“Social Capital”

“In sociology, social capital is the expected collective or economic benefits derived from the preferential treatment and cooperation between individuals and groups. Although different social sciences emphasize different aspects of social capital, they tend to share the core idea “that social networks have value”. Just as a screwdriver (physical capital) or a university education (cultural capital or human capital) can increase productivity (both individual and collective), so do social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups.[1]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital
“Definitions, forms, and measurement”
“Social capital lends itself to multiple definitions, interpretations, and uses. David Halpern argues that the popularity of social capital for policymakers is linked to the concept’s duality, coming because “it has a hard nosed economic feel while restating the importance of the social.” For researchers, the term is popular partly due to the broad range of outcomes it can explain;[27] the multiplicity of uses for social capital has led to a multiplicity of definitions. Social capital has been used at various times to explain superior managerial performance,[28] improved performance of functionally diverse groups,[29] the value derived from strategic alliances,[30] and enhanced supply chain relations.[31] ‘A resource that actors derive from specific social structures and then use to pursue their interests; it is created by changes in the relationship among actors’; (Baker 1990, p. 619).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital
IRB Guidebook Behavioral and BioMedical Research:
” Behavioral research involving human subjects generates data by means of questionnaires, observation, studies of existing records, and experimental designs involving exposure to some type of stimulus or intervention. Many variations of these four basic methods are used. Questions may be asked in person, over the telephone, or by means of a questionnaire. Observation may or may not be covert, and the observer may or may not be a participant in the activity being studied. Records studied in research may be public (e.g., vital statistics, motor vehicle registrations, or court records) or non-public and sensitive (e.g., medical or educational records in which the subjects are identified). Experimental studies may be conducted in public places, in private settings (e.g., a clinic or therapist’s office), or in laboratories. Interventions in such studies range from the innocuous, such as varying the package design of commercial products, to the potentially significant, such as varying behavior modification techniques in studying the treatment of alcoholism. Not all behavioral research involves human subjects. Studies of human migration are often undertaken using anonymous U.S. Census data, and much research in behavioral psychology is done with animals. In addition, many categories of behavioral research that do involve human subjects are exempt from the federal regulations for protection of human subjects. [See Federal Policy �___.101.] This exemption does not imply that investigators have no ethical responsibilities to subjects in such research; it means only that IRB review and approval of the research is not required by federal regulations.”
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/irb/irb_chapter5.htm#h3
“”Black Spot” public discretion cards, 1978″ Scarfolk Council
“Scarfolk Council had a few problems with outsiders, or “Scarfnots” as they were known, interfering in town affairs throughout the 1970s, so it developed a scheme to encourage civic discretion.

The severity of punishment for a “loose tongue” more or less guaranteed obedience, though a few Black Spot cards were issued.

For example, four year old Jeremy Chapped inadvertently discussed with his “Scarfnot” trepanning teacher the sudden, inexplicable appearances of ancient megaliths in schools and community centres, and found himself facing capital punishment.

In lieu of this penalty he pushed an unloved aunt in the path of a speeding hovercraft for which he received not only a cub scout badge, but also a £5 book token from the mayor.”
http://scarfolk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/black-spot-public-discretion-cards-1978.html
Scarfolk Council Public Information Council:
“You saw nothing
You heard nothing
You know nothing”
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wwTYqNHf1uE/UV_poxWcazI/AAAAAAAABTo/cokINXFyULM/s1600/blackspotwww-scarfolk-blogspot-com.jpg

*Scarfolk Counsil is fictional but certain other Community Mental Health programes aren’t.

“The finer points of social capital management will lead to greater patient autonomy and dignity, after all, we’re all only human.”:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Hear_speak_see_no_evil_Toshogu.jpg
(wikimedia)Another interpritation-“We live in fear and this is what dehumanizes us.”

Certificates of Confidentiality: Background Information-NIH
“Certificates of Confidentiality are issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to protect the privacy of research subjects by protecting investigators and institutions from being compelled to release information that could be used to identify subjects with a research project. Certificates of Confidentiality are issued to institutions or universities where the research is conducted. They allow the investigator and others who have access to research records to refuse to disclose identifying information in any civil, criminal, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding, whether at the federal, state, or local level.

Identifying information is broadly defined as any item or combination of items in the research data that could lead directly or indirectly to the identification of a research subject.

By protecting researchers and institutions from being compelled to disclose information that would identify research participants, Certificates of Confidentiality help achieve the research objectives and promote participation in studies by assuring privacy to subjects. “
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/coc/background.htm
*protections against institutional liability?
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/coc/background.htm

“John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1689)”
“John Locke’s conception of the social contract differed from Hobbes’ in several fundamental ways, retaining only the central notion that persons in a state of nature would willingly come together to form a state. Locke believed that individuals in a state of nature would be bound morally, by The Law of Nature, not to harm each other in their lives or possession, but without government to defend them against those seeking to injure or enslave them, people would have no security in their rights and would live in fear. Locke argued that individuals would agree to form a state that would provide a “neutral judge”, acting to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it.

While Hobbes argued for near-absolute authority, Locke argued for inviolate freedom under law in his Second Treatise of Government. Locke argued that government’s legitimacy comes from the citizens’ delegation to the government of their right of self-defense (of “self-preservation”). The government thus acts as an impartial, objective agent of that self-defense, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and executioner—the condition in the state of nature. In this view, government derives its “just powers from the consent [i.e, delegation] of the governed,”.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#John_Locke.27s_Second_Treatise_of_Government_.281689.29

The Dan Markingson Case:
from Fear and Loathing in Bioethics:
“Community responses to wrongdoing”
” Janet Stemwedel of San Jose State University writes:

“I’m inclined to think, however, that taking steps to avoid shame by hiding the facts, or by allowing retaliation against people asking inconvenient questions, is itself a kind of wrongdoing — the kind of thing that incurs guilt, for which no audience is required.”

“As well, I think the scholars and researchers at the University of Minnesota who prefer not to take a stand on how their university responds to ethically problematic research, even if it is research in someone else’s lab, or someone else’s department, underestimate the size of the audience for their actions and for their inaction.”

Read the rest of her excellent post on the Scientific American “Doing Good Science” blog.”
http://loathingbioethics.blogspot.com/2013/04/community-responses-to-wrongdoing.html

Make a statement:
http://www.alltrials.net/
https://www.change.org/petitions/governor-mark-dayton-of-minnesota-investigate-psychiatric-research-misconduct-at-the-university-of-minnesota-2

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s