Just compensation: a no-fault proposal for research-related injuries

Biomedical research, no matter how well designed and ethically conducted, carries uncertainties and exposes participants to risk of injury. Research injuries can range from the relatively minor to those that result in hospitalization, permanent disability, or even death. Participants might also suffer a range of economic harms related to their injuries. Unlike the vast majority of developed countries, which have implemented no-fault compensation systems, the United States continues to rely on the tort system to compensate injured research participants—an approach that is no longer morally defensible. Despite decades of US advisory panels advocating for no-fault compensation, little progress has been made. Accordingly, this article proposes a novel and necessary no-fault compensation system, grounded in the ethical notion of compensatory justice. This first-of-its-kind concrete proposal aims to treat like cases alike, offer fair compensation, and disburse compensation with maximum efficiency and minimum administrative cost. It also harmonizes national and international approaches—an increasingly important goal as research becomes more globalized, multi-site trials grow in number, and institutions and sponsors in the United States move to single-IRB review.     

Clinical psychologists’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to engaging service users in index offence assessment and formulation within a medium secure unit

Index offence assessment and formulation (IOAF) helps service users (SU) in secure units to make sense of their index offence, provides detailed understanding of risk and contributes to treatment planning and discharge decisions. Clinical psychologists’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to engaging SUs in IOAF within the men’s and women’s services of one medium secure unit were explored through focus groups. Thematic analysis identified two relevant domains: person-specific factors and the organisational context. Person-specific barriers included challenges in working with fragmented narratives, conflicting motivations to engage, SU defences and distorted perceptions of clinical psychologists’ roles. Giving clarity and choice to SUs facilitated engagement with the work. Regarding the organisational context, clinical psychologists within both services identified the importance of having adequate resources and care-team support to complete this work. Findings highlight the importance of developing an evidence-based framework for IOAF to be embedded within clear ‘risk’ care pathways through secure services.     

Do Drone Strikes Degrade Al Qaeda? Evidence From Propaganda Output

The United States has used unmanned, aerial vehicles—drones—to launch attacks on militants associated with Al Qaeda and other violent groups based in Pakistan. The goal is to degrade the target's capacity to undertake political and violent action. We assess the effectiveness of drone strikes in achieving this goal, measuring degradation as the capacity of Al Qaeda to generate and disseminate propaganda. Propaganda is a key output of many terrorist organizations and a long-standing priority for Al Qaeda. Unlike other potential measures of terrorist group activity and capacity, propaganda output can be observed and measured. If drone strikes have degraded Al Qaeda, their occurrence should be correlated with a reduction in the organization's propaganda output. The analysis presented here finds little evidence that this is the case. Drone strikes have not impaired Al Qaeda's ability to generate propaganda.     

The impact of stakeholder engagement on local policy decision making

Policy Sciences - We investigate how grassroots stakeholder engagement in municipal meetings shapes the decision making of local elected officials (LEOs) by examining the choices LEOs in New York...