人文科学最新文献

From the late nineteenth century, European ideas about African cattle breeds relied on the racial classification of African peoples, routed through Hamitic theory. As it were, anthropology influenced the reconstruction of cattle history, and the study of cattle breeds affected perceptions of race. The methods employed to classify African cattle included a range of sources with regards to past human migrations. Through the work of Hellmut Epstein, I detail how the Afrikander cattle breed was seen to signify the spread of an ancient white cultural influence in Africa. Comparisons from West Africa eventually challenged the historical premise of the breed's classification.

The COVID-19 pandemic created healthcare backlogs of routine primary and preventive care, elective procedures, dental care, and mental healthcare appointments across the world. So far, governments are responding by enacting pandemic recovery policies that expand their healthcare sector activity, without much, if any, consideration of its effects on the environmental crisis that is (among other things) worsening human health and health equity. This paper argues that, as a matter of health and social justice, governments have an ethical responsibility to equitably reduce the backlog with minimal environmental damage. To do so, a first key action is to give priority to policy options that minimise negative human impacts on the environment. Yet these policies alone will not be sufficient to address the backlog, particularly in relation to elective procedures. The paper therefore contends that a second key action for governments is to enact the policy options that are best able to equitably reduce the remainder of the backlog, while accelerating the transition to sustainable health care in ways that are best able to reduce the specific environmental costs of those policy options. It concludes by considering whether limits apply to governments' ethical responsibilities that ultimately mean accelerating the transition to sustainable health care is not required when addressing the backlog.

Can it be ethical to conduct xenotransplant research on a human brain-dead decedent (HB-DD) whose organs could otherwise be given to persons in need? The ethical consensus is that it is better to save existing persons via organ donation than to devote a HB-DD to research that will not directly benefit anyone. I argue otherwise. Given how rapidly xenotransplant research is progressing, and its clinical promise in the next couple of years or decades, I argue that it can be ethical to conduct xenotransplant research on a HB-DD whose organs could otherwise be given to individuals in need.

The motivated reception of science in line with one's preexisting convictions is a well-documented, pervasive phenomenon. In two studies (N = 743), we investigated whether this bias might be stronger in some people than others due to dispositional differences. Building on the assumptions that motivated science reception is driven by perceived threat and suspicion and higher under perceived ambiguity and uncertainty, we focused on traits associated with such perceptions. In particular, we tested the impact of conspiracy mentality and victim sensitivity on motivated science reception (as indicated by ascriptions of researchers' trustworthiness and evidence credibility). In addition, we explored the role of broader personality traits (generalized mistrust and ambiguity intolerance) in this context. None of the investigated dispositions modulated the motivated science reception effect. This demonstrates once again, that motivated science reception is a ubiquitous challenge for the effective dissemination of science and everyone seems to be at risk of it.