人文科学最新文献

Background: Supervision is one important means of promoting responsible research. However, what a responsible supervisor should do and how to foster a responsible supervisory climate is unclear.

Methods: Between January 2023 and February 2024, I conducted 17 focus groups in The Netherlands and Denmark with 85 PhD candidates and PhD supervisors to understand what practices supervisors engage in to promote responsible conduct of research and what strategies could promote a responsible supervisory relationship.

Results: Supervisors were found to promote responsible research by rigorously evaluating the relevance of studies, ensuring transparency, and taking the initiative in establishing clear authorship guidelines. They critically discussed the alignment between research questions, design, and analyses. Furthermore, supervisors implemented clear data management policies and normalized conversations about ethics. They led by example through clear and coherent writing. To foster a responsible supervisory relationship, supervisors challenged the PhD candidates' ideas and supported their decision-making processes. They were mindful of the PhD candidates' needs, tailoring the research trajectory. Supervisors also practiced self-awareness and cultivated a culture of care where every contribution was appreciated.

Conclusions: The North-Western context is a major limitation. I connect these findings to established leadership theories and consider their implications for fostering responsible supervision.

Using the syntactic priming paradigm, this study investigated abstract syntactic knowledge of Chinese transitive structures (i.e., subject-verb-object [SVO], BA, and BEI) in deaf children with cochlear implants (CIs). Specifically, we focused on the differences in the development of various syntactic structures (within CI children and compared with their typically hearing children) and the possible individual differences during this process. Results showed that both CI and hearing children exhibited structural priming for all syntactic structures (i.e., SVO, SbaOV structure [agent-patient ordering], and ObeiSV structure [patient-agent ordering]) after comprehending and repeating the prime sentence regardless of verb repetition. However, verb repetition induced an intense abstract priming effect in CI children but not hearing children, with the lexical boost effect more significant for SVO and BA structures. In addition, CI children's working memory capability modulated the production of the BA structure but not SVO and BEI structures.

Euthanasia in dementia based on advance euthanasia directives (AEDs) is possible within the Dutch Euthanasia law. Yet, physicians struggle with the responsibility of interpreting the law's open norms in cases of advanced dementia, which includes the fulfilment of the due care criteria. This Delphi study aims to analyse arguments and seek consensus from medical, ethical and legal perspectives on ethical dilemmas in such cases. Thirty participants, equally divided in expertise, took part in a three-round Delphi with a total of 11 statements on ethical dilemmas. Despite differences in opinions and argumentations between panellists, consensus was reached on seven statements regarding different topics. Consensus was reached that the (behavioural) expressions of a person with dementia should be considered throughout the progression of decision-making disabilities. In such cases, a wish to live should be prioritised over an AED. Although substitute decision-making is not an option in case of euthanasia requests, both people around the person with dementia as well as their AED can be supportive in the decision-making process. Advance directives with formulations such as 'if I have to admitted to a nursing home, then I want euthanasia' are found to be infeasible. At all times, it is important to pay attention to alternatives to euthanasia, which includes following existing guidelines on problem behaviour. Physicians may benefit from the arguments pertaining to dilemmas encountered and the fulfilment of the due care criteria to either justify their decisions in euthanasia cases based on an AED, or to support decisions to refrain from euthanasia.

Background: The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently issued the 2024 Final Rule on Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct (42 CFR 93), the first major revision of the regulation in nearly twenty years. Much of the commentary published about the 2024 Final Rule has focused on its impacts on research misconduct proceedings at institutions receiving Public Health Service funding. But formally addressing research misconduct is just one part of a larger effort needed to promote research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, and the new rule has the potential to affect this larger effort.

Methods: This article examines the evolution of the 2024 Final Rule and analyzes five changes with the potential to have broader impacts on cultures of research integrity at U.S. institutions. We consider changes that did and not happen in development from the 2005 Final Rule to the 2023 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and the 2024 Final Rule.

Results: We identify three changes that the research community should welcome (partnership between ORI and the regulated community, identifying potential respondents, and defining research integrity), one change of concern (redefining plagiarism), and one change that might or might not be welcome (promoting research integrity and the responsible conduct of research).

Conclusions: Although there is cause for concern about some of the 2024 Final Rule's potential implications for cultures of research integrity at US institutions, the positive changes support an optimistic outlook. In the coming years, it will be critical for HHS, ORI, the research community, and other stakeholders to work hand-in-hand to build on the progress made in the 2024 Final Rule to prevent and address research misconduct as part of a comprehensive effort to promote research integrity and the responsible conduct of research.

Background: Thailand has made significant progress in malaria control efforts in the past decade, with a decline in the number of reported cases. However, due to cross-border movements over the past 5 years, reported malaria cases in Thailand have risen. The Malaria Infection Study in Thailand (MIST) involves deliberate infection of healthy volunteers with Plasmodium vivax malaria parasites, and the assessment of the efficacy of potential vaccine and drug candidates in order to understand acquired protection against malaria parasites.

Methods: This paper drew from ethics and social science qualitative study called MIST-ETHICS embedded within the MIST studies. MIST-ETHICS aimed to describe and understand the experiences, perceptions and ethical considerations of the MIST studies. Data were obtained from semi-structured interviews and a focus group discussion. A total of 46 participants participated in MIST-ETHICS .

Results: Three major themes emerged: experiences and perceptions of MIST, reasons for joining MIST, and ethical considerations. We found that although compensation was a motivation for participation, this was secondary to it being beneficial to self (health checks; link to health networks; building merit) and others (medical research contribution; altruism). Participants expressed varied opinions regarding the requirement of a university degree as one of the inclusion criteria for MIST.

Conclusions: Our study revealed widespread concerns about long-term health effects and safety. Ethical considerations, including obtaining valid informed consent and ensuring participant inclusivitiy, were deem essential. Despite some debate regarding eligibility criteria, most participants agreed that the informed consent process was robust, accompanied by a strong sense of responsibility to contribute to the greater good. We emphasize the importance of continuously gathering participants' feedback for quality control, such as improving information materials to clarify the purpose of initial phases, their contributing to later phases, and the rationale behind each selection criterion.

Trial registration: This manuscript is part of the clinical trials registered under ClinicalTrials.gov IDs NCT04083508 (MIST1) registered on 5 Sep 2019 and NCT05071079 (MIST2) registered on 28 July 2021. However, the manuscript pertains to a qualitative study that does not require trial registration.