<p>Canadas regulatory system is science-based and relies on risk assessment to inform decisions about which products of biotechnology (and other technologies) are safe enough for commercial application. Since regulation involves the loss of certain liberties, it is imperative that any regulatory regime be as objective as possible. Scientific risk assessment seems to be a good way to produce the information, which guides policy makers since it involves quantitative analysis and the production of seemingly objective data.</p><p>The view adopted by regulators and in current risk assessment practices is that objective means value-free. Therefore, because risk assessment data is scientific it is thought to be value-free but this is not the case. Risk assessment necessarily involves value assumptions. Assumptions must be made at all stages of the production of risk data. This does not mean, however, that risk assessment is hopelessly subjective. The notion of value-free objectivity can be replaced with the view that genuine objectivity arises through peer review and social discourse. Regulators can adopt this understanding of objectivity to acknowledge the value-ladenness of risk assessment data.</p><p>At present, the value assumptions made by industry, government and private scientists during risk assessment go largely unnoticed yet have an effect on the outcome of regulatory decisions. Such assumptions must be recognized in order to ensure that the decisions made about the risks society face are not biased. This is particularly true in the case of biotechnology regulation. The development of the science of biotechnology has occurred concurrently with the development of the biotech industry creating the opportunity for industry-biased risk assessments.</p><p>It is possible to make changes to the existing regulatory regime in Canada in order to avoid some of the major problems associated with unrecognized value assumptions in risk assessment. A complete restructuring of the regime is unnecessary, however. Maintaining the current regulatory structure with some minor changes could address these problems. These changes include: creating an independent review board, making explicit that value assumptions are part of risk assessment in government advisory reports, and enhancing the role of regulators. Canadas regulatory system can better address the risks associated with biotechnology if it acknowledges that risk assessment is value-laden.</p>

<p>Canadas regulatory system is science-based and relies on risk assessment to inform decisions about which products of biotechnology (and other technologies) are safe enough for commercial application. Since regulation involves the loss of certain liberties, it is imperative that any regulatory regime be as objective as possible. Scientific risk assessment seems to be a good way to produce the information, which guides policy makers since it involves quantitative analysis and the production of seemingly objective data.</p><p>The view adopted by regulators and in current risk assessment practices is that objective means value-free. Therefore, because risk assessment data is scientific it is thought to be value-free but this is not the case. Risk assessment necessarily involves value assumptions. Assumptions must be made at all stages of the production of risk data. This does not mean, however, that risk assessment is hopelessly subjective. The notion of value-free objectivity can be replaced with the view that genuine objectivity arises through peer review and social discourse. Regulators can adopt this understanding of objectivity to acknowledge the value-ladenness of risk assessment data.</p><p>At present, the value assumptions made by industry, government and private scientists during risk assessment go largely unnoticed yet have an effect on the outcome of regulatory decisions. Such assumptions must be recognized in order to ensure that the decisions made about the risks society face are not biased. This is particularly true in the case of biotechnology regulation. The development of the science of biotechnology has occurred concurrently with the development of the biotech industry creating the opportunity for industry-biased risk assessments.</p><p>It is possible to make changes to the existing regulatory regime in Canada in order to avoid some of the major problems associated with unrecognized value assumptions in risk assessment. A complete restructuring of the regime is unnecessary, however. Maintaining the current regulatory structure with some minor changes could address these problems. These changes include: creating an independent review board, making explicit that value assumptions are part of risk assessment in government advisory reports, and enhancing the role of regulators. Canadas regulatory system can better address the risks associated with biotechnology if it acknowledges that risk assessment is value-laden.</p>

This project used data from the School Readiness Survey (SR) of the 2007 National Household Education Surveys Program collected by the National Center for Education Statistics Institute of Education Science. A subsample of 1,712 to 2,622 subjects who participated in the survey was used for this project. The purpose of the study was to examine parent perceptions, behaviors, and reported child ability related to school readiness and the effect ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) had on each comparison. Variables from the existing data were matched to one of the five domains of School Readiness: Health and Physical Development, Social and Emotional Development, Approaches to Learning, Communication, and General Knowledge. Data were analyzed by means of Pearson correlations and Moderate Multiple Regression analyses. Findings revealed weak, but significant, correlations among parent perceptions, parent behaviors, and parent reported child ability in specific domains. SES and ethnicity were found to be a moderator of parent perceptions and parent behaviors. SES was also shown to affect the relationship between parent behaviors and parent reported child ability in the domains of communication and general knowledge. Several limitations are presented, including possible reasons for the significant but weak results. Findings from this study suggest much more can be learned regarding parent perceptions across ethnicity and SES and the influence it has on school readiness.

This thesis uses analytic philosophical inquiry and autobiographical narrative inquiry to identify a conception of critical thinking (CT) that is “most adaptable” for teaching History 12, and then discusses the strengths and limitations. The CT literature includes several conflicting conceptions of CT, and I use two specific types of analytic philosophical inquiry, (conceptual analysis and conceptual structure assessment), to identify which conception is “most adaptable” for teaching History 12. After considering the degree to which each conception meets the criteria developed for the “most adaptable” conception of CT, I conclude that the Critical Thinking Consortium’s (TC²) conception is the most adaptable. Of all the conceptions developed thus far, the TC² approach is unique because it is designed solely as a pedagogical model for embedding CT throughout the curriculum of each subject and grade level. In the second section of the thesis, I use autobiographical narrative inquiry to reflect on the strengths and limitations of the TC² model after using the model to teach History 12 for a year. One of the foundational principles of the TC² conception is the notion that embedding CT throughout the curriculum is a powerful way of improving understanding. I determine that this contention is accurate because students improved their knowledge of the curriculum, the epistemology of history, and the adoption of CT in their everyday lives. Furthermore, use of the TC² conception helped improve my planning and assessment practices, and initiated a positive change of my role in the classroom.

Joseph Raz has developed a concept of authority based on the special relationship between reasons and action. While the view is very complex and subtle, it can be summed up by saying that authorities are authorities insofar as they can mediate between the reasons that happen to bind their subjects and the subjects’ actions. Authorities do this by providing special reasons via directives to their subjects. These special reasons are what Raz calls “protected reasons.” Protected reasons are both first-order reasons for action and second-order “exclusionary reasons” that exclude the subject from considering some reasons in the balance of reasons for or against any action. I first make clear what Raz’s view of authority is, and I then defend this view from some contemporary critics.

Thesis (doctoral)--Göteborgs universitet, 2002. / Added t.p. with thesis statement inserted. Includes bibliographical references (p. 221-223).

Thesis supervisor: Alvin Snider. Includes bibliographic references (p. 214-227).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2008. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Also available online (fee-based); online preview of the thesis is also available at no cost.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Brown University, 2008. / Vita. Advisor : James Egan. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 237-268).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Simon Fraser University, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references.