Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Send to Kindle
  • Send to Dropbox
  • Send to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

31 results

Page 1 of 2

  • The hidden injustices of advancing solar geoengineering research
  • Jennie C. Stephens, Kevin Surprise
  • Journal: Global Sustainability / Volume 3 / 2020
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 January 2020, e2
  • Print publication: 2020
    • Article
    • Access
    • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • View abstract

    Advancing solar geoengineering research is associated with multiple hidden injustices that are revealed by addressing three questions: Who is conducting and funding solar geoengineering research? How do those advocating for solar geoengineering research think about social justice and social change? How is this technology likely to be deployed? Navigating these questions reveals that solar geoengineering research is being advocated for by a small group of primarily white men at elite institutions in the Global North, funded largely by billionaires or their philanthropic arms, who are increasingly adopting militarized approaches and logics. Solar geoengineering research advances an extreme, expert–elite technocratic intervention into the global climate system that would serve to further concentrate contemporary forms of political and economic power. For these reasons, we argue that it is unethical and unjust to advance solar geoengineering research.

  • Sensitive periods for the effect of childhood interpersonal violence on psychiatric disorder onset among adolescents
  • Erin C. Dunn, Yan Wang, Jenny Tse, Katie A. McLaughlin, Garrett Fitzmaurice, Stephen E. Gilman, Ezra S. Susser
  • Journal: The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 211 / Issue 6 / December 2017
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018, pp. 365-372
  • Print publication: December 2017
    • Article
    • Access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • View abstract
    Background

    Although childhood adversity is a strong determinant of psychopathology, it remains unclear whether there are ‘sensitive periods’ when a first episode of adversity is most harmful.

    Aims

    To examine whether variation in the developmental timing of a first episode of interpersonal violence (up to age 18) associates with risk for psychopathology.

    Method

    Using cross-sectional data, we examined the association between age at first exposure to four types of interpersonal violence (physical abuse by parents, physical abuse by others, rape, and sexual assault/molestation) and onset of four classes of DSM-IV disorders (distress, fear, behaviour, substance use) (n=9984). Age at exposure was defined as: early childhood (ages 0–5), middle childhood (ages 6–10) and adolescence (ages 11–18).

    Results

    Exposure to interpersonal violence at any age period about doubled the risk of a psychiatric disorder (odds ratios (ORs) = 1.51–2.52). However, few differences in risk were observed based on the timing of first exposure. After conducting 20 tests of association, only three significant differences in risk were observed based on the timing of exposure; these results suggested an elevated risk of behaviour disorder among youth first exposed to any type of interpersonal violence during adolescence (OR = 2.37, 95% CI 1.69–3.34), especially being beaten by another person (OR = 2.44; 95% CI 1.57–3.79), and an elevated risk of substance use disorder among youth beaten by someone during adolescence (OR=2.77, 95% CI 1.94–3.96).

    Conclusions

    Children exposed to interpersonal violence had an elevated risk of psychiatric disorder. However, age at first episode of exposure was largely unassociated with psychopathology risk.

Page 1 of 2