The purpose of this study was to determine if different language measures resulted in the same classifications of language dominance and proficiency for a group of bilingual pre-kindergarteners and kindergarteners. Data were analyzed for 1029 Spanish–English bilingual pre-kindergarteners who spanned the full range of bilingual language proficiency. Parent questionnaires were used to quantify age of first exposure and current language use. Scores from a short test of semantic and morphosyntactic development in Spanish and English were used to quantify children's performance. Some children who were in the functionally monolingual range based on interview data demonstrated minimal knowledge of their other languages when tested. Current use accounted for more of the variance in language dominance than did age of first exposure. Results indicate that at different levels of language exposure children differed in their performance on semantic and morphosyntax tasks. These patterns suggest that it may be difficult to compare the results of studies that employ different measures of language dominance and proficiency. Current use is likely to be a useful metric of bilingual development that can be used to build a comprehensive picture of child bilingualism.

From the first initiatives in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and gene therapy through the advent of stem cell research to the development of mammalian cloning, the past two decades have witnessed remarkable advances in “reprogenetic” medicine: the union of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) with genetic control. This period has also been marked by intense debates within the bioethical literature and in national policy forums about the appropriate uses of these emerging human capabilities. We can now, in a limited way, select for genetic traits, and the power to modify the genome or introduce new gene sequences is not far off. How should these new powers be used?

Although the first human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) were produced in 1998, the direction of U.S. policy on stem cell research was set nearly 20 years earlier when the recommendations of a congressionally established Ethics Advisory Board were ignored by the Reagan administration. Thus began an unprecedented and unparalleled 30-year-long history of political intrusions in an area of scientific and biomedical research that has measurable impacts on the health of Americans. Driving these intrusions were religiously informed public policy positions that have usually escaped critical ethical analysis. Here I record my own encounters with this history of intrusions and the thinking behind them.

My most abrupt encounter with the politics of stem cell research occurred on September 6, 2006, at a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Related Agencies, chaired by Senator Arlen Specter. Just a week before, scientists at Advanced Cell Technology (ACT), a small Massachusetts biotech company, had published a paper in the journal Nature in which they described a method for extracting stem cells from early human embryos while leaving the embryos intact and viable. As head of ACT’s Ethics Advisory Board, I had supported this research.

This case is another in a series intended to highlight the new questions emerging from advances in mapping the human genome and the application of genetic findings to clinical practice. The National Human Genome Research Institute, a component of the National Institutes of Health, by law is directed to designate a portion of its annual budget to furthering understanding of the ethical, legal, and social questions emerging from research on the human genome. As part of the effort, the Institute supports research by scientists and scholars around the nation with the aim of clarifying and resolving the tough ethical and research choices facing this endeavor. But recently it has launched an intramural program, which is expected to take a catalytic role in grappling with the array of issues the researchers face in carrying out investigations in human genetics.

On the morning of December 2, 1994, after a preceding afternoon of discussion, the Advisory Committee to the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) unanimously voted to approve the recommendations of the Report of the Human Embryo Research Panel. Panel members like myself who were present were elated. The vote marked the culmination of nearly a year of work. Approval of the report also represented a decisive step forward in bringing an end to a 15-year long moratorium on federally funded research on the preimplantation human embryo and techniques of in vitro fertilization.

Background: Although psychosocial treatments for pain have been found to be effective in reducing self-reported pain, physician visits, and in improving mood, the research has largely focused on younger persons. As such, there is a paucity of related studies involving older adults. Method: We implemented and evaluated a 10-session psychosocial (i.e. cognitive behavioural orientation) pain management program that was specifically designed for older adults. The intervention was delivered either in the participants' homes or in bookable rooms in seniors' residence buildings. Ninety-five community dwelling seniors with at least one chronic pain condition were assigned to either a treatment or a wait-list control condition. An assessment battery was administered to treatment participants immediately before the program started, immediately post-treatment, and 3-months post-treatment. Comparable data were obtained from control group participants, although 3-month follow-up data were not available for the control group. Outcome variables included pain intensity, coping strategy usage, pain beliefs/appraisals, and perceived life stressors. Results: Although decreases in pain intensity were observed in both the treatment and wait-list control groups, the intervention was found to result in fewer maladaptive beliefs about pain and greater use of relaxation, which is considered to be an adaptive coping strategy. Conclusions: Although some treatment benefits were identified (e.g. change in pain-related beliefs), future research should test the effectiveness of a cognitive behavioural treatment program tailored for seniors with participants who are experiencing higher pain intensities than those reported by our sample (i.e. those who experience a higher level of pain at baseline may represent a more suitable sample for assessing the effectiveness of our intervention in reducing pain intensity).

As a “case” in business ethics, the conduct of the firearms industry is hardly dilemmatic. The responsible choices before firearm manufacturers have long been clear, if largely neglected. The great interest here for business ethicists lies in understanding how civil law and ethics can work together to bring a rogue industry under control. Business ethicists have a role to play in shaping the formation of legal standards in this area. In turn, emerging concepts of manufacturers’ liability can make a contribution to the teaching of business ethics.

Early last year, the GenEthics Consortium (GEC) of the Washington Metropolitan Area convened at George Washington University to consider a complex case about genetic testing for Alzheimer disease (AD). The GEC consists of scientists, bioethicists, lawyers, genetic counselors, and consumers from a variety of institutions and affiliations. Four of the 8 co-authors of this paper delivered presentations on the case. Supplemented by additional ethical and legal observations, these presentations form the basis for the following discussion.

This discussion develops six of the most important guiding principles of classical Jewish business ethics and illustrates their application to a complex recent case of product liability. These principles are: (1) the legitimacy of business activity and profit; (2) the divine origin and ordination of wealth (and hence the limits and obligations of human ownership); (3) the preeminent position in decision making given to the protection and preservation (sanctity) of human life; (4) the protection of consumers from commercial harm; (5) the avoidance of fraud and misrepresentation in sales transactions; and (6) the moral requirement to go beyond the letter of the law. Although these Talmudic principles are clearly obligatory only for “Torah-obedient” Orthodox and Hasidic Jews, many Jews share a sensibility informed by them. Non-Jews, too, may be instructed by Jewish teachings about business ethics.