Background As citizen science continues to grow in popularity, there remains disagreement about what terms should be used to describe citizen science activities and participants. The question of how to self-identify has important ethical, political, and practical implications to the extent that shared language reflects a common ethos and goals and shapes behavior. Biomedical citizen science in particular has come to be associated with terms that reflect its unique activities, concerns, and priorities. To date, however, there is scant evidence regarding (...) how biomedical citizen scientists prefer to describe themselves, their work, and the values that they attach to these terms.Methods In 2018, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 biomedical citizen scientists in connection with a larger study to understand ownership preferences. Interview data were analyzed to identify the terms that interviewees used and avoided to describe themselves and their work, as well as the reasons for their preferences.Results Biomedical citizen scientists self-identified using three main terms: citizen scientist, biohacker, and community scientist. However, there was a lack of consensus among interviewees on the appropriateness of each term, two of which prompted conflicting responses. Self-identification preferences were based on personal judgments about whether specific terms convey respect, are provocative, or are broad and inclusive, as well as the desirability of each of these messages.Conclusions The lack of consensus about self-identification preferences in biomedical citizen science reflects the diversity of experiences and goals of individuals participating in this field, as well as different perceptions of the values signaled by and implications of using each term. Heterogeneity of preferences also may signal the parallel development of multiple communities in biomedical citizen science. (shrink)

Background Citizen science is increasingly prevalent in the biomedical sciences, including the field of human genomics. Genomic citizen science initiatives present new opportunities to engage individuals in scientific discovery, but they also are provoking new questions regarding who owns the outputs of the research, including intangible ideas and discoveries and tangible writings, tools, technologies, and products. The legal and ethical claims of participants to research outputs become stronger—and also more likely to conflict with those of institution-based researchers and other stakeholders—as (...) participants become more involved, quantitatively and qualitatively, in the research process. It is not yet known, however, how genomic citizen science initiatives are managing the interests of their participants in accessing and controlling research outputs in practice. To help fill this gap, we conducted an in-depth review of relevant policies and practices of U.S.-based genomic citizen science initiatives. Methods We queried the peer-reviewed literature and grey literature to identify 22 genomic citizen science initiatives that satisfied six inclusion criteria. A data collection form was used to capture initiative features, policies, and practices relevant to participants’ access to and control over research outputs. Results This analysis revealed that the genomic citizen science landscape is diverse and includes many initiatives that do not have institutional affiliations. Two trends that are in apparent tension were identified: commercialization and operationalization of a philosophy of openness. While most initiatives supported participants’ access to research outputs, including datasets and published findings, none supported participants’ control over results via intellectual property, licensing, or commercialization rights. However, several initiatives disclaimed their own rights to profit from outputs. Conclusions There are opportunities for citizen science initiatives to incorporate more features that support participants’ access to and control over research outputs, consistent with their specific objectives, operations, and technical capabilities. (shrink)

The perspectives of genomic citizen scientists on ownership of research outputs are not well understood, yet they are useful for identifying alignment of participant expectations and project practices and can help guide efforts to develop innovative tools and strategies for managing ownership claims. Here, we report findings from 52 interviews conducted in 2018 and 2019 to understand genomic citizen science stakeholders’ conceptualizations of, experiences with, and preferences for ownership of research outputs. Interviewees identified four approaches for recognizing genomic citizen scientists’ (...) ownership and related credit interests in research outputs: shared governance via commons models; fractional ownership of benefits; full and creative attribution; and offensive and defensive patenting. Interviewees also agreed that the model selected by any project should at least maximize access to research outputs and, as appropriate and to the extent possible, broadly distribute rights of control and entitlements to research benefits. (shrink)

Understanding the clinical significance of variants associated with hereditary cancer risk requires access to a pooled data resource or network of resources—a “cancer gene variant commons”—incorporating representative, well-characterized genetic data, metadata, and, for some purposes, pathways to case-level data. Several initiatives have invested significant resources into collecting and sharing cancer gene variant data, but further progress hinges on identifying and addressing unresolved policy issues. This commentary provides insights from a modified policy Delphi process involving experts from a range of stakeholder (...) groups involved in the data-sharing ecosystem. In particular, we describe policy issues and options generated by Delphi participants in five domains critical to the development of an effective cancer gene variant commons: incentives, financial sustainability, privacy and security, equity, and data quality. Our intention is to stimulate wider discussion and lay a foundation for further work evaluating policy options more in-depth and mapping them to those who have the power to bring about change. Addressing issues in these five domains will contribute to a cancer gene variant commons that supports better care for at-risk and affected patients, empowers patient communities, and advances research on hereditary cancers. (shrink)

Canfield & Lehrer haben einen Vorschlag zur formalen Darstellung von Gesetzen in empirischen Wissenschaften gemacht und dabei den Begriff der "störenden Bedingungen" verwendet. Coffa hat daraufhin den Beweis geführt, daß es störende Bedingungen in ihrem Sinne nicht geben kann. Es wird in dieser Erörterung gezeigt, daß dieser Beweis aus folgenden zwei Gründen nicht akzeptiert werden kann: 1. Coffa führt einen Ableitbarkeitsbegriff ein, der nicht dem in empirischen Wissenschaften üblichen Begriff entspricht und welcher auch nicht sinnvoll erscheint. 2. Außerdem verwendet er (...) in seiner Beweisführung als Prämisse das Ergebnis eines Formalisierungsversuches von Gesetzen, welches Canfield & Lehrer als inadäquat zurückgewiesen haben und das für sie der Anstoß war, eine angemessenere Formalisierung zu suchen. (shrink)

Summary Canfield and Lehrer argued in [1] that it is impossible to predict an event deductively from given laws and initial conditions. In [2] I showed (1) that there are counterexamples to C&L's claim, (2) that their argument was based on an assumption which they failed to recognize, let alone support (the assumption that there are ‘rejectible’ facts), (3) that if certain simple conditions on predictability were granted, it could be shown that C&L's tacit assumption is false. In a recent (...) issue of this Journal Dr. Harnatt has criticized (3) (ignoring (1) and (2)), and he has concluded that we should still wonder whether there are any deductive predictions. Dr. Harnatt's arguments are shown to be defective. (shrink)

This begins before 1896. This begins before Arkansas. But “this can't be right grandmother. who are our Ancestors! she said, shit gal, i don't know”. One of my ancestors walks toward me. She be Gertrude. Gertrude Grant. I have no pictures of her. I have no living memories of her. Yet I remember. Her. My Nana's mama, born around 1890 in the lumber town of Canfield in southern Arkansas.Canfield, Arkansas, 1896We're childrenBabies reallywhen the fires startA mob is always ready to (...) takeour wagesRun us awayAlways ready to lynch usWhen a volley of shotsbe my lullabiesI won't live to see 36I learn about the Canfield Race War of 1896 through online searches, old newspaper clippings, doctoral dissertations. Great-Grandma Gertrude would have been around six when the rioting happened, when white laborers became jealous of Black laborers and tried to push them, beat them, burn them out of town. Free library access to census documents and land deeds tells me that Gertrude's daddy, James W. Grant, purchased eighty acres of land in Canfield on February 1, 1893, perhaps thanks to the Southern Homestead Act, which made millions of acres of land available to homesteaders, including migrating and free Negroes. James and his wife, Susie A. Lewis, raised their children on their land in Canfield. How did the riots affect them, their land, their kin, their safety, their daily lives? I ask all the questions. I was raised with the permission to ask all the questions. I ask all the questions before I'm trained in the academy to ask all the questions. (shrink)

Information can be public among a group. Whether or not information is public matters, for example, for accounts of interdependent rational choice, of communication, and of joint intention. A standard analysis of public information identifies it with (some variant of) common belief. The latter notion is stipulatively defined as an infinite conjunction: for p to be commonly believed is for it to believed by all members of a group, for all members to believe that all members believe it, and so (...) forth. This analysis is often presupposed without much argument in philosophy. Theoretical entrenchment or intuitions about cases might give some traction on the question, but give little insight about why the identification holds, if it does. The strategy of this paper is to characterize a practical-normative role for information being public, and show that the only things that play that role are (variants of) common belief as stipulatively characterized. In more detail: a functional role for “taking a proposition for granted” in non-isolated decision making is characterized. I then present some minimal conditions under which such an attitude is correctly held. The key assumption links this attitude to beliefs about what is public. From minimal a priori principles, we can argue that a proposition being public among a group entails common commitment to believe among that group. Later sections explore partial converses to this result, the factivity of publicity and publicity from the perspective of outsiders to the group, and objections to the aprioricity of the result deriving from a posteriori existential presuppositions. (shrink)

Should we regard Jennifer Lackey’s ‘Creationist Teacher’ as understanding evolution, even though she does not, given her religious convictions, believe its central claims? We think this question raises a range of important and unexplored questions about the relationship between understanding, factivity and belief. Our aim will be to diagnose this case in a principled way, and in doing so, to make some progress toward appreciating what objectual understanding—i.e., understanding a subject matter or body of information—demands of us. Here is the (...) plan. After some ground clearing in §1, §2 outlines and motivates a plausible working model—moderate factivity—for characterising the sense in which objectual understanding should be regarded as factive. §3 shows how the datum that we can understand false theories can, despite initial suggestions to the contrary, be assimilated straightforwardly within the moderate factivity model. §4 highlights how the inverse kind of case to that explored in §3—viz., a variant of Lackey’s creationist teacher case—poses special problems for moderate factivity. With reference to recent work on moral understanding by Hills, §5 proposes a solution to the problem, and §6 attempts to diagnose why it is that we might originally have been led to draw the wrong conclusion. (shrink)

Protagoras, of all the ancient philosophers, has perhaps attracted the most interest in modern times. His saying ‘Man is the measure of all things’ caused Schiller to adopt him as the patron of the Oxford pragmatists, and has generally earned him the title of the first humanist. Yet the exact delineation of his philosophcal position remains a baffling task. Neumann, writing on Die Problematik des ‘Homo-mensura’ Satzes in 1938,2 concludes that no certainty whatever can be reached on the meaning of (...) the dictum, since ‘man’, ‘measure’, and ‘things’ are all ambiguous, nor can we tell which of the three is the predicate. The time is past when it was believed that a man's philosophy could be understood apart from the events of his life and the circumstances of his age: yet in the case of Protagoras the historical method of approach has hardly been attempted, although the impact of environment was perhaps more decisive in the formation of philosophical concepts in the Greek world than anywhere else. The reality about which the Greek philosopher spoke had three aspects: it was either the one universe of physics, or the political unity, or God. For example, the book of Heracleitus Περ φσεως was divided into three chapters or logoi, About the Whole, a political, and a theological. Neither physics nor theology supplies from its own subject-matter the form in which this reality was described. (shrink)

As biomedical citizen science initiatives become more prevalent, the unique ethical issues that they raise are attracting policy attention. One issue identified as a significant concern is the ethical oversight of bottom-up biomedical citizen science projects that are designed and executed primarily or solely by members of the public. That is because the federal rules that require ethical oversight of research by institutional review boards generally do not apply to such projects, creating what has been called an ethics gap. -/- (...) Working to close this gap, practitioners and scholars have considered new mechanisms of ethical oversight for biomedical citizen science. To date, however, participants’ attitudes about ethics and oversight preferences have not been systematically examined. This information is useful to efforts to develop ethical oversight mechanisms because it provides a basis for evaluating the likely effectiveness of specific features of such mechanisms and their acceptability from the perspective of biomedical citizen scientists. -/- Here, we report data from qualitative interviews with 35 stakeholders in bottom-up biomedical citizen science about their general ethics attitudes and preferences regarding ethical oversight. Interviewees described ten ethical priorities and endorsed oversight mechanisms that are voluntary, community-driven, and offer guidance. Conversely, interviewees rejected mechanisms that are mandatory, hierarchical, and inflexible. Applying these findings, we conclude that expert consultation and community review models appear to align well with ethical priorities and oversight preferences of many biomedical citizen scientists, although local conditions should guide the development and use of mechanisms in specific communities. (shrink)

In this article I try to refute the so-called "libertarian" theory of free will, and to examine how our conclusion ought to modify our common attitudes of praise and blame. In attacking the libertarian view, I shall try to show that it cannot be consistently stated. That is, my dscussion will be an "analytic-philosophic" one. I shall neglect what I think is in practice an equally powerful method of attack on the libertarian: a challenge to state his theory in such (...) a way that it will fit in the modern biology and psychology, which are becoming increasingly physicalistic. (shrink)

Living out of silence, out of a fully functioning, lovingly attentive mind, and not just out of thought, out of a partially functioning mind, is requisite for depth or profundity in living or relating. A fully attentive, truly silent or meditative mind sees that there is real dualism of time and the timeless and that time and the timeless each has its own unique value. The timeless, or real silence, that which alone can make for depth in one's living and (...) relating, can be there only when, in one's awareness, time and all that is related to time, have come to an end. An examination of a wide variety of statements made by writers, both past and present, shows that these understandings are seldom there in contemporary writings, just as they were not there in writings that have come down to us from the past. 'Living beyond the One and the Many' invites readers to consider the possibility that what is presented in it can bring deep meaning to one's way of living in the world"--Publisher's description, back cover. (shrink)

Recent studies challenge the classical view that the origin of animal life was primarily controlled by atmospheric oxygen levels. For example, some modern sponges, representing early‐branching animals, can live under 200 times less oxygen than currently present in the atmosphere – levels commonly thought to have been maintained prior to their origination. Furthermore, it is increasingly argued that the earliest animals, which likely lived in low oxygen environments, played an active role in constructing the well‐oxygenated conditions typical of the modern (...) oceans. Therefore, while oxygen is still relevant to understanding early animal evolution, the relationships between the two might be less straightforward than previously thought. (shrink)

If the world itself is metaphysically indeterminate in a specified respect, what follows? In this paper, we develop a theory of metaphysical indeterminacy answering this question.

_Wittgenstein’s Intentions_, first published in 1993, presents a series of essays dedicated to the great Wittgenstein exegete John Hunter. The problematic topics discussed are identified not only by Wittgenstein’s own philosophical writings, but also by contemporary scholarship: areas of ambiguity, perhaps even confusion, as well as issues which the father of analytic philosophy did not himself address. The difficulties involved in speaking cogently about religious belief, suspicion, consciousness, the nature of the will, the coincidence of our thoughts with reality, and (...) transfinite numbers are all investigated, as well as a variety of other intriguing questions: why can’t a baby pretend to smile? How do I know what I was going to say? Wittgenstein’s Intentions is an invaluable resource for students of Wittgenstein as well as scholars, and opens up a wide horizon of philosophical questioning for those as yet unfamiliar with this style of reasoning. (shrink)

Wittgenstein’s Intentions , first published in 1993, presents a series of essays dedicated to the great Wittgenstein exegete John Hunter. The problematic topics discussed are identified not only by Wittgenstein’s own philosophical writings, but also by contemporary scholarship: areas of ambiguity, perhaps even confusion, as well as issues which the father of analytic philosophy did not himself address. The difficulties involved in speaking cogently about religious belief, suspicion, consciousness, the nature of the will, the coincidence of our thoughts with reality, (...) and transfinite numbers are all investigated, as well as a variety of other intriguing questions: why can’t a baby pretend to smile? How do I know what I was going to say? Wittgenstein’s Intentions is an invaluable resource for students of Wittgenstein as well as scholars, and opens up a wide horizon of philosophical questioning for those as yet unfamiliar with this style of reasoning. (shrink)

Telling a patient that the outcome of his illness is not good, or even hopeless, requires sensitivity and the ability to communicate with him in the setting of a hospital which is an unnatural environment divorced from family and friends. It is a task which must be taught and learned by doctors and nurses.

The achievements of the textile industry in Roman Britain are often underestimated as a result of the meagreness of our available evidence. The Edict on maximum prices issued by Diocletian in A.D. 301 shows that British capes commanded high prices on the markets of the Empire, and that in the late third century A.D. British rugs were the best in the world. In view of the competition from the traditional centres of rug manufacture in the East, this is an astonishing (...) achievement. (shrink)

The received translation and interpretation of many of the technical terms current in the textile industry of the Roman Empire are inaccurate, because lexicographers have either fought shy of being precise, or have thought that they recognized in the ancient world technical processes which originated at a much later date. The evidence is often equivocal or insufficient, but may still yield details that have been overlooked. The textile expression scutulatus, to take an example, deserves more attention than Blümner has devoted (...) to it. When it refers to the appearance of a garment, Lewis and Short, s.v. scutulatus, translate ‘diamond or lozenge-shaped, checkered’. It seems worth while to attempt a more precise translation, and, if possible, to estimate the significance in context of the goods so designated. (shrink)

Previous research has demonstrated that speakers adapt individual characteristics of speech production to the social context, for example via phonetic convergence. Studies have measured the impact of social dynamics on convergence in typical speakers, but the impact of individual differences is less well-explored. The present study measures phonetic convergence before and after a cooperative interaction with an undergraduate student by comparing teens with a history of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and with typical development. Results revealed a small temporal convergence effect (...) for typically developing dyads; in contrast, dyads including autistic teens showed no convergence. Furthermore, the degree of convergence was negatively related to severity of ASD symptomatology and atypical sensory profiles. While social and sensory processing abilities may play a role in phonetic convergence, high covariance between these measures makes it difficult to differentiate their contributions in isolation. (shrink)

The existential analysis -- The death of dasein -- The timeliness of dasein -- The derivation of time -- The time of being.