The effect of object alignment on the representation of depth in young children's drawings.

Light and Humphreys (1981, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 521-530) provided evidence that young children's drawings, despite infrequently showing view-specific occlusion, do systematically reflect spatial relations within an array. The present research tested the hypothesis that young children's preferences for canonical "best views" interact with array-faithful tendencies to increase early uses of occlusion. Forty-three children between 4 and 7 years of age drew arrays like Light and Humphreys' end-to-end alignments, with end-on views of objects in depth, and arrays aligned side-to-side, with canonical side-views of objects in depth. Significantly fewer single-object, view-specific occlusions were produced for end-to-end than for side-to-side alignments. Nevertheless, the former reveal that more children are able to use the vertical dimension to depict multiple objects in depth. Other comparisons suggest an interaction in multiple-object depictions of canonicality with spatial dimension and graphic complexity.     

Embryos created for research purposes.

The creation of embryos for research use has drawn a great deal of criticism. It is difficult to defend an ethical distinction between what one can do to "spare" embryos and what one can do to "research" embryos. The strongest ground on which to argue against the creation of embryos for research is a symbolic one, having to do with respect for human life. Ronald Dworkin's work in Life's Dominion on the symbolic meaning of the abortion debate throws a helpful light on this dispute. By understanding the basic question to be, Does the creation of research embryos weaken or insult our communal respect for the sanctity of human life in some way that in vitro fertilization (IVF) or the experimental use of "spare" embryos does not?, the debate can move in a more constructive direction.     

Mentoring for Responsible Research: The Creation of a Curriculum for Faculty to Teach RCR in the Research Environment

Despite more than 25 years of a requirement for training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR), there is still little consensus about what such training should include, how it should be delivered, nor what constitutes “effectiveness” of such training. This lack of consensus on content, approaches and outcomes is evident in recent data showing high variability in the development and implementation of RCR instruction across universities and programs. If we accept that one of the primary aims of instruction in RCR/research ethics is “to foster a community of social responsibility” (Antes et al. 2009: 398), then it makes sense to consider the research environment itself—where learning one’s science happens where one also engages in social interaction around that science. In order to take the best advantage of that already existing/naturally occurring research environment, the authors, through a deliberative, collaborative, and integrative process, crafted a workshop curriculum meant to arm research faculty with concrete and specific tools to effectively introduce research ethics in the context of the research environment.     

Standards of Scientific Conduct: Disciplinary Differences

Teaching of responsible conduct of research is largely predicated on the assumption that there are accepted standards of conduct that can be taught. However there is little evidence of consensus in the scientific community about such standards, at least for the practices of authorship, collaboration, and data management. To assess whether such differences in standards are based on disciplinary differences, a survey, described previously, addressing standards, practices, and perceptions about teaching and learning was distributed in November 2010 to US faculty from 50 graduate programs for the biomedical disciplines of microbiology, neuroscience, nursing, and psychology. Despite evidence of statistically significant differences across the four disciplines, actual differences were quite small. Stricter measures of effect size indicated practically significant disciplinary differences for fewer than 10 % of the questions. This suggests that the variation in individual standards of practice within each discipline is at least as great as variation due to differences among disciplines. Therefore, the need for discipline-specific training may not be as important as sometimes thought.     

Psyche and Cinema: “Go Ask Alice (or Neo); I Think They'll Know”

The Walt Disney version of Alice in Wonderland is a musical animation beginning in a semi-pastoral setting with butterflies, birds, and daisies. Alice is bored with the textual reading of classical history being given by her uptight Victorian sister. Instead, she wants images, pictures in a book. She sees image as world. “In my world, books will have nothing but pictures,” she declares. This thought takes her further into her imagination and the deconstructive realm it creates. “Everything will be what it isn't and not be what it is.” Finally, she looks into a pond and the reflection of a white rabbit dressed in a frock coat passes by. The mirror of the water surface has released an image of the “other,” an animal, difficult to catch and associated with luck, fertility, and the underground. Alice follows the rabbit into a hole and takes a fall, a radical descent into the underworld. She speculates about descending through the earth to the other side and walking around upside down. She finally lands in front of a door with a punning knob that takes three linguistic “turns.” For Alice, it is impassible but not impossible. Stuck and distraught, she finally gets caught up in the flow of her tears, and rides through the door on her stream of consciousness.     

Does intra-individual change predict offender recidivism? Searching for the Holy Grail in assessing offender change

Offender rehabilitation effectively reduces recidivism for treatment groups compared to control groups, but there is less evidence demonstrating that intra-individual changes are related to reductions in risk. We review and critique academic and government literature linking individual change scores to recidivism, focusing on three key treatment domains: cognition, violence, and substance misuse. Database searches identified 378 studies measuring change, but only 53 studies yielding 49 explicit tests of the relationship between intra-individual change scores and recidivism outcome. Of the 49 available tests, 26 effect sizes (53.1%) were significant, ranging from small (d = 0.06) to large (d = 1.48). Across all domains, change variables significantly related to recidivism included known dynamic risk factors: antisocial attitudes, antisocial beliefs, antisocial associates, antisocial personality, social support, and substance misuse. Two additional findings centered on changes in negative emotion and successful treatment process. This review further suggests there is a need to utilize better measurement strategies and more sophisticated constructs. Additional practical, theoretical, and methodological implications are discussed.