PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Social Control, Formal”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources
PubMed1991

Sexual intimacies with clients after termination: should a prohibition be explicit?

The Revisions Task Force of the Ethics Committee of the American Psychological Association (APA) has proposed that prohibition of sexual intimacies with clients after termination of therapeutic relationships be made an explicit part of the new code. This decision was based on much careful deliberation and input from various individuals and groups. This article supports the proposed change and provides a rationale based on emerging theoretical positions and research findings regarding risks to clients, risks to professionals, and risks to the various mental health professions. The revision would read, "Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with current or former psychotherapy clients."

Altruism↗
PubMed1991

Animals in biomedical research: the undermining effect of the rhetoric of the besieged.

It is correctly asserted that the intensity of the current debate over the use of animals in biomedical research is unprecedented. The extent of expressed animosity and distrust has stunned many researchers. In response, researchers have tended to take a strategic defensive posture, which involves the assertation of several abstract positions that serve to obstruct resolution of the debate. Those abstractions include the notions that the animal protection movement is trivial and purely anti-intellectual in scope, that all science is good (and some especially so), and the belief that an ethical consensus can never really be reached between the parties.

Animal Experimentation↗
PubMed1993

Questions of scientific responsibility: the Baltimore case.

A number of cases of questionable behavior in science have been extensively reported in the media during the last two or three years. What standards are upheld by the scientific community affect the community internally, and also affect its relations with society at large, including Congress. Here I wish to address questions of scientific responsibility, using the Baltimore case as a concrete instance where they came up. The first part containing historical background is necessary to provide readers with documentation so that they can have some factual bases on which to evaluate respective positions and my conclusions that follow -- based on further but more succinctly summarized documentation. I have reproduced many quotes because I firmly believe people are entitled to be represented by their own wording. Conversely, I hold people accountable for their official positions. Some of these are reproduced in footnotes, and some longer ones are reproduced in appendices. I also do not ask to be trusted. By providing numerous references, I hope that readers who find my documentation insufficient can follow up by looking up these references.... The article is in six parts: Part I. Historical Background. This part gives mostly a historical background of the early phases of the Baltimore case. Part II. The First Issue of Responsibility. This part presents a discussion of certain scientific responsibilities based on that background, specifically: the responsibility of answering questions about one's work, and the responsibility whether to submit to authority. Part III. The NIH Investigations. This part summarizes the two NIH investigations. Part IV. The Dingell Subcommittee. This part deals with the responsibilities of a Congressional Committee vis-à-vis science. Part V. Further Issues of Responsibility. This part goes into an open ended discussion of many issues of responsibility facing scientists, vis-à-vis themselves and vis-à-vis society at large, including Congress. The list is long, and readers can look at the section and paragraph headings to get an idea of their content. Part VI. Personal Credibility, a Shift at the Grass Roots, and Baltimore's Persistence.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed1993

On being a whistleblower: the Needleman case.

We believe that members of the scientific community have a primary obligation to promote integrity in research and that this obligation includes a duty to report observations that suggest misconduct to agencies that are empowered to examine and evaluate such evidence. Consonant with this responsibility, we became whistleblowers in the case of Herbert Needleman. His 1979 study (Needleman et al., 1979), on the effects of low-level lead exposure on children, is widely cited and highly influential in the formulation of public policy on lead. The opportunity we had to examine subject selection and data analyses from this study was prematurely halted by efforts to prevent disclosure of our observations. Nevertheless, what we saw left us with serious concerns. We hope that the events here summarized will contribute to revisions of process by which allegations of scientific misconduct are handled and that such revisions will result in less damage to scientists who speak out.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed1993

Whistleblowing: a very unpleasant avocation.

This article presents a first-person account of the events surrounding the investigation and sanctioning of Stephen E. Breuning for scientific fraud. The adverse consequences to the whistleblower in this case are also discussed in detail.

Behavioral Research↗
PubMed1993

Of whistleblowers, investigators, and judges.

CONCLUSION: Deliberate misrepresentation continues. Needleman attacks the whistleblowers, the NIH, and his own University to deflect attention from the indications of misconduct in his research. Federal agencies base policies on his research and on his assertions regarding the purported effects of low-level lead exposure on children. The policies divert resources and attention from the real needs of children. Misconduct issues will ultimately be resolved by the ORI and the courts. Public policy issues may require reconsideration in light of further evidence.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed1995

Deception methods in psychology: have they changed in 23 years?

To learn whether criticism and regulation of research practices have been followed by a reduction of deception or use of more acceptable approaches to deception, the contents of all 1969, 1978, 1986, and 1992 issues of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology were examined. Deception research was coded according to type of (non)informing (e.g., false informing, consent to deception, no informing), possible harmfulness of deception employed (e.g., powerfulness of induction, morality of the behavior induced, privacy of behavior), method of deception (e.g., bogus device or role, false purpose of study, false feedback), and debriefing employed. Use of confederates has been partly replaced by uses of computers. "Consent" with false informing declined after 1969, then rose in 1992. Changes in the topics studied (e.g., attribution, socialization, personality) largely accounted for the decline in deception in 1978 and 1986. More attention needs to be given to ways of respecting subjects' autonomy, to appropriate debriefing and desensitizing, and to selecting the most valid and least objectionable deception methods.

Behavioral Research↗
PubMed1997

Role of the institutional animal care and use committee in monitoring research.

During the 1980s, federal regulations transferred significant portions of the responsibility for monitoring the care and use of research animals from animal care programs to Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs). After a brief review of the history of the regulation of the use of animals in research preceding and during the 4 decades following World War II, this article raises 4 problems associated with the role IACUCs currently play in monitoring the use of animals in research: (a) lack of expertise, (b) diverted resources, (c) conflict of interest, and (d) restrictions of academic freedom. It is concluded that the care and treatment of animals used in research would be served better and organized more rationally if the day-to-day responsibilities for approving projects and caring for animals were separated more clearly from broader, oversight functions, with the former being assigned to animal care programs and the latter to IACUCs.

Academies and Institutes↗
PubMed1997

Institutional animal care and use committees: a flawed paradigm or work in progress?

In his challenging article, Steneck (1997) criticized the creation of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) system established by the 1985 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act. He saw the IACUC review and approval of biomedical and behavioral research with animals as an unnecessary "reassignment" of duties from existing animal care programs to IACUC committees. He argued that the committees are unable to do the work expected of them for basically three reasons: (a) the membership lacks the expertise in matters relevant to animal research and care, (b) there exists an inherent and disabling conflict of interest, and (c) the committee's operational base of authority is alien to academic culture and violates essential aspects of academic freedom. In addition, he found that the system is burdensome, requiring enormous expenditures of time and money that inappropriately diverts resources away from the business of scientific discovery. We dispute several aspects of Steneck's historical account and the coherence of his proposals. We believe his proposals, if followed, would be a step back into a failed past.

Animal Care Committees↗
PubMed1994

Regulatory models for human embryo cloning: the free market, professional guidelines, and government restrictions.

Both experimental and therapeutic uses of the new reproductive technologies have been governed not by the medical ideology of the best interests of patients and their children, but by the market ideology of profit maximization under the guise of "reproductive liberty." Government in our constitutional, democratic society has the authority and obligation to make and enforce reasonable regulations to manage the new reproductive market in order to protect the interests of the public, prospective parents, and their future children. The "cloning" debate provides a useful opportunity to compare and contrast the competing regulatory models of the free market, professional guidelines, and government restrictions.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed1993

Improved standards for laboratory animals?

In February 1993, Judge Charles R. Richey of the United States District Court issued a summary judgment in the case of Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. The Secretary of Agriculture, et al. The decision, which was in favor of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to withdraw its current regulations governing exercise for dogs and the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates used for biomedical research and to issue new regulations containing only minimum, measurable standards. Both plaintiffs and defendants contended that they were seeking the best interests of the laboratory animals. The issue at stake is whether animals are better protected if the government establishes limited minimal standards or is allowed to require institutions to provide additional standards, which will be judged on the basis of their effectiveness in maintaining healthy animals. The Court avoided this dispute, however, by placing primary emphasis on applying the Administrative Procedures Act and stating that it was merely interpreting the "plain meaning" of the Animal Welfare Act, as amended. In this article, arguments are presented for interpreting the law in a far more flexible way than Judge Richey did. The conclusion is also reached that there were no winners in the Animal Legal Defense Fund case and that the real losers are the laboratory animals.

Animal Experimentation↗
PubMed1977

Social problems of alcoholics.

A comparison of abstainers and alcoholics showed that the latter were more often involved in social conflicts and breaches of social norms. The breaches of social values were as important as the drinking in society's definition of an alcoholic.

Aggression↗