Acquisition of focus by normal hearing and Cochlear implanted children

Two experiments investigated the perception of compound vs. phrasal stress and narrow focus in normally hearing children and children with Cochlear Implants (CI). Additionally, we investigated whether musical experience would predict children’s performance in these tasks. The results showed no difference between CI and normal-hearing (NH) children in either experiment. However, whereas we found no clear effect of age in the children’s stress detection, there was a clear age related trajectory in the ability to recognise (narrow) focus. Moreover, this trend was similar to what has been found previously for English children. Importantly, prior music experience was significantly linked to CI children’s perception of focus.

Individuals' Responsibility in Corporations

I discuss role responsibly, individual responsibility and collective responsibility in corporate multinational setting. My case study is about minerals used in electronics that come from the Democratic Republic of Congo. What I try to show throughout the thesis is how many things need to be taken into consideration when we discuss the responsibility of individuals in corporations. No easy and simple answers are available. Instead, we must keep in mind the complexity of the situation at all times, judging cases on individual basis, emphasizing the importance of individual judgement and virtue, as well as the responsibility we all share as members of groups and the wider society. I begin by discussing the demands that are placed on us as employees. There is always a potential for a conflict between our different roles and also the wider demands placed on us. Role demands are usually much more specific than the wider question of how we should act as human beings. The terminology of roles can also be misleading as it can create illusions about our work selves being somehow radically separated from our everyday, true selves. The nature of collective decision-making and its implications for responsibility is important too. When discussing the moral responsibility of an employee in a corporate setting, one must take into account arguments from individual and collective responsibility, as well as role ethics. Individual responsibility is not a separate or competing notion from that of collective responsibility. Rather, the two are interlinked. Individuals' responsibilities in collective settings combine both individual responsibility and collective responsibility (which is different from aggregate individual responsibility). In the majority of cases, both will apply in various degrees. Some members might have individual responsibility in addition to the collective responsibility, while others just the collective responsibility. There are also times when no-one bears individual moral responsibility but the members are still responsible for the collective part. My intuition is that collective moral responsibility is strongly linked to the way the collective setting affects individual judgements and moulds the decisions, and how the individuals use the collective setting to further their own ends. Individuals remain the moral agents but responsibility is collective if the actions in question are collective in character. I also explore the impacts of bureaucratic ethic and its influence on the individual. Bureaucracies can compartmentalize work to such a degree that individual human action is reduced to mere behaviour. Responsibility is diffused and the people working in the bureaucracy can come to view their actions to be outside the normal human realm where they would be responsible for what they do. Language games and rules, anonymity, internal power struggles, and the fragmentation of information are just some of the reasons responsibility and morality can get blurry in big institutional settings. Throughout the thesis I defend the following theses: ● People act differently depending on their roles. This is necessary for our society to function, but the more specific role demands should always be kept in check by the wider requirements of being a good human being. ● Acts in corporations (and other large collectives) are not reducible to individual actions, and cannot be explained fully by the behaviour of individual employees. ● Individuals are responsible for the actions that they undertake in the collective as role occupiers and are very rarely off the hook. Hiding behind role demands is usually only an excuse and shows a lack of virtue. ● Individuals in roles can be responsible even when the collective is not. This depends on if the act they performed was corporate in nature or not. ● Bureaucratic structure affects individual thinking and is not always a healthy environment to work in. ● Individual members can share responsibility with the collective and our share of the collective responsibility is strongly linked to our relations. ● Corporations and other collectives can be responsible for harm even when no individual is at fault. The structure and the policies of the collective are crucial. ● Socialization plays an important role in our morality at both work and outside it. We are all responsible for the kind of moral context we create. ● When accepting a role or a position in a collective, we are attaching ourselves with the values of that collective. ● Ethical theories should put more emphasis on good judgement and decision-making instead of vague generalisations. My conclusion is that the individual person is always in the centre when it comes to responsibility, and not so easily off the hook as we sometimes think. What we do, and especially who we choose to associate ourselves with, does matter and we should be more careful when we choose who we work for. Individuals within corporations are responsible for choosing that the corporation they associate with is one that they can ascribe to morally, if not fully, then at least for the most part. Individuals are also inclusively responsible to a varying degree for the collective activities they contribute to, even in overdetermined contexts. We all are responsible for the kind of corporations we choose to support through our actions as consumers, investors and citizens.

DNA damage recognition in the normal epithelium of human prostate and seminal vesicles

Prostate cancer is one of the most prevalent cancer types in men. The development of prostate tumors is known to require androgen exposure, and several pathways governing cell growth are deregulated in prostate tumorigenesis. Recent genetic studies have revealed that complex gene fusions and copy - number alterations are frequent in prostate cancer, a unique feature among solid tumors. These chromosomal aberrations are though to arise as a consequence of faulty repair of DNA double strand breaks (DSB). Most repair mechanisms have been studied in detail in cancer cell lines, but how DNA damage is detected and repaired in normal differentiated human cells has not been widely addressed. The events leading to the gene fusions in prostate cancer are under rigorous studies, as they not only shed light on the basic pathobiologic mechanisms but may also produce molecular targets for prostate cancer treatment and prevention. Prostate and seminal vesicles are part of the male reproductive system. They share similar structure and function but differ dramatically in their cancer incidence. Approximately fifty primary seminal vesicle carcinomas have been reported worldwide. Surprisingly, only little is known on why seminal vesicles are resistant to neoplastic changes. As both tissues are androgen dependent, it is a mystery that androgen signaling would only lead to tumors in prostate tissue. In this work, we set up novel ex vivo human tissue culture models of prostate and seminal vesicles, and used them to study how DNA damage is recognized in normal epithelium. One of the major DNA - damage inducible pathways, mediated by the ATM kinase, was robustly activated in all main cell types of both tissues. Interestingly, we discovered that secretory epithelial cells had less histone variant H2A.X and after DNA damage lower levels of H2AX were phosphorylated on serine 139 (γH2AX) than in basal or stromal cells. γH2AX has been considered essential for efficient DSB repair, but as there were no significant differences in the γH2AX levels between the two tissues, it seems more likely that the role of γH2AX is less important in postmitotic cells. We also gained insight into the regulation of p53, an important transcription factor that protects genomic integrity via multiple mechanisms, in human tissues. DSBs did not lead to a pronounced activation of p53, but treatments causing transcriptional stress, on the other hand, were able to launch a notable p53 response in both tissue types. In general, ex vivo culturing of human tissues provided unique means to study differentiated cells in their relevant tissue context, and is suited for testing novel therapeutic drugs before clinical trials. In order to study how prostate and seminal vesicle epithelial cells are able to activate DNA damage induced cell cycle checkpoints, we used primary cultures of prostate and seminal vesicle epithelial cells. To our knowledge, we are the first to report isolation of human primary seminal vesicle cells. Surprisingly, human prostate epithelial cells did not activate cell cycle checkpoints after DSBs in part due to low levels of Wee1A, a kinase regulating CDK activity, while primary seminal vesicle epithelial cells possessed proficient cell cycle checkpoints and expressed high levels of Wee1A. Similarly, seminal vesicle cells showed a distinct activation of the p53 - pathway after DSBs that did not occur in prostate epithelial cells. This indicates that p53 protein function is under different control mechanisms in the two cell types, which together with proficient cell cycle checkpoints may be crucial in protecting seminal vesicles from endogenous and exogenous DNA damaging factors and, as a consequence, from carcinogenesis. These data indicate that two very similar organs of male reproductive system do not respond to DNA damage similarly. The differentiated, non - replicating cells of both tissues were able to recognize DSBs, but under proliferation human prostate epithelial cells had deficient activation of the DNA damage response. This suggests that prostate epithelium is most vulnerable to accumulating genomic aberrations under conditions where it needs to proliferate, for example after inflammatory cellular damage.