Throughout the modern history of anatomical dissection by medical and other health science students, cadavers have been anonymized. This has meant that students have been provided with limited, if any, information on the identities or medical histories of those they are dissecting. While there was little way around this when the bodies were unclaimed, this need not be the case when the bodies have been donated. However, with a few exceptions, no efforts have been made to change this model. Recent attempts to move anatomy teaching in a more humanistic direction, by emphasizing the cadaver as the students' first patient and with the growth of commemoration services following the dissecting process, raise the question of whether cadavers should continue to be anonymized. In laying a basis for discussion of this matter, we outline what appear to be the virtues of anonymity, and the form that alternatives to anonymity might take. The options identified are nonidentification, low information; nonidentification, moderate information; and identification, full information. The virtues and drawbacks of each of these possibilities are assessed by analyzing their value for students, and also for donors and their families. Policy issues raised by alternatives are also considered. This article provides a basis for continued discussion and suggestions for further research in this area. Anat Sci Educ 10: 87-97. © 2016 American Association of Anatomists.

Skill acquisition specialists are sport scientists who examine the theories, principles and processes of motor and perceptual learning. The research generated by these specialists is applied to practice modes, feedback and instructional methods, decision-making and anticipation skills training for athletes. However, unlike most sports scientists, these specialists are not utilized to the same degree as their counterparts. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate why this trend exists. Forty two participants (coaches/athletes) took part in this study. All participants coached or competed at a pre-elite or elite level, with a number of team and individual sports represented. The results of this study indicated that both coaches and athletes perceived skill acquisition specialists to be skills coaches rather than sport scientists. Further, coaches and athletes were open to assistance from specialists though they cited funding and access as major barriers to utilization. Moreover, they stated a lack of skill acquisition specialists with ‘experience’ in their sport as a limitation. Overall, the results suggest a misrecognition, underestimation of knowledge, and lack of understanding of a skill acquisition specialist, which may be a result of the limited engagement between these groups.

This paper discusses the announcement by a team of researchers that they identified a genetic influence for a range of "antisocial" behaviours in the New Zealand Māori population (dubbed the "warrior gene"). The behaviours included criminality, violence, gambling and alcoholism. The reported link between genetics and behaviour met with much controversy. The scientists were described as hiding behind a veneer of supposedly "objective" western science, using it to perpetuate "racist and oppressive discourses". In this paper we examine what went wrong in the dissemination of the research. We chose as our framework the debate around the "internal/external" responsibilities of scientists. Using this discourse we argue that when the researchers ventured to explain their research in terms of social phenomena, they assumed a duty to ensure that their findings were placed "in context". By "in context", we argue that evidence of any genetic influence on behavioural characteristics should not be reported in isolation, but instead presented alongside other environmental, cultural and socio-economic influences that may also contribute to the studied behaviour. Rather than imposing a new obligation on scientists, we find this duty to contextualise results is in keeping with the spirit of codes of ethics already in place. Lessons from the "warrior gene" controversy may assist researchers elsewhere to identify potential areas of conflict before they jeopardise research relationships, or disseminate findings in a manner that fuels misleading and/or potentially discriminatory attitudes in society.

Accounts from the humanities which focus on describing the nature of whole body plastinates are examined. We argue that this literature shows that plastinates do not clearly occupy standard cultural binary categories of interior or exterior, real or fake, dead or alive, bodies or persons, self or other and argue that Noël Carroll's structural framework for horrific monsters unites the various accounts of the contradictory or ambiguous nature of plastinates while also showing how plastinates differ from horrific fictional monsters. In doing so, it offers an account of the varied reactions of those responding to exhibitions of plastinated whole bodies.

No abstract

No abstract

In April 2013 the National Geographic magazine carried the cover title ‘Reviving extinct species, we can, but should we?’ suggesting that the technical challenges had been met, but some ethical concerns remained unresolved. Seven years later it is clear that this is not the case. Here we consider the technical scope, the uncertainties, and some of the bioethical issues raised by the future prospect of de-extinction. Biodiversity and welfare will not always align, and when a clash is unavoidable, a trade-off will be necessary, seeking the greatest overall value. De-extinction challenges our current conservation mind-set that seeks to preserve the species and population diversity that currently exists. But if we want to sustain and enhance a biodiverse natural world we might have to be forward looking and embrace the notion of bio-novelty by focussing more on ecosystem stability and resilience, rather than backward looking and seeking to try and recreate lost worlds.

No abstract