Social humanities

With the rise to eminence and influence of scientists in recent years the distinction between scientific judgment and the judgment of scientists has been increasingly blurred. In particular, the meaning and definition of the social sciences and of their auxiliary or more applied disciplines has become confused. On the one hand, several value-centered undertakings such as policy analysis or planning have laid claim to status as sciences, while on the other hand, social scientists have increasingly attacked the legitimacy or reasonableness of the goal of value-free social science. Scientific publicists further confuse the discussion by arguing for the discovery of a value-free, scientific basis for society in which applied science equals policy. The result has been to damage the effectiveness of both scientific and nonscientific efforts, and to confuse the relationship of their activities in the minds of those who regularly feel compelled to cross a variety of scientific and nonscientific frontiers.     

The visionary task: Two sights-seeing

The essential feminist tension is dual vision, i.e. living in the world as men have fabricated it while creating the world as women imagine it could be. Dissociation from, assimilation to, and victimism in the world are three different forms of worldlessness to which women have been subject. All three militate against a vision of female friendship which locates women in the world. The author argues for a hopeful vision and reality of female friendship that avoids a misplaced optimism, shallow sentimentalism, and disillusioned pessimism about the possibilities of friendship among women.     

The Protection of Geographical Indications After Doha: Quo Vadis?

During the last twenty years the international protection ofgeographical indications (GIs) has experienced a worldwide resurgencespurred by both the greater need and the additional opportunitiesoffered by the global marketplace for the diversification ofagricultural products and foodstuffs. The Doha Ministerial Declarationlends support to developing countries that are seeking formsof knowledge less than high technology that they have the capacityto exploit. June 2005 saw the European Communities submit aradical proposal, designed to also meet the needs of developingcountries that would amend the Trade-Related Aspects of IntellectualProperty (TRIPS) Agreement in favour of a mandatory multilateralsystem of registration for all products. Yet, World Trade Organization(WTO) Members are as divided over their capacity to take advantageof GI protection no less than they are as to the means of regulation.To date, no ready solution to the further global harmonizationof GIs has been found. This paper examines the two major regulatorymodels advanced by the European Union and the United Statesof America for the protection of GIs. In the light of the DohaDevelopment Agenda, the authors argue in favour of an incrementalapproach that would allow developing countries the flexibilityto adjust additional protection in accordance with their levelof economic development.     

Religious belief, perceptions of human suffering, and support for reproductive genetic technology

Reproductive genetic technologies are becoming more controversial as they become more ubiquitous. The opponents of these technologies are largely religious groups, a fact that leads to the question of why religious groups would be more opposed to these technologies than others. Since all of these technologies are justified by their ability to relieve suffering of some kind, it is hypothesized that the actively religious have a notion of suffering different from that of advocates for these technologies, and this different notion of suffering leads to opposition to the technologies. In this article I report on a qualitative interview study of the religiously active in the United States. I find that the religiously active do have views of suffering that are distinct from the medical consensus, and these views are related to people's conclusions about the advisability of reproductive genetic technologies.