We address some frequently encountered criticisms of Radical Embodied/Enactive Cognition. Contrary to the claims that the position is too radical, or not sufficiently so, we claim REC is just radical enough.

This paper shows how a radical approach to enactivism provides a way of clarifying and unifying different varieties of enactivism and enactivist-friendly approaches so as to provide a genuine alternative to classical cognitivism. Section 1 reminds readers of the broad church character of the enactivism framework. Section 2 explicates how radical enactivism is best understood not as a kind of enactivism per se but as a programme for radicalizing and consolidating the many different enactivist offerings. The main work of radical (...) enactivism is to RECtify, existing varieties of enactivism and other cognate approaches so as to strengthen and unify them into a single collective that can rival classical ways of thinking about mind and cognition. Section 3 shows how even seemingly non-enactivist explanatory offerings—such as predictive processing accounts of cognition—might be RECtified and brought within the enactivist explanatory fold. Section 4 reveals why, once RECtified, enactivist offerings, broadly conceived, qualify as genuine and revolutionary alternatives to classical ways of understanding cognition. (shrink)

In practice, the role of lay members of research ethics committees (RECs) often involves checking the accessibility of written materials, checking that the practical needs of participants have been considered and ensuring that a lay summary of the research will be produced. In this brief report, I argue that all these tasks would be more effectively carried out through a process of patient involvement (PI) in research projects prior to ethical review. Involving patients with direct experience of the topic (...) under investigation brings added value beyond the contributions typically made by lay REC members, who are often not patients themselves. This is because PI tailors the design and conduct of research to the specific interests and concerns of the people who will actually take part in a project and make use of its findings. If a project has PI in its early stages, then a similar input from lay REC members could at best result in duplication of effort and at worst create the potential for conflict. The rationale for lay REC membership will therefore need to change from ‘contributing a patient perspective’ to ‘ensuring transparency and public accountability in REC decisions’. This has implications for addressing more strategic questions about lay REC membership, including who is best recruited to the role and how they should be expected to contribute in practice. (shrink)

In this article, the author contends that the current indemnity provided to REC members is unfair and is so badly drafted that it cannot be described as an indemnity at all. He contends that the Appointing Authorities should give guidance to clarify the scope of the indemnity or replace it. The author discusses potential legal claims by REC members against their Appointing Authority if this is not provided. The legal liability of REC members for negligence and other claims is also (...) discussed. The author provides a solution in a simpler form of indemnity framed by reference to actual claims that can be made against a REC member. (shrink)

The Association of Research Ethics Committees is one of the leading providers of training and education for members of Research Ethics Committees. The introduction of the research governance strategy and the increasing complexity of ethical review place great demands on research ethics committee members that in turn creates challenges for training providers. This paper presents the outcome of an audit of REC members' views about training. Findings demonstrate that REC members are not a homogenous group. Several distinct sub-groups, each with (...) particular training needs emerged. All showed a preference for short, easily accessible events in which there were opportunities for discussion. (shrink)

rec. D. Sepczyńska, Katolicyzm a liberalizm. Szkic z filozofii społecznej, Kraków: Nomos 2008.

Recenzja książek W. Buchner, Wojna i konkwista. Hiszpańska myśl polityczna Złotego Wieku i A.A. Chaufe, Wiara i wolność. Myśl ekonomiczna późnych scholastyków.

This essay responds to an article, ‘Variation in university research ethics review’, published in this issue. It argues that the authors of that paper do not fully distinguish the usual function of university research ethics committees from that of a gatekeeper. The latter term more accurately describes the task they happen to have asked them to fulfil in the course of conducting some empirical research. Whilst they are not alone in making it, the result of this conflation is that the (...) reflections they offer are misguided. In this short comment I briefly discuss the distinction between a REC and a gatekeeper, and indicate how it impacts on the proposals sketched by Vadeboncoeur et al. (shrink)