The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 9, Page 55-57, September 2012.

Improvements to the validity of psychological science depend upon more than the actions of individual researchers. Editors, journals, and publishers wield considerable power in shaping the incentives that have ushered in the generalizability crisis. These gatekeepers must raise their standards to ensure authors' claims are supported by evidence. Unless gatekeepers change, changes made by individual scientists will not be sustainable.

Diabetes is epidemic and many people cannot afford insulin, a lifesaving medication, as its price has increased by almost 160 percent in the past five years.1 To help subsidize the cost of insulin, one of the staff members at my hospital would like to give patients copayment coupons provided to her by pharmaceutical companies. I advised my colleague to stop distributing these branded coupons, as they promote particular pharmaceutical companies. This practice is not consistent with the policy on interaction with (...) industry established by the Johns Hopkins Health System. Yet at the same time, I want my patients to be able to afford their insulin so they can treat their diabetes. I truly believe in utilitarianism. Would temporarily subsidizing patients’ insulin make me and my staff better healthcare providers? Would this minimize my patients’ financial burden? Would giving away medications coupons help pharmaceutical companies influence me as a prescriber? This challenge created a personal internal debate and profound moral distress. (shrink)

The contribution attests a research project coordinated by the Department of Human Sciences for Education “Riccardo Massa” and led in Mantova and Sabbioneta UNESCO sites. The project aims at accompanying citizens and visitors along a participative, sensorial and emotional path towards the cultural heritage’s enhancement and interpretation. Inspired by the desire to promote experiences helpful for an encounter between human beings and the environment, the body and the mind, the scientific and poetic dimension, we wanted to investigate and further explore (...) the possibility to plan and start exploratory itineraries and artistic-expressive-performing actions both for daily and one-day passers-by. These are meant to feel, to live and inhabit these places not only through a rational and intellectual awareness but, more importantly, through a bodily and emotional one. (shrink)

Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler have been arguing for what they named libertarian paternalism (henceforth LP). Their proposal generated extensive debate as to how and whether LP might lead down a full-blown paternalistic slippery slope. LP has the indubitable merit of having hardwired the best of the empirical psychological and sociological evidence into public and private policy making. It is unclear, though, to what extent the implementation of policies so constructed could enhance the capability for the exercise of an autonomous (...) citizenship. Sunstein and Thaler submit it that in most of the cases in which one is confronted with a set of choices, some default option must be picked out. In those cases whoever devises the features of the set of options ought to rank them according to the moral principle of non-maleficence and possibly to that of beneficence. In this paper we argue that LP can be better implemented if there is a preliminary deliberative debate among the stakeholders that elicits their preferences, and makes it possible to rationally defend them. (shrink)