Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Title Page -- Chapter 1: Shabby Chic -- Chapter 2: Sticky Wickets -- Chapter 3: Poof Ball -- Chapter 4: Hot Ideas -- Chapter 5: Ho-Hum -- Chapter 6: The Big Secret -- Chapter 7: Pump It Up! -- Chapter 8: Wild Ride! -- Chapter 9: Pool Party Hero -- Chapter 10: Chow Time! -- 'Heidi Heckelbeck For Class President' Teaser -- About the Author and Illustrator -- Copyright.

Poole Harbour's unique combination of physical characteristics provide for a rich and productive ecological community recognised for its internationally significant bird populations and as a haven for the naturalisation of exotic species. But the Harbour is also exceptional in the extent to which it represents in microcosm the world-wide tensions between environment and development. The contrasts are sometimes startling: the narrow Harbour entrance separates an unspoilt natural environment of considerable importance from an urban landscape where property competes with Manhattan and Hong Kong Island in the world-wide table of real estate values. The Harbour serves as a port, fishing ground, a receiver of effluent and increasingly as a playground for the affluent. It also lies above Europe's largest on-shore oil-field. The Ecology of Poole Harbour brings together for the first time expert contributions in such a way as to provide a picture of the ecology of the Harbour system as a whole. It covers all the major habitats from reed beds and salt marshes to the extensive mudflats and unseen sub-tidal regions, while also examining in some detail a wide range of ecological phenomena and issues. * First expert overview of ecology of Poole Harbour as a whole

In the Fall 1979 issue ofPS, Ithiel Pool presented an analysis of the recently-proposed HEW regulations on the protection of human subjects of behavioral and biomedical research. He expressed three major criticisms of the proposals. The first is that the draft regulations "extend federal authority … to policing some practices in private research which should in a free society be guided by private research which should in a free society be guided by private and professional decisions." Second, he objects to the proposal that Institutional Review Boards (hereinafter "IRB's") should determine that "the research methods are appropriate to the objectives of the research and the field of study." Finally, he argues that the proposed regulations are an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech.We have serious reservations about all three of Pool's arguments, most particularly the third. We are concerned that the issues raised be seriously considered and widely discussed in the profession, especially given the quasi-official way in which Pool's statement was presented inPS(see the Editor's Note, p. 452) as well as the fact that it was announced in December 1979 (inIRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research) that a committee of social scientists headed by Pool has "challenged the constitutionality of the DHEW proposed regulations." (The article listed such notables as Gabriel Almond, George Homans and Charles Lindblom as "among the more than forty prospective members of the Committee," p. 7).

In the Fall 1979 issue of PS, Ithiel Pool presented an analysis of the recently-proposed HEW regulations on the protection of human subjects of behavioral and biomedical research. He expressed three major criticisms of the proposals. The first is that the draft regulations "extend federal authority … to policing some practices in private research which should in a free society be guided by private research which should in a free society be guided by private and professional decisions." Second, he objects to the proposal that Institutional Review Boards (hereinafter "IRB's") should determine that "the research methods are appropriate to the objectives of the research and the field of study." Finally, he argues that the proposed regulations are an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech.We have serious reservations about all three of Pool's arguments, most particularly the third. We are concerned that the issues raised be seriously considered and widely discussed in the profession, especially given the quasi-official way in which Pool's statement was presented in PS (see the Editor's Note, p. 452) as well as the fact that it was announced in December 1979 (in IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research) that a committee of social scientists headed by Pool has "challenged the constitutionality of the DHEW proposed regulations." (The article listed such notables as Gabriel Almond, George Homans and Charles Lindblom as "among the more than forty prospective members of the Committee," p. 7).

In the Fall 1979 issue of PS, Ithiel Pool presented an analysis of the recently-proposed HEW regulations on the protection of human subjects of behavioral and biomedical research. He expressed three major criticisms of the proposals. The first is that the draft regulations "extend federal authority … to policing some practices in private research which should in a free society be guided by private research which should in a free society be guided by private and professional decisions." Second, he objects to the proposal that Institutional Review Boards (hereinafter "IRB's") should determine that "the research methods are appropriate to the objectives of the research and the field of study." Finally, he argues that the proposed regulations are an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech.We have serious reservations about all three of Pool's arguments, most particularly the third. We are concerned that the issues raised be seriously considered and widely discussed in the profession, especially given the quasi-official way in which Pool's statement was presented in PS (see the Editor's Note, p. 452) as well as the fact that it was announced in December 1979 (in IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research) that a committee of social scientists headed by Pool has "challenged the constitutionality of the DHEW proposed regulations." (The article listed such notables as Gabriel Almond, George Homans and Charles Lindblom as "among the more than forty prospective members of the Committee," p. 7).

This survey is part of the larger BODYRULES study that has been financed by the German Federal Ministry for Research and Education (BMBF, Grant number: 01UM1811BY). Its goal is to study how organizations adapt to migration-related changes, in particular to an increasing religious diversity. The larger project compares three organizations (hospitals, schools, swimming pools) that have to regulate the human body, building on the idea that human body practices significantly differ across religious communities. While the sub-study on schools is conducted at the University of Potsdam (PI Maja Apelt) and the study on hospitals by the Charité Berlin (PI Liane Schenk), the study on swimming pools is conducted by the WZB Berlin Social Science Center (PI Ines Michalowski).