In this article, we describe four theoretical and methodological problems that have impeded implicit attitude research and the popular understanding of its findings. The problems all revolve around assumptions made about the relationships among measures, constructs, cognitive processes, and features of processing. These assumptions have confused our understandings of exactly what we are measuring, the processes that produce implicit evaluations, the meaning of differences in implicit evaluations across people and contexts, the meaning of changes in implicit evaluations in response to (...) intervention, and how implicit evaluations predict behavior. We describe formal modeling as one means to address these problems, and provide illustrative examples. Clarifying these issues has important implications for our understanding of who has particular implicit evaluations and why, when those evaluations are likely to be particularly problematic, how we might best try to change them, and what interventions are best suited to minimize the effects of implicit evaluations on behavior. (shrink)

How do attempts to foresee the future actually change it? For thousands of years, humans have called upon foresight to shape their own actions in order to adapt and survive; as Charles Darwin revealed in his theory of natural selection, the capacity to do just that is key to the origin of species. The uses of foresight, however, can also be applied to help us further our understanding across a variety of realms in everything from warfare, journalism and music, to (...) ancient civilizations, space weather and science. In a thought-provoking new addition to the Darwin College Lecture Series, eight distinguished authors each present an essay from their area of expertise devoted to the theme of 'foresight'. This provocative read reveals foresight as a process that can be identified across all areas of human endeavour, an art which can not only predict the future, but make it anything but inevitable. (shrink)

Methionine aminopeptidases with a universal specificity have been revealed from the sequences of the amino‐terminal region of mutant forms of yeast iso‐1‐cytochrome c and from a systematic examination of the literature for amino‐terminal sequences formed at initiation sites. The aminopeptidase removes amino‐terminal residues of methionine when they precede certain amino acids, with a specificity that appears to be determined mainly by the residue adjacent to the methionine residue at the amino terminus. The result with the mutationally altered iso‐1‐cytochromes c and (...) the results from published sequences of other proteins from a wide range of prokaryotes and eukaryotes suggest that the aminopeptidase usually cleaves amino‐terminal methionine when it precedes residues of alanine, cysteine, glycine, proline, serine, threonine and valine but not when it precedes residues of arginine, asparagine, aspartic acid, glutamine, glutamic acid, isoleucine, leucine, lysine or methionine. We suggest that the specificity is almost always determined simply by the size of the side chain of the penultimate residue; methionine is usually cleaved from residues with a side chain having a radius of gyration of 1·29 Å or less, but is not cleaved from residues with larger side chains. (shrink)

We argue that the dual-system approach and, particularly, the default-interventionist framework favored by De Neys unnecessarily constrains process models, limiting their range of application. In turn, the accommodations De Neys makes for these constraints raise questions of parsimony and falsifiability. We conclude that the extent to which processes possess features of system 1 versus system 2 must be tested empirically.

Zygon®, Volume 56, Issue 4, Page 960-970, December 2021.

ABSTRACTInitial evaluations generalise to new contexts, whereas counter-attitudinal evaluations are context-specific. Counter-attitudinal information may not change evaluations in new contexts beca...

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Holding Doctors Responsible at Guantánamo*Nancy Sherman (bio)I recently visited the Guantánamo Bay Detention Center with a small group of civilian psychiatrists, psychologists, top military doctors, and Department of Defense health affairs officials to discuss detainee medical and mental health care. The unspoken reason for the invitation to go on this unusual day trip was the bruising criticism the Bush administration has received for its use of psychiatrists and (...) psychologists in the interrogation of suspected terrorist detainees.1We disembarked from our Navy jet to find an island lush and green from recent storms. A small boat took us from the airfield to the naval hospital. From the boat there was no sign of Camp Delta, where the detainees are actually held. Nor was there a sign of prisons or barbed wire or the detention facility's 505 inmates.Our host was the commanding officer of Gitmo, Major General Jay W. Hood (an artillery officer by training), who had replaced Major General Geoffrey Miller, implicated in the "migration" of torture methods from Gitmo to Abu Ghraib. Dressed in fatigues, General Hood briefed us using PowerPoint. His intelligence director told us that interrogators have not used harsh "fear up" tactics—the ones designed to terrify—since 2003.We went by bus from the naval hospital to the 30-bed detainee hospital for quick briefings from a psychiatrist and a physician. Still, we were not permitted to see any detainees or hunger strikers, despite our requests. During our six hours on the ground, we had only a fleeting glimpse of a few detainees outside their cellblocks behind barbed wire and screened fences.Indeed, when I got home and saw the play "Guantánamo: Honor Bound to Defend Freedom," by Victoria Brittain and Gillian Slovo, I had the disquieting feeling that I had absorbed more about detainee life at the theater than I had from actually being at Gitmo. This only amplified my anxiety that what I had heard and seen during my VIP visit sidestepped the central moral issue of whether abuse is still occurring at Gitmo and whether health professionals are, or have been, a party to coercive interrogation. [End Page 199]The question that the Pentagon leadership has been focusing on, and which was a key subject of discussion during our day at Gitmo, is whether there is an ethical difference between using psychologists or psychiatrists on interrogation teams—what the Pentagon calls, "behavioral consultation teams," or BSCTs, pronounced "biscuit." Some in the Pentagon would like to have doctors and psychiatrists, who are bound by the Hippocratic teaching to "do no harm," be the clinicians treating detainees. Psychologists, who are not as bound by Hippocratic dicta, would consult with and advise interrogators. But this is a red herring. It is hair-splitting that detracts from the real issue of whether health professionals of any stripe can ethically be involved in interrogations that may involve coercive techniques or torture. The answer is clearly no. They should not be involved, directly or indirectly, in situations that may lead to the breach of confidential medical records; to torture or to cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment; or to exploitation of fears or phobias. Mental health professionals simply should not be collaborating with interrogators in inflicting psychological torture.Hood said that "rapport building" was the preferred and an effective interrogation technique, but that is no guarantee that rougher tactics will not be used. The fact is that there is enormous pressure on the people at Guantánamo Bay to get good intelligence for the war on terror, and it is as easy for behavioral scientists as it is for interrogators to compromise their moral standards. Cunning and deception to extract information may be acceptable in some cases. But many people have been outraged to learn from media reports that methods developed by military psychologists to train our own troops to resist torture—the so-called "survival, evasion, resistance, and escape" methods taught at Ft. Bragg—have been "reverse engineered" at Guantánamo Bay to create coercive, psychologically manipulative interrogation techniques for use against detainees.Plato warned long ago that a doctor's skill, abstracted from good character and wisdom, is a neutral... (shrink)

During the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic, preclinical and clinical research were sped up and scaled up in both the public and private sectors and in partnerships between them. This resulted in some extraordinary advances, but it also raised a range of issues regarding the ethics, rigour, and integrity of scientific research, academic publication, and public communication. Many of the failures of scientific rigour and integrity that occurred during the pandemic were exacerbated by the rush to generate, disseminate, (...) and implement research findings, which not only created opportunities for unscrupulous actors but also compromised the methodological, peer review, and advisory processes that would usually identify sub-standard research and prevent compromised clinical or policy-level decisions. While it would be tempting to attribute these failures of science and its translation solely to the “unprecedented” circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the reality is that they preceded the pandemic and will continue to arise once it is over. Existing strategies for promoting scientific rigour and integrity need to be made more rigorous, better integrated into research training and institutional cultures, and made more sophisticated. They might also need to be modified or supplemented with other strategies that are fit for purpose not only in public health emergencies but in any research that is sped-up and scaled up to address urgent unmet medical needs. (shrink)

The past decade has witnessed significant advances in our understanding of nonlinear systems, both theoretically and experimentally. In turn, these insights have led to applications over a broad range of subjects, as well as to new interpretations of complex behavior. Inevitably, it seems, there has been a concomitant rush to re-interpret various well-understood aspects of thermodynamic behavior in manybody systems by means of these mechanisms. It is perhaps useful, therefore, to examine these notions critically, and in doing so we (...) are able to illuminate somewhat the origins of, and motivations for, various dubious descriptions of these systems. Among other things, one notices in such discussions an unfortunate focus on “randomness,” rather than on the actual role of probabilities in describing the phenomena. Although valuable insights into some areas of complex behavior have arisen from studies of so-called “deterministic chaos,” we can detect no influence they may have on the predictions of statistical mechanics, and thus conclude that they are of little relevance to the thermodynamic behavior of large systems. (shrink)

The genetic component of variations in human responses to pharmacological agents is called pharmacogenetics while the molecular basis for these variations are most often identified as pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics as a field of scientific endeavor is so new that in the scientific literature the two terms are often used interchangeably. In fact, the search for new drugs at the molecular level start with the identification of variations in DNA sequences whose products produce alterations in the amino acid structure of the active (...) portion of a protein which are then identified with the clinical disorder in question. This process is just the reverse of standard pharmaceutical approaches which begin with exploration of the physiological and potentially the biochemical basis of the specific disorder under study. The completion of the first draft of the human genome in the first months of the new millenium has increased expectations that molecular genetic approaches to drug disovery and development will significantly shorten the time-frame of new drug testing, significantly reduce the level of adverse events and anable the design of drugs to treat those with unique disorders.Based on such rosy expectations and the potential economic opportunities afforded by those who obtain such patents, there has been a rush of patent applications both in the United States and in Europe by private industry and university laboratories conducting genomic research to secure the rights to specific DNA sequences and federal agencies attempting to place the control of such information in the public domaine. This paper will document and discuss from a historic prospective the public policy and bioethical issues associated with the availability of patents for drug development. (shrink)

The genetic component of variations in human responses to pharmacological agents is called pharmacogenetics while the molecular basis for these variations are most often identified as pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics as a field of scientific endeavor is so new that in the scientific literature the two terms are often used interchangeably. In fact, the search for new drugs at the molecular level start with the identification of variations in DNA sequences whose products produce alterations in the amino acid structure of the active (...) portion of a protein which are then identified with the clinical disorder in question. This process is just the reverse of standard pharmaceutical approaches which begin with exploration of the physiological and potentially the biochemical basis of the specific disorder under study. The completion of the first draft of the human genome in the first months of the new millenium has increased expectations that molecular genetic approaches to drug disovery and development will significantly shorten the time-frame of new drug testing, significantly reduce the level of adverse events and anable the design of drugs to treat those with unique disorders.Based on such rosy expectations and the potential economic opportunities afforded by those who obtain such patents, there has been a rush of patent applications both in the United States and in Europe by private industry and university laboratories conducting genomic research to secure the rights to specific DNA sequences and federal agencies attempting to place the control of such information in the public domaine. This paper will document and discuss from a historic prospective the public policy and bioethical issues associated with the availability of patents for drug development. (shrink)

This book is a collection of Rush Rhees' recent articles on Wittgenstein along with a record of Wittgenstein's comments on continuity made in private conversations in 1938. The first part of the book is on the Tractatus. It begins with a review of Anscombe's Introduction of which Rhees generally approves and then goes on to discuss the "picture theory" and language's capacity to get hold of reality. Rhees argues against Maslow that elementary statements are more than psychological phenomena but (...) must be spoken of in a purely formal sense. Commenting on Black's Companion he argues that Wittgenstein did not have in mind any ontological implications of logic when he was working on the Tractatus. Rhees uses his critique of Pitcher's Philosophy of Wittgenstein and an article on that philosophy to form the transition to the discussion of the later Wittgenstein. He insists that Wittgenstein taught more a method of seeing the depth of certain problems than a set of solutions to those problems. He introduces the theme of "publicness" by arguing that language involves the ability to "say something" and must thus involve publicity. In his article on "Wittgenstein's Builders" he argues that this ability to say something rests on the interrelation of language games and the unity of a form of life. Using this as a basis, he speaks of the Wittgensteinean approach to ethics as one of studying the way of saying something ethically in a certain language game rather than one of studying ethics in general. The essay on continuity begins with a discussion of the dependence of mathematical language on everyday language for meaning. Here Wittgenstein argues that mathematical language derives its sense from experiential language and not from eternal and immutable objects. He discusses the mathematical notion of continuity with an eye to the limits of its sense and shows that its sense is limited by ordinary notions of space and continuity and tests relating to them. This book is worth reading for both the presentation of basic approaches to understanding Wittgenstein and for the record of Wittgenstein's remarks on continuity which are unavailable elsewhere.--J. V. W. (shrink)

To date, over 5,000 applications have been filed with United States Patent Office for patents on human genes. More than 1,500 of these applications have been granted. Other jurisdictions are experiencing a similar rush to mine and protect genomic gold. This paper argues that although many jurisdictions allow the patenting of human genes, this is ethically indefensible and amounts to an unjustified appropriation of a general human heritage. Economic and legal arguments in favour of patenting are considered and rejected. (...) Reference is made to the Wellcome Trust Consortium's initiative and the Merck Gene Index Project, which place patented genetic information into the public domain. (shrink)

Most traditional accounts of Aristotle's theory of ethical education neglect its cognitive aspects. This book asserts that, in Aristotle's view, excellence of character comprises both the sentiments and practical reason. Sherman focuses particularly on four aspects of practical reason as they relate to character: moral perception, choicemaking, collaboration, and the development of those capacities in moral education. Throughout the book, she is sensitive to contemporary moral debates, and indicates the extent to which Aristotle's account of practical reason provides an (...) alternative to theories of impartial reason. (shrink)

In these discussions, Rush Rhees, who was a student and close friend of Wittgenstein, works out what he has learned from Wittgenstein's personal teaching and from study of his published and (at the time) unpublished writings. Some are review articles of books on Wittgenstein, and these are devoted to exposition of Wittgenstein's views. Others are independent discussions of special points in Wittgenstein's philosophy. The longest article, here published for the first time, is an account or record of what Wittgenstein (...) said about continuity in private discussion in 1938. (shrink)