Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity International University, 2001. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 107-122).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, Santa Cruz, 1988. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references.

Based on Ph.D. thesis. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 201-216) and index.

Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity International University, 2001. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 107-122).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Erskine Theological Seminary, 2005. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 240-244).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Erskine Theological Seminary, 2005. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 240-244).

Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1993. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 82-91).

Part I. Claims to knowledge require justification. In science, such justification is made possible by the ability to reproduce or replicate experiments, thereby confirming their validity. Additionally, reproducibility serves as a self-correcting tool in science as it weeds out faulty experiments. It is therefore essential that experimental studies be replicated and confirmed. Recently, attempts to reproduce studies in several fields have failed, leading to what has been referred to as "a crisis of reproducibility." This crisis is largely a result of the current culture in the scientific world. Specifically, it is a result of a system that incentivizes individual success in the form of publications in high-impact journals over collaboration and careful conductance of research. This environment contributes to the crisis of reproducibility by increasing biases, incentivizing researchers to engage in manipulative statistics, decreasing quality control and transparency, and increasing the likelihood of researchers engaging in fraudulent behavior. Possible solutions to the problem of irreproducibility could tackle individual factors. A more prudent approach would be to focus on changing the current culture in the scientific world. Increased transparency had been suggested as a way to solve this problem. There is currently a movement advocating for increased transparency in science through "open science." Part II. Retraction of scientific papers due to evidence of research misconduct is on the rise, having increased tenfold from 2000 to 2009. Previous work on this topic focused on published retraction notices, using notices to identify the percent of retracted articles that were caused by research misconduct. This study utilized a different approach. Using the Office of Research Integrity database, we first identified publications that resulted from research misconduct. We then searched those articles to determine whether they were indeed retracted. Once retraction notices were identified, they were scored based on scoring elements reflecting guidelines for transparency. Lastly, we investigated whether a correlation exists between the quality of a retraction notice and journal impact factor. Our findings suggest that 21% of papers containing data derived from scientific misconduct are not retracted. Moreover, the quality of retraction notices varies, with some elements more likely to be present than others. No significant correlation between retraction notices and journal impact factor was found.

<p> This thesis considers the prospects for including respect for patient autonomy as a value in veterinary medical ethics. Chapter One considers why philosophers have traditionally denied autonomy to animals and why this is problematic; I also present contemporary accounts of animal ethics that recognize animals&rsquo; capacity for and exercise of autonomy (or something similar, such as agency) as morally important. In Chapter Two, I review veterinary medical ethics today, finding that respect for patient autonomy is undiscussed or rejected outright as irrelevant. Extrapolating mainstream medical ethics&rsquo; account of autonomy to veterinary medicine upholds this conclusion, as it would count all patients as &ldquo;never-competent&rdquo; and consider determining their autonomous choices impossible; thus welfare alone would be relevant. Chapter Three begins, in Part I, by describing the ways we routinely override patient autonomy in veterinary practice, both in terms of <i>which</i> interventions are selected and <i>how</i> care is delivered. I also show that some trends in the field suggest a nascent, implicit respect for patient autonomy. Part II of Chapter Three presents feminist criticisms of the mainstream approach to patient autonomy. I argue that the relational approach to autonomy advocated by such critics can be meaningfully applied in the veterinary realm. I advance an approach that conceives respect for patient autonomy in diachronic and dialogic terms, taking the patient as the foremost locus of respect. In Chapter Four, I turn to issues of practical implementation, such as interpreting what constitutes an animal&rsquo;s values and concerns, and assessing the effect of positive reinforcement training on autonomy. The Conclusion offers areas for future research while refuting the objection that a simpler, expanded welfare-based approach would yield the same substantive recommendations as my account.</p><p>

This study is a qualitative analysis of the author's previous publications, academic and operational practitioners input, the literature, and accreditation requirements for ethics education in healthcare. Two research questions were addressed: 1. Is a typology of ethics education in healthcare needed, and 2. Is more specificity of ethics education in healthcare required? Both research questions were answered in the affirmative. The results indicated that a typology of ethics education in healthcare is needed with the primary reason being the need for a focused manuscript that uses content validity to illustrate the hierarchy of ethical reasoning in healthcare. No one manuscript brings together the six ethics education domains that were identified as required for appropriate ethics education in healthcare. The second research question result indicated that there are sparse educational objectives available in the context of cognitive and affective educational domains, especially for the six ethics domains presented here: 1. Decision ethics, 2. Professional ethics, 3. Clinical ethics, 4. Business ethics, 5. Organizational ethics, and 6. Social ethics. Due to the limited specificity of the ethics education objectives identified in the literature, the author developed and presented a typology, beginning with 270 ethics educational objectives, for use in healthcare instruction. A discussion is provided on how healthcare can be improved by including more specific ethics education objectives within healthcare programs. Further recommendations include the creation of a taxonomy based on the typology developed here.