人文科学最新文献

Disagreement as to whether the auditory cortical center was located in the superior temporo-sphenoidal lobe-as proposed by David Ferrier in 1875, but apparently negated by the later experiments of Edward Schäfer-came to a head following an experimental demonstration given by Schäfer at a meeting of the Neurological Society of London in March 1887. Previous attempts to document the Ferrier-Schäfer dispute have been based on contemporary published sources, which are limited. Here we present documents not hitherto identified and/or transcribed to our knowledge that shed further light on the debate between Schäfer and Ferrier on the cortical localization of the auditory center. They permit a more detailed historical reconstruction of events that provides no definitive behavioral-pathological evidence to support Schäfer's claim to have disproved Ferrier's original localization.

Background: As part of the European Be better informed about Fertility project (B2-InF), we carried out a normative analysis of the information provided online by assisted reproduction clinics to the European public. This analysis aimed to determine the degree to which this information complies with regulations of medically assisted reproduction (MAR) and commercial information, and the main ethical implications related to the duty of information.

Methods: Information was gathered from the websites of 33 clinics across 8 European countries (Albania, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Kosovo, Northern Macedonia, Slovenia, Switzerland). Nearly 2000 pages of information were reviewed and checked for compliance with relevant frameworks of national and international law.

Results: The assessment revealed significant inconsistencies in how clinics present information online, with particular concerns regarding transparency about success rates, associated risks, add-on techniques and the legal and ethical issues that may arise during the use of these techniques.

Conclusions: The results of our analysis indicate an urgent need for enhanced regulatory oversight and standardized information requirements for assisted reproduction clinics across Europe. These findings suggest the necessity for harmonized legal frameworks that mandate comprehensive disclosure standards and establish effective enforcement mechanisms to ensure transparent and accurate information provision to potential patients.

The value of scientific knowledge and fairness in distribution of academic credit are core values in research publication. However, it is little discussed in the literature that these values may come into conflict, particularly in interdisciplinary research. The point of this paper is to acknowledge and describe the conflict and discuss potential solutions. We use collaborations between pre-clinical (laboratory) researchers and clinicians at hospitals as an exemplifying case. We conclude that, without changing the preconditions for the value conflict, there is no general solution involving systematically prioritizing one value over the other. However, a potential way out of the conflict would be a general shift from authorship to contributorship regarding evaluation of contributions, but required routines are presently not in place with most journals.

Background: Science and technology drive research progress but also introduce growing risks, value conflicts and ethical challenges. Science and technology ethics review committees (STERCs) serve as key institutional mechanisms to ensure that scientific activities comply with ethical principles and professional norms. However, the establishment of STERCs worldwide remains at an early developmental stage, and structured, systematic criteria for evaluating their quality are largely absent. This study aims to develop a structured evaluation indicator system for STERCs and to explore its preliminary applicability.

Methods: This study conducted a literature review and qualitative interviews to develop a preliminary evaluation indicator system, which was organized using Donabedian's three-dimensional framework of structure, process, and outcome. The final indicator system was established after two rounds of expert consultation. The preliminary self-assessment data were collected from 80 medical institutions and 19 companies across 14 cities in Hunan Province.

Results: Both rounds of the Delphi consultation achieved a 100% response rate. The mean authoritative coefficient (Cr) was 0.900, while familiarity (Cs) and judgment basis (Ca) scores were 0.867 and 0.933, respectively. Kendall's coefficient of concordance (Kendall's W) was 0.300 (p < 0.001) in round one and 0.213 (p < 0.001) in round two. The final evaluation indicator system consisted of three first-level indicators, nine second-level indicators and 52 third-level indicators.

Conclusions: This study proposes a unified framework for science and technology ethics review, integrating activities involving humans, animals, and other potential technological risks into a single evaluation system. The indicator system supports institutional self-assessment, promotes standardization, and guides continuous improvement. Preliminary findings indicate its feasibility and internal consistency, but these results should be interpreted cautiously due to the limited sample scope and reliance on self-reported data.