关于医疗、科研的一点认识

临床医疗是医院的根本使命,在权重上医疗自然重于科研.医疗实践是科研的出发点与归宿,决定了科研的基本走向.当前,科研工作受到前所未有的重视,科研作为医疗人员绩效考核的权重过大,偏离了医院的根本使命,会对科研、医疗、医护人员乃至整个社会造成伤害.SCI论文与临床关系不密切,不宜用来评价临床医师的水准.应该建立科学的考评机制,考核标准应细化、全面,对科研的奖励应适度.对于医护人员的考核应以医疗为主、科研为辅.     

国外儿童词汇识别发展眼动研究的新进展

近年来,国外儿童阅读发展的眼动研究已逐渐成为阅读研究热点领域。本文就国外儿童阅读的眼动研究成果进行概述,从儿童阅读眼动研究的基本问题、字词、句子、篇章和相关理论等方面对儿童的阅读过程进行考察,总结其阅读发展的一般规律和特点。最后,文章从阅读材料、统计方法以及研究设计几个方面对儿童阅读研究的方法性问题进行展望,以期为中文阅读发展的眼动研究提供借鉴     

Experience of Parental Marital Dissolution Earlier in Life and the Disposition to Forgive Among Older Violent and Non-Violent Prisoners

The purpose of this study was to examine differences in self-reported dispositional forgiveness types among older male prison inmates who experienced parental separation/divorce earlier in life. Participants included a sample of N = 261 incarcerated men, aged 45 and older, residing in state-managed prisons in Oklahoma. IBM/SPSS 22.0 was used to examine mean differences across forgiveness of self, situation, and others. Significant mean differences were evident only for forgiveness of situation. In particular, significant differences emerged relative to depressive affect F (1, 192) = 19.90, p < .001, and social support F (1, 192) = 18.64, p < .001. After controlling for age, race, religiosity, depression, social support, perceived health, crime type, and parental separation/divorce, one significant interaction (crime type X parental separation/divorce) emerged, F (1, 192) = 4.42, p < .05. It appears that the disposition to forgive the situation among older prison inmates depends on criminal offender type as well as whether the older inmate experienced parental dissolution earlier in life. Implications for pastoral counseling programing and forgiveness therapy treatment for older male prison inmates who experienced parental separation/divorce earlier in life are discussed.     

Ideology,inquiry, and antiquity: a critical notice of Lloyd's The Ideals of Inquiry: An Ancient History

A discussion of Lloyd's Tarner Lectures at Trinity College. The importance of Lloyd's previous scholarship is characterized and these sweeping, erudite lectures are placed in the context of that scholarship. In the broadest terms, the lectures are a call to culturally and historically comparative study of human reasoning. At their heart is a comparative history of scientific theorizing from the ancients through to modern science. Lloyd rejects the positivist picture, and the view of modern and ancient science as discontinuous; he urges scholars to undertake comparative work on the ancient sciences in different traditions. This critical notice evaluates Lloyd's view and raises several questions for further reflection.     

Who’s afraid of the big bad wolf? The interweaving of values and science

The role of values in the scientific process is widely debated. But evidence and values cannot be neatly separated. Instead, values infuse the entire scientific process, starting with the choice of research questions. Research avenues are selected based on prior beliefs about the workings of the world. In fact, informally assigned prior probabilities and normalizing constants play an essential role in distinguishing causes from correlations and ignoring irrelevant associations that would otherwise be suggested by raw data. But since these initial probabilities often have a heterogeneous pedigree – often not all that went into their formation is known or knowable – it becomes difficult to cleanly separate evidence from values. At the same time, this reality does not undermine science’s unique status in generating knowledge. This is because it is not the evidence per se generated by science, but rather the method by which science generates it, that justifies science’s privileged role.     

Evidence: wanted,alive or dead

This paper is meant to link the philosophical debate concerning the underdetermination of theories by evidence with a rather significant socio-political issue that has been taking place in Canada over the past few years: the so-called ‘death of evidence’ controversy. It places this debate within a broader philosophical framework by discussing the connection between evidence and theory; by bringing out the role of epistemic values in the so-called scientific method; and by examining the role of social values in science. While it should be admitted that social values play an important role in science, the key question for anyone who advocates this view is: what and whose values? The way it is answered makes an important epistemic difference to how the relation between evidence and theory is appraised. I first review various arguments for the claim that evidence underdetermines theory and shows their presuppositions and limitations, using conceptual analysis and historical examples. After broaching the relation between evidence and method in science by highlighting the need to incorporate epistemic values into the scientific method, my discussion focuses on recent arguments for the role of social values in science. Finally, I address the implications of the approach outlined for the current ‘death of evidence’ debate in Canada.     

Further evidence for the case against neuropsychoanalysis: How Yovell,Solms, and Fotopoulou's response to our critique confirms the irrelevance and harmfulness to psychoanalysis of the contemporary neuroscientific trend

In their paper “The case for neuropsychoanalysis” Yovell, Solms, and Fotopoulou (2015) respond to our critique of neuropsychoanalysis (Blass & Carmeli, 2007), setting forth evidence and arguments which, they claim, demonstrate why neuroscience is relevant and important for psychoanalysis and hence why dialogue between the fields is necessary. In the present paper we carefully examine their evidence and arguments and demonstrate how and why their claim is completely mistaken. In fact, Yovell, Solms, and Fotopoulou's paper only confirms our position on the irrelevance and harmfulness to psychoanalysis of the contemporary neuroscientific trend. We show how this trend perverts the essential nature of psychoanalysis and of how it is practiced. The clinical impact and its detrimental nature is highlighted by discussion of clinical material presented by Yovell et al (2015). In the light of this we argue that the debate over neuropsychoanalysis should be of interest to all psychoanalysts, not only those concerned with biology or interdisciplinary dialogue.     

Engineering Values Into Genetic Engineering: A Proposed Analytic Framework for Scientific Social Responsibility

Recent experiments have been used to “edit” genomes of various plant, animal and other species, including humans, with unprecedented precision. Furthermore, editing the Cas9 endonuclease gene with a gene encoding the desired guide RNA into an organism, adjacent to an altered gene, could create a “gene drive” that could spread a trait through an entire population of organisms. These experiments represent advances along a spectrum of technological abilities that genetic engineers have been working on since the advent of recombinant DNA techniques. The scientific and bioethics communities have built substantial literatures about the ethical and policy implications of genetic engineering, especially in the age of bioterrorism. However, recent CRISPr/Cas experiments have triggered a rehashing of previous policy discussions, suggesting that the scientific community requires guidance on how to think about social responsibility. We propose a framework to enable analysis of social responsibility, using two examples of genetic engineering experiments.