To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In the U.S., there is no requirement for research sponsors to compensate human research subjects who experience injuries as a result of their participation. In this article, we review the moral justifications that compel the establishment of a better research-related injury compensation system. We explore how other countries and certain institutions within the U.S. have adopted various systems of compensation. The existence of these systems demonstrates both that the U.S. lags behind other nations in its protection of human research subjects and that the establishment of a compensation system is both practical and feasible. We then examine factors which have prevented the U.S. from establishing its own compensation system. We consider possible alternatives for the U.S. by examining the advantages and disadvantages of both established and proposed systems. We offer a new proposal that addresses the justice concerns which compel the establishment of a national compensation system, distributes the burdens of such a system on multiple stakeholders that benefit from research, and has the additional advantage of minimizing the administrative and logistical challenges associated with initiating such a system.
This article discusses the impact of the educational method pioneered in the English public schools on the development of education in Anglican schools in the British empire, with a particular focus on the Indian subcontinent from the turn of the twentieth century until the outbreak of the First World War. It discusses how the focus of missionary activity changed from a desire for overt evangelism into a sense of the transmission of moral and ethical values though a system of education in the Christian virtues. An educational understanding of salvation began to supplant the doctrinal. This is connected with the thinking on ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ civilizations of the period. A central focus is on the preparatory work for, and discussions around, the Pan-Anglican Congress of 1908 and the role played by Bishop H. H. Montgomery.
Ernst Troeltsch and the ‘Systematic Theology of the History of Religion School’
Although he was an extraordinary polymath who dabbled in many different areas of theology, philosophy and history, Ernst Troeltsch spent most of his career as a teacher of systematic theology. At Heidelberg University, where he was professor from 1894 to 1915, Troeltsch lectured regularly (usually five times per week) on systematic theology beginning in the summer semester of 1894 with a lecture course on ‘Christliche Dogmatik’. This course was continued as ‘Dogmatik’ along with lectures on Friedrich Schleiermacher's life and teaching (winter semester of 1894– 95). In the summer semester of 1895 he taught history of Protestant theology in the nineteenth century and ethics. This was followed by the ‘History of Dogma’ (winter semester of 1895– 96) and then ‘Glaubenslehre’ (Teaching of the faith) in the summer semester of 1896. This course was continued in the next semester (‘Glaubenslehre’ II) along with a course on ‘Symbolik’, or study of the distinct confessions of the faith. He also offered a course on ‘Theologische Encyclopädie’ (which might best be translated as ‘Outline of Theology’) from the winter semester of 1897– 98. These courses, along with regular lectures on ethics and philosophy of religion, were repeated on an annual basis right through his time in Heidelberg, with the final lectures on ‘Glaubenslehre’ II being given in the winter semester of 1914– 15. In total the lectures on ‘Glaubenslehre’ or ‘Dogmatik’ were given eleven times; ‘History of Dogma’ six times (finishing in the winter semester of 1905– 6); ‘Symbolik’ nine times (finishing in the summer semester of 1913); ‘History of Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century’ (five times until summer semester of 1909); and ‘Theologische Encyclopädie’ (five times until winter semester of 1905– 6).
Although his publications in other areas certainly outnumbered his writings on dogmatics, Troeltsch's reputation as a teacher depended on his lectures on systematic theology and ethics (which in the German division of theology is also usually included as a branch of systematic theology). He also contributed many articles on dogmatic themes to the first edition of the magnum opus of the history of religion school, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, which was published between 1909 and 1913 by J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) and edited by Friedrich Michael Schiele und Leopold Zscharnack.
The History of Religions School is the name adopted by a small group of friends who were students, then untenured instructors in the theological faculty of the University of Göttingen beginning around 1890. The school's preoccupation with theology and their rejection of the way theology was done around them had a quite particular focus. They had come to Göttingen to study with Albrecht Ritschl, the doyen of liberal theology. The identification and description of those religious movements constituted one of the most creative, influential, but ultimately most problematic of the contributions which the History of Religions School made to modern scholarship. Even scholars who reject most of the findings and much of the method of the History of Religions School agree that the understanding of biblical religion can never be the same as it was before their work, which can only be replaced by better history.