Respecting and fulfilling the right of post-primary pupils to consent to participate in trials and evaluative research: A discussion paper

This paper provides an introduction to issues surrounding the participation rights of young people in research and the implications of their growing involvement in research as well as providing a discourse on the ethical implications related to consent. The unique contribution of this paper is that it considers children’s rights in respect to the increasing opportunities for young people to take part in evaluation research. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to acknowledge the growing involvement for young people in research and the implications of ensuring that their rights of participation are respected. Secondly we will consider the children’s rights legislation and our obligations as researchers to implement this. Finally we will explore consent as an issue in its own right as well as the practicalities of accessing participants. This paper will postulate that any research about young people should involve and prioritise at all stages of the research process; including participation in decision-making. We conclude by identifying five key principles, which we believe can help to facilitate the fulfilment of post-primary pupils’ ability to consent to participate in trials and evaluative research.

Commentary on Publication of Lectures Act 1835

Legislation conferring the exclusive right of printing and publishing certain lectures for the same term of protection provided by the existing copyright legislation (see: Statute of Anne, uk_1710; Copyright Act, uk_1814). This was the first occasion on which the legislature extended copyright protection to works in the oral form. The legislation is of interest in terms of the distinction it draws between lectures delivered within the 'public' and the 'private' spheres (lectures delivered at a University, for example, are not protected), in terms of articulating the nature of the relationship between a speaker and his audience, and in specifically clarifying that newspapers are similarly prohibited from reporting protected lectures. The commentary explores the background to the passing of the Act, and in particular the role which Henry Brougham played in proposing and securing the same.

Balancing Rights in Religious Education through Collaboration and Dialogue

While the right of parents to educate their children in their religious or philosophical conviction is recognised in Human Rights instruments (e.g. CoE 1952, protocol 1), educators must also attend to the right of a child to autonomy (UN 1989, Article 12.1) and the right of liberal democratic states to reproduce values of equity and freedom. This paper argues that certain forms of inter-religious dialogue and/or inter-religious collaborative learning can assist educators in balancing these rights where religion has significant influence and power over the management of schools and/or the curriculum. It is argued that in addition to the learning benefits which may result, the use of collaboration and dialogue goes some way in addressing three philosophical criticisms of religious education: first that religiously separate and religiously based education pays insufficient attention to the rights of children and, secondly, is likely to contribute to social fragmentation; and third, pupils will lack the skills to overcome prejudice or intolerance where they have no experience of others as a result of separate schooling or from a religiously narrow curriculum, and the latter may in fact support intolerant views. A rationale is developed that asserts the value of collaboration or dialogue as a pedagogical strategy that can, to some degree, mitigate potential negative outcomes from religious education. This argument is further supported with reference to a range of empirical studies.

Commentary on Warburton's Letter from an Author (1747)

The first of a number of public commentaries contributing to the mid-eighteenth century debate over the nature of literary property (see also: An Enquiry into the Nature of Literary Property (uk_1762a); An Argument in Defence of Literary Property (uk_1774a)).
Warburton, a strong proponent of the common law rights of the author, provided the first significant commentary upon the nature and classification of property and its relevance to, and relationship with, an author's work. Part of this commentary discusses Warburton's attempts to articulate a clear conceptual distinction between the claim of an inventor to the protection of a patent provided by the state, and the natural right of an author to the property in his work.

Commentary on Millar v. Taylor (1769)

Decision of the Court of King's Bench providing that, regardless of the provisions of the Statute of Anne 1710 (uk_1710), an author enjoyed the exclusive right of publishing his work in perpetuity.
Lord Mansfield, leading a majority decision of the court, provides a robust and influential justification as to the existence of an author's rights in literary property at common law. Yates, J., focussing upon the potential detriment to the public that would flow from the existence of a perpetual right, provides the dissenting opinion. The commentary explores the background to the litigation, in particular the nature of the threat which the Scottish reprint industry posed to the London book trade, relevant case-law leading up to the decision, as well as the substance of the judicial opinions.