Scholars and policymakers continue to struggle over the meaning of the word “vulnerable” in the context of research ethics. One major reason for the stymied discussions regarding vulnerable populations is that there is no clear distinction between accounts of research vulnerabilities that exist for certain populations and discussions of research vulnerabilities that require special regulations in the context of research ethics policies. I suggest an analytic process by which to ascertain whether particular vulnerable populations should be contenders for additional regulatory (...) protections. I apply this process to two vulnerable populations: the cognitively vulnerable and the economically vulnerable. I conclude that a subset of the cognitively vulnerable require extra protections while the economically vulnerable should be protected by implementing existing regulations more appropriately and rigorously. Unless or until the informed consent process is more adequately implemented and the distributive justice requirement of the Belmont Report is emphasized and operationalized, the economically disadvantaged will remain particularly vulnerable to the harm of exploitation in research. (shrink)

Terror management theory and research can rectify shortcomings in Atran & Norenzayan's (A&N's) analysis of religion. (1) Religious and secular worldviews are much more similar than the target article supposes; (2) a propensity for embracing supernatural beliefs is likely to have conferred an adaptive advantage over the course of evolution; and (3) the claim that supernatural agent beliefs serve a terror management function independent of worldview bolstering is not empirically supported.

Bering's analysis is inadequate because it fails to consider past and present adult soul beliefs and the psychological functions they serve. We suggest that a valid folk psychology of souls must consider features of adult soul beliefs, the unique problem engendered by awareness of death, and terror management findings, in addition to cognitive inclinations toward dualistic and teleological thinking.

Popper: I do admit that at any moment we are prisoners caught in the framework of our theories; our expectations; our past experiences; our language. But we are prisoners in a Pickwickian sense: if we try, we can break out of our framework at any time. Admittedly, we shall find ourselves again in a framework, but it will be a better and roomier one; and we can at any moment break out of it again.Kuhn: If that possibility were routinely available, (...) there ought to be no very special difficulties about stepping into someone else's framework in order to evaluate it. My critics' attempts to step into mine suggest, however, that changes of framework, of theory, of language, or of paradigm pose deeper problems of both .. (shrink)

In the early 1920s, the Rockefeller Foundation's International Health Board was presenting itself as the watchtower of public health for the world at large. Yet Soviet Russia was never included in any of the International Health Board's programs, despite the efforts of the Russians to reach out to the Board. This paper examines the exclusion of Russia as a function of the conceptual and structural lenses through which the International Health Board 'saw' post-revolutionary Soviet public health. It also speculates about (...) the ways in which those who spoke on behalf of Soviet public health contributed to the perceptions of the Board. (shrink)

Until recently, the links between Rockefeller philanthropies and Russianscience and medicine during the 1920s have been virtually ignored, both inofficial Foundation histories and in Soviet accounts of foreign scientificrelations. Materials from the newly-opened Russian archives and the Rockefeller Archive Center reveal dense and tangled connections between multiple Rockefeller givers and multiple Russian takers. Examining the `Russian matter' from the perspective of both `givers' and `takers', this article highlights the impact of domestic and international politics on giving and taking across borders, (...) and reveals the range of meanings of`internationalism' in philanthropy. (shrink)

In December 1927, Alan Gregg,Associate Director of the RockefellerFoundation's Division of Medical Education, setoff from Paris on an exploratory mission toRussia. After a seventeen-day visit, Greggreturned firmly committed to improvingrelations. What did Gregg `see' in the field?Using the briefing book prepared for Gregg, histravel diaries, and his final report, thispaper analyses the social and cognitivedynamics of what became an exercise inFoundation bridge-building.