Public attitudes on the ethics of deceptively planting false memories to motivate healthy behavior

Researchers have proposed that planting false memories could have positive behavioral consequences. The idea of deceptively planting “beneficial” false memories outside of the laboratory raises important ethical questions, but how might the general public appraise this moral dilemma? In two studies, participants from the USA and UK read about a fictional “false-memory therapy” that led people to adopt healthy behaviors. Participants then reported their attitudes toward the acceptability of this therapy, via scale-rating (both studies) and open-text (Study 2) responses. The data revealed highly divergent responses to this contentious issue, ranging from abject horror to unqualified enthusiasm. Moreover, the responses shed light on conditions that participants believed would make the therapy less or more ethical. Whether or not deceptively planting memories outside the lab could ever be justifiable, these studies add valuable evidence to scientific and societal debates on neuroethics, whose relevance to memory science is increasingly acute.

Community pharmacists' engagement with public health in Great Britain

Objective - The objective of the research was to examine to what extent community pharmacists in Great Britain believed that their job was concerned with local public health issues. Methods - The project (Pharmacy and Public Health)received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the School of Life and Health Sciences at Aston University. After piloting, in August 2006 a self-completion postal questionnaire was sent to practicing community pharmacists in Great Britain (n=1998), with a follow-up to non-responders 4 weeks later. A final response rate of 51% (n=1023/1998) was achieved. Results - Respondents were asked to indicate their answer to the question “to what extent is your present job concerned with local public health issues?” on a three-point scale – “highly”, “slightly” or “not at all” concerned with public health. They were also asked to indicate whether they were pharmacy owners, employee pharmacists or self-employed locum pharmacists. Less than half (43%,n=384/898) of respondents answering both questions believed that their job was highly concerned with public health. A relationship was observed between employment status and the level to which a respondent believed that their job was concerned with public health (chi-square test with P=0.001). Over half of pharmacy owners (51%, n=68/134) considered that their job was highly concerned with public health compared to44% (n=193/443) of employee pharmacists and38% (n=123/321) of locum pharmacists. Conclusion - This research suggests that community pharmacists in Great Britain are not ‘fully engaged’ with public health. Pharmacy owners may feel more enfranchised in the public health movement than their employees and locums. Indeed, one-in-ten locums reported that their job was not at all concerned with public health which, as locum pharmacists constitute over a third of actively employed community pharmacists, could be limiting factor in any drive to strengthen the public health function of community pharmacists.