The February edition of The Biochemist (magazine of the Biochemical Society) included another very positive review of our book Where Science and Ethics Meet: Dilemmas at the frontiers of medicine and biology. The review notes that “Willmott and Macip fulfil their promise of providing epistemologically balanced tools to the reader” and concludes that the book “certainly represents a valuable tool for teaching ethics at the undergraduate level and for engaging a wider audience in the challenges arising from scientific and biotechnical developments” which is gratifying since this was exactly our ambition in writing the book.
TV viewers in the UK will likely have noted that the Public Health England “Act F.A.S.T.” adverts promoting stroke awareness are back on our screens. The campaign has run periodically since 2009* and emphasises the importance of knowing the signs that someone is having a stroke – Face (has their face fallen on one side?), Arms (can they raise both arms and keep them there?), Speech (is their speech slurred?), Time to call 999.
The campaign has evolved over the years. For example, a broader ethnic range of characters experiencing stroke was introduced in 2014.
This year there has been a highly significant additional change. Did you spot it? The final tag line for the advert has been altered from “The faster you act, the more of the person you save” to “The faster you act, the better their chances“.
The change is subtle, but hugely important. The previous version reinforces a perception that someone who has suffered a stroke is somehow less human they were before. This is ableist and reflect a view of personhood that considers, albeit unintentionally, someone with a disability as less of a person than those who are able-bodied. I welcome this change and congratulate Public Health England for correcting this error.
*Official analysis of the impact of the Act F.A.S.T. campaign has been mixed. In 2012 the government reported an increase in stroke-related calls to the 999 emergency number, however a qualitative study published the following year was more sceptical (see Dombrowski et al (2013) BMC Public Health 13:915).
We have been using lecture capture for about two years. I have to say at the outset that I am a big fan. Having said that however, there are aspects of lecture capture that I find problematic. Here I offer some quick and dirty reflections on my experience of lecture capture so far. This is not a scientific study, and I certainly haven’t gone away and done an extensive literature search, so I may well be rediscovering old truths.
The Good. There are many attractive features of lecture capture. These include:
- Availability for review and revision. This is, of course, the main raison d’être of lecture capture, but it is important not to overlook the value this provides – students can go back over the sections that were unclear the first time.
- Similarly the recordings can be used by those with legitimate cause to be absent (e.g due to illness, away sports fixture, etc)
- Recordings can be useful for the lecturer themselves. We know that the first time you prepare a set of lectures you are likely to have recently read around the subject and be naturally “on top” of your material. The second year can be a different challenge – the slides are in the can, but you may not recall some of the wider points you had made to embellish the on-screen text and images. Listening back to recordings of your own lecture from the previous year can help to fill in the blanks.
- The recordings can also be useful when we have to provide a substitute due to lecturer illness. A few year back, before we had our official lecture capture system, I had to take a semester off due to ill health. Fortunately I had audio recordings which could be provided to my “stunt double” along with the slides. Officially captured lectures can now fulfil this role.
- In times of absolute need the recording can be officially made available in lieu of the live session. We had to use this route when a colleague was ill during the last week of a semester – there was no time to warm up a replacement and rescheduling was not feasible, so we actually showed a recording of the previous year’s equivalent lecture. I “hosted” the session and was really encouraged by the large proportion of the class who turned up in a 5pm slot, knowing that a recording was going to be aired (and that it was already available to them via the VLE).
- Recordings can be built into reflection to help improve one’s own teaching or as part of an informal peer review process.
- The tools for lecture capture can be used to pre-record material as a contribution to a “flipped teaching” model.
- Lecture capture software (certainly the Panopto tool we use at Leicester) includes remarkably powerful inbuilt stats on usage by students. This can shine light on the aspects of a lecture that they felt needed clearer explanation.
- You can change the speed of the recording. This might be slowing it down slightly for better note-taking, or it might be speeding it up (one of my students confessed that they like to listen to lectures by a colleague at a quickened pace because the lecture naturally delivers their material at an unduly leisurely pace).
The February 2-8th 2017 Edition of Times Higher Education (number 2291) carried another enthusiastic review for Where Science and Ethics Meet.
I’ve been notified about two great new reviews for our book Where Science and Ethics Meet: Dilemmas at the frontiers of medicine and biology. One is currently embargoed, though I’m allowed to say it includes “This is the best introduction to the topic that I have ever seen” which is obviously very pleasing. More of that at a later stage.
The second has appeared in BioNews, newsletter of the Progress Educational Trust. Reviewer Cassandra Dighton describes Where Science and Ethics Meet as “a fantastic introductory text to the dilemmas faced by medical ethicists“, adding that it is “extremely engaging“. The full review can be found by clicking the image below (but be warned it includes a spoiler for the first scenario). She does point out that for readers with higher qualifications in Medical Ethics, this is “not the book to turn to for a comprehensive explanation of a Kantian or Utilitarian approach to ethics”, which is entirely fair!
Warning: (minor) spoiler alert!
The October 2016 edition of the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics has a special focus on Clinical Neuroethics. It contains a review of my Neurolaw book Biological Determinism, Free Will and Moral Responsibility: Insights from genetics and neuroscience.
I’m thrilled that the review is hugely positive about the book. Quotable quotes include:
- “…a very accessible explanation of the need to reconsider notions of free will and moral responsibility in an age of scientific breakthroughs in genomics and brain science…”
- “…an insightful philosophical account of the apparent stand-off between free will and the evidence of determinism…”
- “…a remarkably lucid account of the relevance of science for the debate on free will and determinism…”
- “…an impressive prudential approach, balancing the reliability of scientific achievement with caution about its applicability to criminal courts…”
- “…an extraordinary resource for engaging moral responsibility in the age of genetics and neuroscience…”.
I was thrilled by the news that Jugar a ser Dios, the Spanish version of the introductory bioethics text written with my colleague Salvador Macip, has won best popular science prize at the 19th National University Edition Awards (link to announcement article, in Spanish, here).
The original Catalan version Jugar a ser Déus also won a prize (see here for my reflections on going to collect that award).
We are now hoping that Where Science and Ethics Meet, the English-language version, will earn a gong to accompany the plaudits it has received to date (e.g. here).