Confidentiality is a cornerstone of the physician-patient relationship. Breaches of confidentiality in the context of genetic testing are of particular concern for a number of reasons. First, genetic testing reveals information not only about a particular patient, but also about his or her family members. Second,genetic testing can label healthy people as “at risk,” subjecting them to possible stigmatization or discrimination by third parties. Third, as genetic testing becomes more widespread and is incorporated into primary care, breaches of confidentiality might (...) inadvertently occur more frequently because primary care providers may not be trained to understand the uniqueness of genetic information. Until now, genetic services have been provided primarily by medical geneticists and genetic counselors. However, with the proliferation of new genetic presymptomatic and carrier tests, primary care physicians are going to become increasingly involved in genetic testing. Currently, little is known about physicians’ attitudes toward disclosure of confidential genetic information to third parties. (shrink)

Confidentiality is a cornerstone of the physician-patient relationship. Breaches of confidentiality in the context of genetic testing are of particular concern for a number of reasons. First, genetic testing reveals information not only about a particular patient, but also about his or her family members. Second,genetic testing can label healthy people as “at risk,” subjecting them to possible stigmatization or discrimination by third parties. Third, as genetic testing becomes more widespread and is incorporated into primary care, breaches of confidentiality might (...) inadvertently occur more frequently because primary care providers may not be trained to understand the uniqueness of genetic information. Until now, genetic services have been provided primarily by medical geneticists and genetic counselors. However, with the proliferation of new genetic presymptomatic and carrier tests, primary care physicians are going to become increasingly involved in genetic testing. Currently, little is known about physicians’ attitudes toward disclosure of confidential genetic information to third parties. (shrink)

The Theory Theory (TT) versus Simulation Theory (ST) debate is primarily concerned with how we understand others’ mental states. Theory theorists claim we do this using rules that are akin to theoretical laws, whereas simulation theorists claim we use our own minds to imagine ourselves in another’s position. Theorists from both camps suggest a consideration of individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) can help resolve the TT/ST debate (e.g., Baron-Cohen 1995; Carruthers 1996a; Goldman 2006). We present a three-part argument that (...) such research has so far been inconclusive and that the prospects for studies of ASD to resolve the debate in the near future remain uncertain. First, we discuss evidence indicating that some individuals with ASD can perform effectively on tests of mental state understanding, which questions what ASD can tell us regarding theorising or simulation. Second, we claim that there is compelling evidence that domain-general mechanisms are implicated in mental state reasoning, which undermines how ASD might inform the TT/ST debate given that both theories appeal to domain-specific mindreading mechanisms. Third, we suggest that neuroscientific evidence for an assumed role of the mirror neuron system in autism also fails to arbitrate between TT and ST. We suggest that while the study of ASD may eventually provide a resolution to the TT/ST debate, it is also vital for researchers to examine the issues through other avenues, for example, by examining people’s everyday counterfactual reasoning with mental state scenarios. (shrink)

This paper offers a new interpretation of Nietzsche’s “sovereign individual,” which appears in the second treatise of his 1887 On the Genealogy of Morality. I argue that Nietzsche’s presentation of that figure’s sovereignty is much more ambiguous than has hitherto been recognized. In contrast to scholars who argue that he is either completely free from moral conscience or entirely subservient to it, I argue that he is neither completely autonomous nor heteronomous. He surpasses the need for the enforcement of custom (...) only by internalizing it, i. e. by developing a conscience. This positions him as a crucial link in Nietzsche’s understanding of the human being’s dependence on morality. Attending to the sovereign individual’s ambiguities reveals Nietzsche’s skepticism about the possibility of autonomy within the political community. (shrink)

A Transition to Proof: An Introduction to Advanced Mathematics describes writing proofs as a creative process. There is a lot that goes into creating a mathematical proof before writing it. Ample discussion of how to figure out the "nuts and bolts'" of the proof takes place: thought processes, scratch work and ways to attack problems. Readers will learn not just how to write mathematics but also how to do mathematics. They will then learn to communicate mathematics effectively. The text emphasizes (...) the creativity, intuition, and correct mathematical exposition as it prepares students for courses beyond the calculus sequence. The author urges readers to work to define their mathematical voices. This is done with style tips and strict "mathematical do’s and don’ts", which are presented in eye-catching "text-boxes" throughout the text. The end result enables readers to fully understand the fundamentals of proof. Features: The text is aimed at transition courses preparing students to take analysis Promotes creativity, intuition, and accuracy in exposition The language of proof is established in the first two chapters, which cover logic and set theory Includes chapters on cardinality and introductory topology. (shrink)

Humans have undergone a long evolutionary history of violent agonistic exchanges, which would have placed selective pressures on greater body size and the psychophysical systems that detect them. The present work showed that greater body size in humans predicted increased knockout power during combative contests (Study 1a-1b: total N = 5,866; Study 2: N = 44 openweight fights). In agonistic exchanges reflective of ancestral size asymmetries, heavier combatants were 200% more likely to win against their lighter counterparts because they were (...) 200% more likely to knock them out (Study 2). Human dominance judgments (total N = 500 MTurkers) accurately tracked the frequency with which men (N = 516) knocked out similar-sized adversaries (Study 3). Humans were able to directly perceive a man’s knockout power because they were attending to cues of a man’s body size. Human dominance judgments—which are important across numerous psychological domains, including attractiveness, leadership, and legal decision-making—accurately predict the likelihood with which a potential mate, ally, or rival can incapacitate their adversaries. (shrink)

Researchers from diverse disciplines, including organismal and cellular physiology, sports science, human nutrition, evolution and ecology, have sought to understand the causes and consequences of the surprising variation in metabolic rate found among and within individual animals of the same species. Research in this area has been hampered by differences in approach, terminology and methodology, and the context in which measurements are made. Recent advances provide important opportunities to identify and address the key questions in the field. By bringing together (...) researchers from different areas of biology and biomedicine, we describe and evaluate these developments and the insights they could yield, highlighting the need for more standardisation across disciplines. We conclude with a list of important questions that can now be addressed by developing a common conceptual and methodological toolkit for studies on metabolic variation in animals. (shrink)

Pediatric health care workers often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research . We aim to determine whether HCW consider common arguments in support of AR convincing.

Intellectual property in biotechnology invention provides important incentives for research and development leading to advances in genetic tests and treatments. However, there have been numerous concerns raised regarding the negative effect patents on gene sequences and their practical applications may have on clinical research and the availability of new medical tests and procedures. One concern is that licensing policies attempting to capture for the benefit of the licensor valuable rights to downstream research results and products may increase the financial risks (...) and cliniinish potential payoffs of — and therefore motivation for — performing downstream research and development. In addition, very broad patent claims allowed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the sheer growth in patents claiming genetic sequences, and threats of overlapping patents create a veritable minefield for researchers in both academia and industry. The concern is that research may be stifled because of the high cost and hassle of negotiating access. (shrink)

BackgroundTo determine whether the public and scientists consider common arguments in support of animal research convincing.MethodsAfter validation, the survey was sent to samples of public, Amazon Mechanical Turk, a Canadian city festival and children’s hospital), medical students, and scientists. We presented questions about common arguments to justify the moral permissibility of AR. Responses were compared using Chi-square with Bonferonni correction.ResultsThere were 1220 public [SSI, n = 586; AMT, n = 439; Festival, n = 195; Hospital n = 107], 194/331 medical (...) student, and 19/319 scientist [too few to report] responses. Most public respondents were <45 years, had some College/University education, and had never done AR. Most public and medical student respondents considered ‘benefits arguments’ sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same ‘benefits arguments’ do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened ‘benefits arguments’. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘characteristics of non-human-animals arguments’, including that non-human-animals are not sentient, or are property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘human exceptionalism’ arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special ‘kind’, can enter social contracts, or face a ‘lifeboat situation’. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities [‘argument from species overlap’], and that the notion of ‘kind’ is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the ‘kind’ ‘sentient-animal’ or ‘subject-of-a-life’?]. Medical students were more supportive of AR at the end of the survey.ConclusionsResponses suggest that support for AR may not be based on cogent philosophical rationales, and more open debate is warranted. (shrink)

Intellectual property in biotechnology invention provides important incentives for research and development leading to advances in genetic tests and treatments. However, there have been numerous concerns raised regarding the negative effect patents on gene sequences and their practical applications may have on clinical research and the availability of new medical tests and procedures. One concern is that licensing policies attempting to capture for the benefit of the licensor valuable rights to downstream research results and products may increase the financial risks (...) and cliniinish potential payoffs of — and therefore motivation for — performing downstream research and development. In addition, very broad patent claims allowed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the sheer growth in patents claiming genetic sequences, and threats of overlapping patents create a veritable minefield for researchers in both academia and industry. The concern is that research may be stifled because of the high cost and hassle of negotiating access. (shrink)