Matching Items (6)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Biology
- All Subjects: psychology
Description
This study aims to unearth monological and monocultural discourses buried under the power of the dominant biomedical model governing the HIV/AIDS debate. The study responds to an apparent consensus, rooted in Western biomedicine and its "standardizations of knowledge," in the production of the current HIV/AIDS discourse, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. As a result, biomedicine has become the dominant actor (in) writing and rewriting discourse for the masses while marginalizing other forms of medical knowledge. Specifically, in its development, the Western biomedical model has arguably isolated the disease from its human host and the social experiences that facilitate the disease's transmission, placing it in the realm of laboratories and scientific experts and giving full ownership to Western medical discourse. Coupled with Western assumptions about African culture that reproduce a one-sided discourse informing the social construction of HIV/AIDS in Africa, this Western monopoly thus constrained the extent and efficacy of international prevention efforts. In this context, the goal for this study is not to demonize the West and biomedicine in general. Rather, this study seeks an alternative and less monolithic understanding currently absent in scientific discourses of HIV/AIDS that frequently elevates Western biomedicine over indigenous medicine; the Western expert over the local. The study takes into account the local voices of Sub-Saharan Africa and how the system has affected them, this study utilizes a Foucauldian approach to analyze discourse as a way to explore how certain ways of knowledge are formed in relation to power. This study also examines how certain knowlege is maintaned and reinforced within specific discourses.
ContributorsAbdalla, Mohamed (Author) / Jacobs, Bertram (Thesis advisor) / Robert, Jason (Committee member) / Klimek, Barbara (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
Scientists, lawyers, and bioethicists have pondered the impact of scientifically deterministic evidence on a judge or jury when deciding the sentence of a criminal. Though the impact may be one that relieves the amount of personal guilt on the part of the criminal, this evidence may also be the very reason that a judge or jury punishes more strongly, suggesting that this type of evidence may be a double-edged sword. 118 participants were shown three films of fictional sentencing hearings. All three films introduced scientifically deterministic evidence, and participants were asked to recommend a prison sentence. Each hearing portrayed a different criminal with different neurological conditions, a different crime, and a different extent of argumentation during closing arguments about the scientifically deterministic evidence. Though the argumentation from the prosecution and the defense did not affect sentencing, the interaction of type of crime and neurological condition did.
ContributorsMeschkow, Alisha Sadie (Author) / Schweitzer, Nicholas (Thesis director) / Robert, Jason (Committee member) / Patten, K. Jakob (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
Moral status questions, (who and what counts morally) are of central concern to moral philosophers. There is also a rich history of psychological work exploring the topic. The received view in psychology of moral status accounts for it as a function of other mind perception. On this view, entities are morally considerable because they are perceived to have the right sort of minds. This dissertation analyzes and tests this theory, pointing out both empirical and conceptual issues with the received view. The results presented show that important moral intuitions (for example about unjustifiable interpersonal killing) cannot be explained by appealing to other mind perception. Some alternative views of the psychology of moral status are presented, as well as avenues for further research.
ContributorsLaTourelle, Jonathan Jacob (Author) / Creath, Richard (Thesis advisor) / Van Gelderen, Elly (Thesis advisor) / Robert, Jason (Committee member) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / Becker, D. Vaughn (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
Prior to the first successful allogeneic organ transplantation in 1954, virtually every attempt at transplanting organs in humans had resulted in death, and understanding the role of the immune mechanisms that induced graft rejection served as one of the biggest obstacles impeding its success. While the eventual achievement of organ transplantation is touted as one of the most important success stories in modern medicine, there still remains a physiological need for immunosuppression in order to make organ transplantation work. One such solution in the field of experimental regenerative medicine is interspecies blastocyst complementation, a means of growing patient-specific human organs within animals. To address the progression of immune-related constraints on organ transplantation, the first part of this thesis contains a historical analysis tracing early transplant motivations and the events that led to the discoveries broadly related to tolerance, rejection, and compatibility. Despite the advancement of those concepts over time, this early history shows that immunosuppression was one of the earliest limiting barriers to successful organ transplantation, and remains one of the most significant technical challenges. Then, the second part of this thesis determines the extent at which interspecies blastocyst complementation could satisfy modern technical limitations of organ transplantation. Demonstrated in 2010, this process involves using human progenitor cells derived from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) to manipulate an animal blastocyst genetically modified to lack one or more functional genes responsible for the development of the intended organ. Instead of directly modulating the immune response, the use of iPSCs with interspecies blastocyst complementation could theoretically eliminate the need for immunosuppression entirely based on the establishment of tolerance and elimination of rejection, while also satisfying the logistical demands imposed by the national organ shortage. Although the technology will require some further refinement, it remains a promising solution to eliminate the requirement of immunosuppression after an organ transplant.
ContributorsDarby, Alexis Renee (Author) / Maienschein, Jane (Thesis advisor) / Robert, Jason (Thesis advisor) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020
Description
This thesis reviews the initial cases of fetal surgery to correct myelomeningocele, a severe form of spina bifida, and discusses the human and social dimensions of the procedure. Myelomeningocele is a fetal anomaly that forms from improper closure of the spinal cord and the tissues that surround it. Physicians perform fetal surgery on a developing fetus, while it is in the womb, to mitigate its impacts. Fetal surgery to correct this condition was first performed experimentally in the mid-1990and as of 2020, it is commonly performed. The initial cases illuminated important human and social dimensions of the technique, including physical risks, psychological dimensions, physician bias, and religious convictions, which affect decision-making concerning this fetal surgery. Enduring questions remain in 2020. The driving question for this thesis is: given those human and social dimensions that surround fetal surgery to correct myelomeningocele, whether and when is the surgery justified? This thesis shows that more research is needed to answer or clarify this question.
ContributorsEllis, Brianna (Author) / Maienschein, Jane (Thesis advisor) / Ellison, Karin (Thesis advisor) / Robert, Jason (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020
Whistleblowing in Biomedical Research and Medicine: An Analysis of Ethical Expectations and Dilemmas
Description
In biomedical research institutions and medical institutions alike, whistleblowing, or the reporting of misconduct, has been severely retaliated against. Whistleblowers report misconduct by adhering to institutional whistleblowing policies, and do so in order to maintain ethical practice within their institution; it is important to note that by taking this ethical action, whistleblowers are aiming to protect the future of biomedical research and medicine. Despite these intentions, whistleblowing has developed a negative stigma due to the misconception that whistleblowers have self-proclaimed authority and are unable to function as part of a team. The retaliation against whistleblowers has been connected to psychological and professional fallout for the whistleblower, and it has been found that many whistleblowers suffer as a direct result of a lack of institutional support. The problems with whistleblowing culture demonstrate issues surrounding how ethics are maintained in institutions, who ethics policies apply to, and who has authority. The retaliation seen against whistleblowers outlines inherent institutional failures, and highlights the need for institutional change in order to both promote ethical practice and protect the whistleblowers who adhere to ethics policies. This thesis discusses such failures in detail, and outlines several broad solutions in order to combat this issue.
ContributorsTaylor, Kylee Anne (Author) / Robert, Jason (Thesis director) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / Johnson, Nate (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05