Paul Martin

Se presentan los resultados de un estudio cuyo objetivo general fue identificar y caracterizar el patron estructural de las prácticas pedagógicas recurrentes en los departamentos de educación de espacios patrimoniales musealizados de la Región Metropolitana de Chile, ejemplo de país con perfil identitario pluricultural. La muestra parte de los 87 museos y organizaciones del Registro Nacional de Museos del gobierno (RMC). Se utilizó un diseño exploratorio secuencial (cuan – CUAL) que incorpora análisis estadísticos descriptivos, fases, criterios e instrumentos del método OEPE. Permitió acotar la muestra a 16 y trasladar sus líneas a la base de datos OEPE. Seguido a esto (fase CUAL), la muestra se sometió a los indicadores de la escala validada Q-Edutage. Finalmente, se realizaron análisis descriptivos para los 5 departamentos educativos cuartil 1. La óptica se sitúa en la correlación de ámbitos y agentes educativos como fenómeno. Los nodos estructurales fueron metodología, tipologías de diseño, estrategias pedagógicas, recursos y cauces de participación e interacción comunicativa en entornos virtuales. De la estructura se infieren los cuatro principios del fenómeno, los cuales se ocupan de (1) la capacitación profesional, (2) los artefactos facilitadores, (3) la tecnología aplicada y (4) los mecanismos favorecedores de la interacción.

Two major reports in the UK and USA have recently sanctioned as ethically acceptable genome editing of future generations for the treatment of serious rare inherited conditions. This marks an important turning point in the application of recombinant DNA techniques to humans. The central question this paper addresses is how did it became possible for human genetic engineering (HGE) of future generations to move from an illegitimate idea associated with eugenics in the 1980s to a concrete proposal sanctioned by scientists and bioethicists in 2020? The paper uses the concept of a regime of normativity to understand the co-evolution and mutual shaping of technology, imaginaries, norms and governance processes in debates about HGE in the USA and UK. It will be argued that interlinked discursive, institutional, political and technological changes have made proposals for the use of genome editing in the genetic engineering of future generations both “thinkable” and legitimate.

ABSTRACT A key selling point of pharmacogenetics is the genetic stratification of either patients or diseases in order to target the prescribing of medicine. The hope is that genetically ‘tailored’ medicines will replace the current ‘one‐size‐fits‐all’ paradigm of drug development and usage. This paper is concerned with the relationship between difference and justice in the use of pharmacogenetics. This new technology, which facilitates the identification and use of difference, has, we shall argue, the potential to lead to injustice either by the inappropriate use of difference or through the inappropriate failure to use difference. We build on empirical data from a detailed study of the range of options for the development of pharmacogenetics to present a consideration of the ethical issues that surround patient and disease stratification. In it we explore the ways in which the use of pharmacogenetics may lead to the creation of new, genetically stratified, forms of difference and new forms of injustice based on these divisions. We also examine the ways in which existing forms of difference and social stratification may interact with the use of pharmacogenetics. In conclusion, we suggest how an understanding of these ethical issues could usefully inform future policy discussions.

In this paper we integrate a sorted unification calculus into free variable tableau methods for logics with term declarations. The calculus we define is used to close a tableau at once, unifying a set of equations derived from pairs of potentially complementary literals occurring in its branches. Apart from making the deduction system sound and complete, the calculus is terminating and so, it can be used as a decision procedure. In this sense we have separated the complexity of sorts from the undecidability of first order logic.

The ongoing debate about the FDA approval of BiDil in 2005 demonstrates how the first racially/ethnically licensed drug is entangled in both Utopian and dystopian future visions about the continued saliency of race/ethnicity in science and medicine. Drawing on the sociology of expectations, this paper analyzes how scientists in the field of pharmacogenetics are constructing certain visions of the future with respect to the use of social categories of race/ethnicity and the impact of high-throughput genotyping technologies that promise to transform scientific practices

In a recent discussion about how scientific knowledge might potentially change our understanding of the nature and extent of human genetic, cultural, or biological variation, the sociologist David Skinner identified two competing visions of the future: one that was decidedly dystopian, which conjured up a “re-racialized” future, and an opposing utopian future in which the potential for racialized thinking might be finally overcome. We can situate the ongoing debates about the congestive heart failure drug BiDil, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use only by African Americans, in relation to these differing future prospects.When the FDA announced its approval of BiDil in June 2005, it located the drug, and perhaps the future of pharmaceutical development, within a particular vision of the future, heralding BiDil as “representing a step toward the promise of personalized medicine.” The discourse of “personalized medicine” can be characterized as part of a utopian future, one in which clinicians will be able to make increasingly individualized decisions based on each patient’s genetic makeup so that the drugs they take will be those that work best for them.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's rationale for supporting the development and approval of BiDil for heart failure specifically in black patients was based on under-powered, post hoc subgroup analyses of two relatively old trials , which were further complicated by substantial covariate imbalances between racial groups. Indeed, the only statistically significant difference observed between black and white patients was found without any adjustment for potential confounders in samples that were unlikely to have been adequately randomized. Meanwhile, because the accepted baseline therapy for heart failure has substantially improved since these trials took place, their results cannot be combined with data from the more recent trial amongst black patients alone. There is therefore little scientific evidence to support the approval of BiDil only for use in black patients, and the FDA's rationale fails to consider the ethical consequences of recognizing racial categories as valid markers of innate biological difference, and permitting the development of group-specific therapies that are subject to commercial incentives rather than scientific evidence or therapeutic imperatives. This paper reviews the limitations in the scientific evidence used to support the approval of BiDil only for use in black patients; calls for further analysis of the V-HeFT I and II data which might clarify whether responses to H-I vary by race; and evaluates the consequences of commercial incentives to develop racialized medicines. We recommend that the FDA revise the procedures they use to examine applications for race-based therapies to ensure that these are based on robust scientific claims and do not undermine the aims of the 1992 Revitalization Act