Cultural Differences: Examining the Implementation of a European Stem Cell Clinical Trial

ABSTRACT

A complex set of European regulations aims to facilitate regenerative medicine, harmonizing good clinical and manufacturing standards and streamlining ethical approval procedures. The sociology of standardization has elaborated some of the effects of regulation but little is known about how such implementation works in practice across institutions and countries in regenerative medicine. The effects of transnational harmonization of clinical trial conduct are complex. A long-term ethnographic study alongside a multinational clinical trial finds a range of obstacles. Harmonization standardizes at one level, but implementing the standards brings to the fore new layers of difference between countries. Europe-wide harmonization of regulations currently disadvantages low-cost clinician-lead research in comparison to industry-sponsored clinical trials. Moreover, harmonized standards must be aligned with the cultural variations in everyday practice across European countries. Each clinical team must find its own way of bridging harmonized compulsory practice with how things are done where they are, respecting expectations from both patients and the local hospital ethics committee. Established ways of working must further be adapted to a range of institutional and cultural conventions that affect the clinical trial such as insurance practices and understandings of patient autonomy. An additional finding is that the specific practical roles of team members in the trial affect their evaluation of the importance of these challenges. Our findings lead to conclusions of wider significance for the sociology of standards concerning how regulation works and for medical sociology about how trial funding and research directions in stem cell medicine intersect.     

Human and Global Identities: Different Prototypical Meanings of All-Inclusive Identities

The impact of identities encompassing all human beings (e.g., human and/or global identities) on intergroup relations is complex, with studies showing mostly positive (e.g., less dehumanization), but also negative (e.g., deflected responsibility for harm behavior), effects. However, different labels and measures have been used to examine the effects of these all-inclusive superordinate identities, without a systematic empirical examination of the extent to which they overlap or differ in their sociopsychological prototypical content. This study examined whether different labels activate the same contents in laypeople's conceptualization. Two hundred and forty-eight participants openly described one of six labels: “All humans everywhere”; “People all over the world”; “People from different countries around the world”; “Global citizens”; “Citizens of the world”; and “Members of world community.” Results from quantitative content analyses showed that the different labels activated different thematic attributes, representing differences in their core prototypical meaning. We propose that a general distinction should be made between labels that define membership based on human attributes (e.g., biological attributes) and those that evoke attributes characteristic of membership in a global political community (e.g., attitudinal attributes), as their effect on intergroup relations may vary accordingly.     

推理表征影响整体推理的实验研究

本研究采用５个实验探讨了推理表征对整体推理的影响。研究结果表明，读者在演绎推理和类比推理的条件下可以保持课文的整体连贯即整体推理，只是由于工作记忆容量有限，推理表征对于保持整体推理具有弱化作用。     

Religion–state relations and public opinion: norms,institutions and social consensus

ABSTRACT

Are levels of religion–state regulation associated with cross-national variation in attitudes related to the place of religion in public life? Data sources measuring both the institutional relationship between religion and state and public opinion on the political role of religion have significantly improved in recent years, but scholars have just begun to examine relationships between political institutions and public attitudes. This contribution tests several potential examples of such links by exploring the relationship between religion–state institutions and norms of religion and politics, both between and within countries. The contribution first develops theoretical expectations regarding the institutional correlates of public opinion, then conducts initial tests of these expectations by blending data from the Religion and State project with comparative survey data drawn from Waves 4 and 5 of the World Values Survey. Analysis demonstrates modest links between institutions and aggregate public views, a relationship between institutions and social consensus, and, most robustly, consistent variation in institutional effects across political regime type.     

Introduction: symposium on Brooke Ackerly’s Just Responsibility: A Human Rights Theory of Global Justice

ABSTRACT

This symposium brings together normative and empirical scholars in dialogue on Brooke Ackerly’s innovative and compelling recent monograph, Just Responsibility. Contributors discuss the book’s distinctive grounded normative theory methodology, its arguments for how individuals can take appropriate responsibility for global structural injustices, and its potential for practical impact.