We have the pleasure to invite you to another research seminar in the ‘BIOUNCERTAINTY’ research project. This week Bartosz Janik will give a talk: "Fuzzy trace theory and psychiatric decision making". The seminar will take place on Friday, 25th of March at 3:30 p.m. via MS Teams.

We have the pleasure to invite you to another research seminar in the ‘BIOUNCERTAINTY’ research project. This week Marta Soniewicka (Jagiellonian University) will give a talk: "Czy empatia jest potrzebna rządom prawa? O roli emocji w prawie". The seminar will take place on Thursday, 10th of March at 5:30 p.m. via MS Teams. The seminar will be hosted in Polish.

We have the pleasure to invite you to another research seminar in the ‘BIOUNCERTAINTY’ research project. This week Joona Räsänen will give a talk: "Is it wrong to hire employees based on personality?". The seminar will take place on Thursday, 24th of February at 5:30 p.m. via MS Teams.

SONATINA 6 supports the career development of early-stage researchers by creating opportunities for full-time employment at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics (INCET) - a research centre within the Faculty of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków. The duration of employment: 24 or 36 months. Researchers who has been earned a PhD degree within 3 years prior to the proposal submission year are eligible for applying. Deadline: 24 February 2022.

“Proxy crimes” is a phrase loosely used to refer to conduct that is punished only as a means to target other harmful conduct. Many criminal law scholars find the criminalization of this type of conduct unjustifiable from a retributivist perspective, while others note that proxy criminalization can contribute to mass incarceration and overcriminalization. Given the importance of these problems, a systematic analysis of proxy crimes, currently absent in the criminal law literature, is needed.

We have the pleasure to invite you to another research seminar in the ‘BIOUNCERTAINTY’ research project. The seminar will take place on Thursday, 20th of January at 5:30 p.m. via MS Teams.

What constitutes bias?; how biases may be embedded in the selection of research programs?; is it possible to conduct completely unbiased research? Joanna K. Malinowska and Tomasz Żuradzki try to notice possible answers to these questions in their commentary "Non-Epistemological Values in Collaborative Research in Neuroscience: The Case of Alleged Differences Between Human Populations".

One might assume that the desire to help (here described as Want) is the essential driver of helping declarations and/or behaviors. However, even if desire to help (Want) is low, intention to help may still occur if the expectancy regarding the perceived effectiveness of helping is high. We tested these predictions in a set of three experimental studies.

In this paper, we use an innovative, empirical, and–as yet–rarely applied method in bioethics, namely corpus analysis. By demonstrating the ambiguity of the concept of dignity discernible when analyzing its use in normative contexts, our work is a novel contribution to the debates among the historians of ideas about conceptual identity and conceptual drift.

A paper co-authored by Vilius Dranseika - a researcher in the BIOUNCERTAINTY project at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics at the Jagiellonian University - has been proclaimed one of the three best articles published in The British Journal of Aesthetics in 2020. Congratulations!

Vilius Dranseika wrote an open peer commentary to Zawadzki and Adamczyk's target article: "Personality and Authenticity in Light of the Memory-Modifying Potential of Optogenetics". The article and commentaries were published in the new issue of AJOB Neuroscience.

We conducted a meta-analysis to examine whether numeric decision-making in law is susceptible to the effect of (possibly arbitrary) values present in the decision contexts (anchoring effect) and to investigate which factors might moderate this effect.

Literature-based meta-analysis is a standard technique applied to pool results of individual studies used in medicine and social sciences. It has been criticized for being too malleable to constrain results, averaging incomparable values, lacking a measure of evidence's strength, and problems with a systematic bias of individual studies. We argue against using literature-based meta-analysis of RCTs to assess treatment efficacy and show that therapeutic decisions based on meta-analytic average are not optimal given the full scope of existing evidence.