Search Results

Since Daubert (1993), the standards for admissibility at trial of expert testimony in general and scientific evidence in particular have become more demanding. In fact, reviews of recent cases and empirical studies of federal judges’ and attorneys’ practices indicate that judges are now more likely to inquire more deeply into the reasoning and methodology that supports the expert opinions and to limit or exclude unreliable evidence from presentation at trials. Courts’ increasing skepticism concerning expert testimony and scientific evidence, including neuroimaging evidence, is also apparent in many published cases. This chapter provides a discussion of many important methodological issues, including issues of (a) scientific validity, (b) evidentiary reliability, (c) accuracy, (d) base rates, (e) the use of multiple tests, (f) the issue of cutoff scores, (g) baseline versus activations, (h) correlation versus causation, and (i) convergent validity related to the assessment of brain dysfunction in the context of violent behavior.

This chapter addresses every researcher's nightmare: what to do when you have null results. What does it mean? How can an investigator extract value from the data and move on in one's career from that point? The chapter starts with steps toward launching scientifically valid field research. The community intervention development model includes manualizing the protocol in the context of the practice setting, initial controlled efficacy trials, single-case applications, initial effectiveness tests, full effectiveness tests, and, finally, evaluating and disseminating results. The relationship with the host organization or practice setting is emphasized throughout.

This chapter considers justice in research on human subjects. The most basic issue in regard to the advancement of biomedical science and the medical and social uses of new knowledge is how human subject research fits into the social fabric. Despite increasing institutional rules to ensure ethical conduct in human subject research, controversies continue. Some are propelled by advances in science, and others arise from a broadening sense of global responsibility. The chapter reviews eight standards for evaluating the ethics of health research: social value, scientific validity, fair subject selection, favorable risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent, respect for enrolled subjects, and community collaboration. Taken together, these eight principles constitute fair terms for inviting human subjects to participate in health research. The chapter also explores prominent frameworks and key theories of justice before drawing conclusions from considerations of justice at the institutional level, at the level of researchers, and at the level of research participants.