Legal, regulatory, and ethical perspectives on balancing social benefit and human autonomy in research using human biospecimens. Advances in medicine often depend on the effective collection, storage, research use, and sharing of human biological specimens and associated data. But what about the sources of such specimens? When a blood specimen is drawn from a vein in your arm, is that specimen still you? Is it your property, intellectual or otherwise? Should you be allowed not only to consent to its use in research but also to specify under what circumstances it may be used? These and other questions are at the center of a vigorous debate over the use of human biospecimens in research. In this book, experts offer legal, regulatory, and ethical perspectives on balancing social benefit and human autonomy in biospecimen research. After discussing the background to current debates as well as several influential cases, including that of Henrietta Lacks, the contributors consider the rights, obligations, risks, and privacy of the specimen source; different types of informed consent under consideration (broad, blanket, and specific); implications for special patient and researcher communities; and the governance of biospecimen repositories and the responsibilities of investigators. Contributors Rebecca A. Anderson, Heide Aungs, Avery Avrakotos, Mark Barnes, Jill Barnholtz-Sloan, Benjamin Berkman, Barbara E. Bierer, Mark A. Borreliz, Jeffrey R. Botkin, Dan Brock, Ellen Wright Clayton, I. Glenn Cohen, Lisa Eckstein, Barbara J. Evans, Emily Chi Fogler, Nanibaa' A. Garrison, Pamela Gavin, Aaron J. Goldenberg, Christine Grady, Kate Gallin Heffernan, Marylana Saadeh Helou, Sara Chandros Hull, Elisa A. Hurley, Steven Joffe, Erin P. Johnson, Julie Kaneshiro, Aaron S. Kesselheim, Isaac Kohane, David Korn, Russell Korobkin, Bernard Lo, Geoffrey Lomax, Kimberly Hensle Lowrance, Holly Fernandez Lynch, Bradley A. Malin, Karen J. Maschke, Eric M. Meslin, P. Pearl O'Rourke, Quinn T. Ostrom, David Peloquin, Rebecca Pentz, Jane Perlmutter, Ivor Pritchard, Suzanne M. Rivera, Erin Rothwell, Andrew P. Rusczek, Rachel E. Sachs, Carol Weil, David Wendler, Benjamin Wilfond, Susan M. Wolf

Advances in medicine often depend on the effective collection, storage, research use, and sharing of human biological specimens and associated data. But what about the sources of such specimens? When a blood specimen is drawn from a vein in your arm, is that specimen still you? Is it your property, intellectual or otherwise? Should you be allowed not only to consent to its use in research but also to specify under what circumstances it may be used? These and other questions are at the center of a vigorous debate over the use of human biospecimens in research. In this book, experts offer legal, regulatory, and ethical perspectives on balancing social benefit and human autonomy in biospecimen research. After discussing the background to current debates as well as several influential cases, including that of Henrietta Lacks, the contributors consider the rights, obligations, risks, and privacy of the specimen source; different types of informed consent under consideration (broad, blanket, and specific); implications for special patient and researcher communities; and the governance of biospecimen repositories and the responsibilities of investigators.

Examines how scientific objects in museums and other collections act as inspiration to contemporary art practice, its histories, curating and aesthetics. Cross-disciplinary essays from leading arts professionals explore how scientific encounters in museums provoke new modes of creative thinking about art, science and curating. 84 col. illus.

Science does not exist in a vacuum and, therefore, shouldn't be taught that way. In that spirit, Activities Linking Science With Math, K-4, is a hands-on guide for preservice and inservice elementary school teachers who want to connect science instruction with other areas of studyincluding visual arts, social sciences, language arts, and especially math.

"Legend is overdue for replacement, and an adequate replacement must attend to the process of science as carefully as Hull has done. I share his vision of a serious account of the social and intellectual dynamics of science that will avoid both the rosy blur of Legend and the facile charms of relativism. . . . Because of [Hull's] deep concern with the ways in which research is actually done, Science as a Process begins an important project in the study of science. It is one of a distinguished series of books, which Hull himself edits."—Philip Kitcher, Nature "In Science as a Process, [David Hull] argues that the tension between cooperation and competition is exactly what makes science so successful. . . . Hull takes an unusual approach to his subject. He applies the rules of evolution in nature to the evolution of science, arguing that the same kinds of forces responsible for shaping the rise and demise of species also act on the development of scientific ideas."—Natalie Angier, New York Times Book Review "By far the most professional and thorough case in favour of an evolutionary philosophy of science ever to have been made. It contains excellent short histories of evolutionary biology and of systematics (the science of classifying living things); an important and original account of modern systematic controversy; a counter-attack against the philosophical critics of evolutionary philosophy; social-psychological evidence, collected by Hull himself, to show that science does have the character demanded by his philosophy; and a philosophical analysis of evolution which is general enough to apply to both biological and historical change."—Mark Ridley, Times Literary Supplement "Hull is primarily interested in how social interactions within the scientific community can help or hinder the process by which new theories and techniques get accepted. . . . The claim that science is a process for selecting out the best new ideas is not a new one, but Hull tells us exactly how scientists go about it, and he is prepared to accept that at least to some extent, the social activities of the scientists promoting a new idea can affect its chances of being accepted."—Peter J. Bowler, Archives of Natural History "I have been doing philosophy of science now for twenty-five years, and whilst I would never have claimed that I knew everything, I felt that I had a really good handle on the nature of science, Again and again, Hull was able to show me just how incomplete my understanding was. . . . Moreover, [Science as a Process] is one of the most compulsively readable books that I have ever encountered."—Michael Ruse, Biology and Philosophy