Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: One of the more recent trends in globalization is the increase of medicine testing abroad. Western pharmaceutical companies relocate risky medicine tests to resource-poor countries. Most of us will have the intuition that this relocation is not unproblematic, without immediately knowing what is wrong or why. I argue that ipso facto relocating medicine tests to developing countries is not intrinsically wrong; even more, it can even have beneficial effects for resource-poor countries. The problem, however, is the difficulty of distinguishing beneficial and harmful (or even exploitative) forms of medicine testing. The aim of the paper is to map the institutional context in which this practice of relocating medicine tests abroad has emerged and discussing the role of western governments in regulating this practice. The argument proceeds in three steps. I start by discussing the various reasons why it is attractive for western pharmaceutical companies to relocate these medicine tests, and distinguish these reasons in ethically-neutral and ethically-problematic ones. Secondly, I present a preliminary formulation of principle of justice determining a fair distribution of burdens and benefits of border-crossing medicine tests. Finally, I show how this principle of justice for border-crossing medicine tests and the separation between ethically-neutral and ethically-problematic reasons for relocating medicine tests can be useful in determining western policies towards the relocation of medicine tests of western pharmaceuticals to resource-poor countries.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 provides a general background for the discussion and describes the role of medicine tests in the process of developing new medicines. Section 2 explains how globalization has changed the practice of medicine tests. It gives an overview of the incentives for pharmaceutical companies to relocate their medicine tests to resource-poor countries. Moreover, it shows why globalization has weakened the ability of national governments to regulate the practice. Section 3 discusses the role western regulations can play in the decisions of pharmaceutical companies to relocate medicine tests. I argue that the interests of several groups must be balanced – patients and pharmaceutical companies in western countries and resource-poor countries and their citizens. Moreover, I present a consequentialist argument on how these interests must be balanced. Section 4 discusses a central issue in current political debates – double standards in medical research – are shows how my approach, as developed in section 4, can be helpful in discussing this example. Section 5 concludes.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper focuses on the controversial jury innovation of allowing jurors to ask witnesses questions during trial. The paper begins by discussing the psychological Story Model of juror decision-making, which suggests that jurors construct stories to comprehend evidence, which allow the jurors to reach a decision prior to deliberations. The research demonstrates the need for jury innovations involving jurors actively participating in the trial. Then, the authors give an overview of juror questioning, which includes the purpose of jurors asking questions, common procedures implemented when allowing the practice, and cautionary instructions to the jurors regarding the practice. The authors examine why some judges hesitate to allow this innovation when other innovations with fewer perceived drawbacks are available. Next, the paper examines the benefits and criticisms that have been supported through empirical studies, as well as the apparent misconceptions among the supporters and critics. The authors then discuss recent state and federal court decisions that either support or discourage the practice. Next, the paper discusses suggested standards regarding cautionary instructions and procedures for implementing juror questioning, as well as which standards should be encouraged or discouraged. The authors conclude that courts should uniformly adopt the practice of allowing jurors to ask questions. Since there are few adverse effects of allowing jurors to ask questions, the practice should be implemented to aid jurors in performing their role as fact-finders.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: African American’s mistrust the current organ procurement and allocations system and, perhaps, for good reason. The scientific rationales determining priority on organ waitlists are outdated due to the efficacy and prevalence of immunosuppressant drugs. The distributional consequences are socially unjust—Blacks are subject to higher mortality rates and waiting times than their White counterparts. Indirectly, this may impact the supply of available organs. Blacks are under-represented in organ procurement despite the fact that, as a group, they are historically more charitable than their peers. This paper proposes a policy solution that shifts control over organ allocation to organ donors themselves by allowing donors to select the race of their potential recipients. Increased donor control may lead to increased organ supply. Individuals donate money to organizations of their choice without bureaucratic interference or consideration, and often do so along race or religious lines. Scientific development now forces us to ask why the same cannot hold true for altruistic organ donation. Historical concerns with the use of race as a decision-making criterion focus on animus and hurtful intent. But, recent Court opinions regarding school segregation suggest a different social climate at present: one conducive to race based solutions. In a post-affirmative action society, is color blind organ allocation necessary? The social repercussions may suggest so. But perhaps, given what is at stake, the costs of human lives should compel us to stop looking past race as a potential solution.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This study explored individuals’ perceptions of the issue of affirmative action in higher education to examine the importance of assessing perceptions of media influence on self and others via the use of measurements that allow for bi-directional influence (pro and con). Results show that measurements that assume a uni-directional influence or those that assess only magnitudes of influence may result in different conclusions concerning third person perceptions. In this study, individuals tended to perceive that they were more strongly influenced by media portrayals than others in the direction of their existing attitudes. Results are discussed in terms of a possible “reinforcement” schema that viewers may employ when estimating media influence for content that contains a diversity of viewpoints.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The geography of gender inequality differs vis-à-vis the gap in male/female education and the sex ratio. Both sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia and the Arab world have substantial female disadvantage in enrollment ratios. But with respect to the sex ratio, sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest world region, has 102 females/100 males, whereas in Pakistan, India, China and some Arab countries, “100 million women are missing”(Sen 1991). This paper combines theory (including Blumberg’s theory of gender stratification) and data to illuminate these differences.

Concerning the gender gap in education, most of sub-Saharan Africa and Asia share a possible (and under-explored) common factor – patrilocal residence. But they differ greatly with respect to females’ economic value, which seems to affect the sex ratio. In Africa, the economic value of females is high: women grow up to 80 percent of food crops (Saito & Weidemann 1990) – and females outnumber males. Conversely, in India, Rosenzweig & Schultz (1982) found that where the economic value of adult women was lowest, female infant mortality was highest.

But high gender inequality in both education and life itself, we suggest, requires a convergence of economic, kinship and cultural factors. This paper explores what happens when “all the ducks are lined up in a row,” vs. situations where at least one factor is “out of synch.” Data are analyzed from various sources, including comparisons within India.