The papers in this issue are based on presentations by the authors at the 163nd National Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Seattle, Washington, 13–18 February 1997 in the session entitled Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t: What the Scientific Community Can Do about Whistleblowing organized by Stephanie J. Bird and Diane Hoffman-Kim. The papers have been modified following double blind peer review.

Chow's monograph exhibits four prototypical symptoms of psychology's enduring scientific crisis: it equates empirical science with statistical analysis; it settles for qualitative rather than quantitative theories; it ignores the role of ecological validity in the generalizability of theories; and it puts rigid adherence to arbitrary but documentable rules over critical thinking about the meaning of results.

The controversy around the accommodation of conscientious objections in medicine persists, especially for such contentious services as abortions. COs are typically considered in their negativ...

Bioethics, Volume 36, Issue 1, Page 63-70, January 2022.