Book reviewed in this article: Ethical Issues in Social Research. Edited by Tom L. Beauchamp, Ruth R. Faden, R. Jay Wallace, Jr., and LeRoy Walters. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982. xii + 436 pp. $25.00 (hardcover); $8.95 (paper). Ethics of Human Subject Research. Edited by Allan J. Kimmel, Jr. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass, 1981. 106 pp. $6.95 (paper). Social Research Ethics. Edited by Martin Bulmer. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1982. xiv + 284 pp. $39.50 (hardcover); $14.50 (paper). (...) The Ethics of Social Research: Field‐work, Regulation and Publication. Edited by Joan E. Sieber. New York: Springer‐Verlag, 1982. x + 187 pp. $23.50 (hardcover). The Ethics of Social Research: Surveys and Experiments. Edited by Joan E. Sieber. New York: Springer‐Verlag, 1982. xii + 249 pp. $23.50 (hardcover). (shrink)

Galton greeted Darwin's theory of pangenesis with enthusiasm, and tried to test the assumption that the hereditary particles circulate in the blood by transfusion experiments on rabbits. The failure of these experiments led him to reject this assumption, and in the 1870s he developed an alternative theory of heredity, which incorporated those parts of Darwin's theory that did not involve the transportation of hereditary particles throughout the system. He supposed that the fertilized ovum contains a large number of hereditary elements, (...) which he collectively called the "stirp," a few of which are patent, developing into particular cell types, while the rest remain latent; the latent elements can be transmitted to the next generation, while the patent elements, with rare exceptions, cannot since they have developed into cells. The problem with this theory is that it does not explain the similarity between parent and child unless there is a high correlation between latent and patent elements. Galton probably came to realize this problem during his subsequent statistical work on heredity, and he quietly dropped the idea that patent elements are not transmitted in Natural Inheritance (1889). Galton thought that brothers and sisters had identical stirps, and he attributed differences between them to variability in the choice of patent elements from the stirp, that is to say to developmental variability. He attributed the likeness of monozygotic twins to the similarity of their developmental environment. Galton's twin method was to track the life history changes of twins to see whether twins who were similar at birth diverged in dissimilar environments or whether twins who were dissimilar at birth converged in similar environments. It is quite different from the modern twin method of comparing the similarities between monozygotic and dizygotic twins, on the assumption that monozygotic twins are genetically identical whereas dizygotic twins are not. It has been argued that Galton foreshadowed Weismann's theory of the continuity of the germ-plasm, but this is only true in a weak sense. They both believed that the inheritance of acquired characters was either rare or impossible, but Galton did not forestall the essential part of Weismann's theory, that the germ-plasm of the zygote is doubled, with one part being reserved for the formation of the germ-cells. (shrink)

In one of the most disputed passages of Greek literature Plato in the Republic, 7. 528e–530c prescribes astronomy as the fourth study in the education of the Guardians. But what sort of astronomy? According to one school of thought it is a purely speculative study of bodies in motion having no relation to the celestial objects that we see. While this interpretation has rejoiced the hearts of Plato's detractors, who regard him as an obstacle to the progress of science, it (...) has dismayed his admirers. Another school of thought holds that what Plato meant was that astronomers must get to know the real motions of the heavenly bodies as opposed to their apparent motions as seen by us on earth. The opposed interpretations may be set out in the following representative citations from Sir Thomas Heath and John Burnet. (shrink)

Pseudo-patient studies are studies in which a medical sociologist or anthropologist masquerades as a patient. Medical treatment is sought without revealing that the 'patient' is really a covert research worker. When access has thus been gained to a medical setting--typically a hospital ward--social interaction between medical staff and patients is then observed over a period of days or weeks. Important studies have been carried out in this way of psychiatric treatment and of the care of the terminally-ill. Is the use (...) of the method justified? What ethical problems does its use raise? How do the undoubted advantages of the approach compare with the clear drawbacks and objections which can be made to its use? (shrink)

In a well-known passage Aristotle ascribes to Plato, or as some think to his followers, the dictum, γρ ριθμóς στιν κ νòς κα τς ορίστον, ‘Number is from the one and the undetermined dyad ’, but what this apparently simple statement means has remained a mystery until modern times. In other passages Aristotle expands it to explain that the indefinite duality is a duality of the great and small, e.g., ς μν ον λην τò μγα κα τò μικρòν εναι ρχς, (...) ς δ' οσίαν τò ν. ξ κείνων γρ κατ μθεξιν το νòς εναι τος ριθμος. ‘As the matter he posits the great and small for principles, as substance the one; for by the mixture of the one with them he says numbers.’ This identification of the dyad with the great and small, elsewhere called τò νισον and τò πειρον, gives a first clue to its nature. In a notable article in Mind 35, 419–40, continued in vol. 36,, 12–33, and amplified by D' Arcy Wentworth Thompson in vol. 38, 43–55, A. E. Taylor first suggested a connexion between the indefinite duality and the modern theory of continued fractions. In the light of subsequent research in the history of Greek mathematics it may now be asserted with a high degree of confidence that his conjecture was almost certainly correct; but it was then no more than a conjecture, and when he looked for confirmation he looked in the wrong direction. (shrink)

Measurement is any process by which a value is assigned to the level or state of some quality of an object of study. This value is given numerical form, and measurement therefore involves the expression of information in quantities rather than by verbal statement. It provides a powerful means of reducing qualitative data to more condensed form for summarization, manipulation and analysis. The classical distinctions made by S S S Stevens between nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio measurement are a common (...) starting point for discussion of social science measurement and the use of statistical techniques. This article considers the applicability of this model to research in the social sciences, particularly sociology and political science. Differences between classical measurement theory and practice in the social sciences are discussed. Problems in social science conceptualization, operationalization and measurement are examined, and a number of issues raised. Three cases are given particular attention, the Social Indicators movement, the variable of social class, and measures of race and ethnicity. The article concludes that the 'ineluctable fuzziness' of many social science concepts is inescapable, and that social measurement remains a difficult and challenging issue. (shrink)

Book reviewed in this article: Censuses, Surveys & Privacy. Edited by Martin Bulmer.