No abstract

In studying the doctoral experience, there is no substitute for on-site, interv i e w, or observation-based data collection. Surveys, however, offer an opport u n i t y to collect information on a broad scale to examine patterns of experience and p a rticularly to investigate the prevalence of certain experiences that people normally associate with graduate school largely because of the stories they hear. The doctoral-student surveys of the Acadia Institute' s Project on Pro f e s s i o n a l Values and Ethical Issues in the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engin e e r s 1 included a range of questions about students' experiences in their graduate program. They addressed students' reasons for going to graduate school, their graduate work and evaluation of that work, the organizational climate of their graduate department, their affective responses to the demands of graduate study, and students' assessments of the graduate experience and their p rospective care e r. These questions are the basis for this analysis of the doctoral experience.We sent the surveys to 2,000 doctoral students in the fall of 1989. We selected the students randomly from ninety-nine departments in chemistry, civil engineering, micro b i o l o g y, and sociology at major re s e a rch universities in the United States. The response rate was 72 percent. Further details about the s u rvey and related re s e a rch results appear in previous Acadia Graduate Education Project publications. These include articles on academic misconduct

No abstract

A prospective study of the reproductive plans of 185 genetic counseling clients at risk for birth defects not diagnosable prenatally found, 6 months after counseling, 1) a small increase in the number of pregnancies initiated and planned, compared to pregnancies planned before counseling; 2) an increase in initiated and planned pregnancies among clients at both high as well as low risk; and 3) reproductive plans after counseling more closely correlated with clients' perceptions of the social, familial, and economic burdens of an affected child than with medically defined risk and specific clinical characteristics of the birth defects. In discussing the burden of a birth defect with clients, counselors are encouraged to discuss not only the medical burden, but the social, familial, and financial burdens as well.

In 1986, philosopher-bioethicist Samuel Gorovitz published an essay entitled "Baiting Bioethics," in which he reported on various criticisms of bioethics that were "in print, or voiced in and around. .. the field" at that time, and set forth his assessment of their legitimacy. 1 He gave detailed attention to what he