Search results

THE AUTHOR CALLS ATTENTION TO THE PROBABILITY THAT RACIALLY DESIGNED DISTRICTING WILL TEND TO SUSTAIN THE EXISTENCE OF RACIAL GHETTOIZATION, RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING PATTERNS, AND A REDUCTION IN THE COMPETITIVENESS AND RESPONSIVENESS OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS. RATHER THAN AFFIRMATIVE GERRYMANDERING, IT SHOULD BE MADE CERTAIN THAT NO DISCRIMINATION CAN BE IMPOSED BY OR AGAINST ANY GROUP.

Although previous investigations have consistently refuted the notion of catharsis, research indicates that a substantial proportion of the general population continues to believe that aggression can lead to a lowering of subsequent aggression. The current study examined the relationships
among involvement in aggressive and nonaggressive sports and beliefs in symbolic sport catharsis (i.e., the belief that watching aggressive sports will lead to a reduction in aggression). The results supported the hypothesized pattern of effects as persons with a high level of involvement
with aggressive sports were particularly likely to believe that watching aggressive sports on television and in person can lead to a reduction in aggressive behavior. Also consistent with expectations, differences in beliefs in symbolic sport catharsis were not found between groups differing
in their involvement with nonaggressive sports.

Research involving animals that occurs outside the laboratory raises an array of unique challenges. With regard to UK legislation, however, it receives only limited attention in terms of official guidelines, support, and statistics, which are unsurprisingly orientated towards the laboratory environment in which the majority of animal research takes place. In September 2019, four social scientists from the Animal Research Nexus program gathered together a group of 13 experts to discuss nonlaboratory research under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (A(SP)A) of 1986 (mirroring European Union (EU) Directive 2010/63/EU), which is the primary mechanism for regulating animal research in the UK. Such nonlaboratory research under the A(SP)A often occurs at Places Other than Licensed Establishments (POLEs). The primary objective of the workshop was to assemble a diverse group with experience across a variety of POLEs (e.g., wildlife field sites, farms, fisheries, veterinary clinics, zoos) to explore the practical, ethical, and regulatory challenges of conducting research at POLEs. While consensus was not sought, nor reached on every point of discussion, we collectively identified five key areas that we propose require further discussion and attention. These relate to: (1) support and training; (2) ethical review; (3) cultures of care, particularly in nonregulated research outside of the laboratory; (4) the setting of boundaries; and (5) statistics and transparency. The workshop generated robust discussion and thereby highlighted the value of focusing on the unique challenges posed by POLEs, and the need for further opportunities for exchanging experiences and sharing best practice relating to research projects outside of the laboratory in the UK and elsewhere.