This thesis is an inquiry into the economics and ethics of residential integration. Efforts to integrate otherwise segregated black and white households in the United States over the last 40 years has been met with legitimate skepticism. Primarily, there is an absence of evidence as it relates to whether neighborhoods cause disadvantage (neighborhood effects) in addition to a lack of evidence related to whether “mixing” actually produces adequate social benefits for those being moved or for society as a whole. I intend to move the conversation forward by presenting two additional considerations. First, in the economic paradigm, it is useful to explore the issue of segregation through what has been described as adverse impacts occurring in the wake of a market failure (“subprime financial crisis”). Second, there are ethical considerations relevant to the integration discussion that offer new norms by which to engage and advance our approach to residential integration and endeavors to mix. This thesis makes a contribution to knowledge by explicating these two points and ultimately providing a more morally capacious evaluative framework by which to appraise this complex social issue.

The work presented here is a sociological and bioethical analysis of the medical condition known as Syndrome X/Metabolic Syndrome. The term is a recent name given to a group of cardiac/diabetic risk factors that include high cholesterol, insulin resistance, obesity, high blood pressure and high fat levels in the blood (Garber 2004). Interest in the topic was reawakened by Reaven (1988) who first coined the term ‘Syndrome X’ to describe a cluster of risk factors that he believed was linked to insulin resistance. In recent years the number of ‘new’ diseases that have been detected and identified by medicine has increased rapidly, with examples such as clinical obesity and infertility. Commentators have speculated as to why this may be happening and one suggestion is that our lives are becoming ever more medicalised (Moynihan and Smith 2002). The thesis consists of three main strands. The first strand is a sociological analysis of the Metabolic Syndrome concept and how it came to be constructed as a medical condition, with particular emphasis on whether the syndrome represents an example of the medicalisation of obesity. The second strand looks at the relationship between sociology and bioethics, and whether research from the former can help inform the ethical debate in the other. In this regard, I hope to show in this thesis that it is possible to conduct social and bioethical analyses side by side, and that these can be complementary and give you a richer understanding of a topic. The third strand is a discussion of the main ethical issues surrounding this ‘new’ diagnosis, with particular emphasis on the issue of blame and responsibility in relation to this condition.

This thesis examines the relationship between rights and duties in the field of fetal gene therapy and assesses if the current regulatory position within England and Wales is compatible with the intergenerational aspects of scientific progress within fetal gene therapy (FGT). Within the field of genomics, the fetal junction has become a site where gene therapists are developing a range of medical techniques, such as fetal gene therapy and in utero stem cell therapy. Utilising such techniques raises questions about the intergenerational aspects of scientific progress and how intergenerational rights can reshape regulation. The thesis focuses upon these key questions: Are the intergenerational issues of FGT taken into account by both direct and indirect stakeholders? Can intergenerational issues override the reproductive rights of the mother? Have intergenerational issues impacted upon the clinical applications implicit and manifest in this work? Addressing such questions is important because the conflict between the rights of the mother, fetus, clinical researchers and society have the potential to delay progress in FGT. In addressing these questions the thesis utilised thematic analysis of relevant regulatory institutional documents, from international declarations to regulatory guidelines; and semi structured interviews of identified FGT practitioners to identify areas of potential conflict. Following the data collection and analysis, the field data identified five key areas of potential conflict, which were then assessed using the Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC) as proposed by Alan Gewirth (1978) and later altered by Beyleveld and Brownsword (2001). The thesis will argue that the field data shows that established regulatory principles such as human dignity are of limited value in relation to FGT. In other areas such as informed choice, autonomy and intergenerational equity the PGC is applied to define and partially resolve the outstanding areas necessary for consistent ethical and regulatory guidance in FGT

The main focus of this PhD project is the development and validation of a psychometric instrument for the measurement of individual dispositions towards rules and principles. Literature review and focus groups were used to generate insights into the reasons why individuals prefer rules and principles. On the basis of that review, an initial item pool was created covering the conceptual space of dispositions towards rules and principles. The final instrument consists of 10 items, 5 items each for the rules and principles subscales. The psychometric analysis suggested that it is valid and reliable. The instrument has sound predictive power and was able to significantly predict individuals’ behavioral intentions in relation to rules and principles across contexts. I found there were gender and ethnic differences in the relationship between dispositions towards rules and principles scores and behavioural intentions. This PhD is relevant to an emerging literature in behavioural accounting research that examines how practitioners’ personal characteristics and styles affect financial reporting practice.

Drawing on the classification of expertise developed by Collins and Evans, this study explores the expertises held by members of NHS Research Ethics Committees (RECs) and how they differ from the ones described by the regulations. The study used Q methodology followed by ten semi-structured interviews with Lay and Expert REC members. The results show that committee members see themselves as part of a team, with individual members making different contributions to a collective task. Viewing REC members in this way allows their different expertises to be formally recognised and leads to the creation of two new membership categories, specialist and generalist, based on these expertises. Specialists have expertises such as statistics and pharmacy that are required by the current legislation and which would be present on recruitment. Generalists possess the other expertises needed by the committee but which not required by statute. These include the clinical expertises possessed by healthcare professionals and the other professional expertises – legal, academic, IT and so on – that are typically found amongst those currently classed as Lay members. All REC members, be they specialist or generalist, would also be trained in the ethical and regulatory expertises required to deliver an ethical review. Emphasising how all REC members, whether specialist or generalise, have expertises that contribute to the ethical review enables recruitment activities to focus on the skills needed by the committee rather than current concerns with population demographics. This provides a solution to many of the recruitment issues identified by participants. In particular, it enables the replacement of skills on a ‘like for like’ basis using clearly defined person specifications. Not only would such a process comply with the Nolan principles it be more likely to maintain the integrity and function of the committee regardless of personnel changes.