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)
We study the filter ℒ*(A) of computably enumerable supersets (modulo finite sets) of an r-maximal set A and show that, for some such set A, the property of being cofinite in ℒ*(A) is still Σ0 3-complete. This implies that for this A, there is no uniformly computably enumerable “tower” of sets exhausting exactly the coinfinite sets in ℒ*(A).
We construct the set of the title, answering a question of Cholak, Jockusch, and Slaman , and discuss its connections with the study of the proof-theoretic strength and effective content of versions of Ramsey's Theorem. In particular, our result implies that every ω-model of RCA 0 + SRT 2 2 must contain a nonlow set.
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)