Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the main arguments in the book. It outlines eight problematic commitments that cause fault lines in the foundations of research ethics and that are rejected in subsequent chapters. It then shows how a conception of the common good connects research to the ability of key social institutions to safeguard the basic interests of community members. The resulting view grounds an imperative to promote research of a certain kind, while requiring that those efforts be organized as a voluntary scheme of social cooperation that respects its various contributors’ moral claim to be treated as free and equal. A framework for assessing and managing risk is proposed that can reconcile these goals and it is argued that connecting research to larger requirements of a just social order expands the issues and actors that fall under the purview of the field while providing a more coherent and unified foundation for domestic and international research.

The Integrative Approach to Assessing and Managing Risk

This chapter articulates the integrative approach to assessing and managing risk in research. This framework is grounded, not in role-related obligations, but in respect for the basic interests of persons. It models uncertainty as a property of a moderately idealized community of diverse experts, and it shows how studies that are designed to reduce conflict or uncertainty within such a community can reconcile the production of socially valuable information with respect for the status of research participants as free and equal. The merits of this approach relative to prominent alternatives, including component analysis, clinical equipoise, the non-exploitation view and the net risk view are elaborated at length. The merits off the integrative approach are demonstrated by showing how this framework allows trial that use response adaptive randomization to be designed in ways that respect a principle of equal concern and a series of related ethical requirements.

The Food Safety Risks of Harvesting Dropped and Drooping Produce: A Review

The Food Safety Modernization Act’s Produce Safety Rule sets forth minimum standards for fruit and vegetable production in the U.S. One provision states that growers must not harvest dropped produce, as damage or ground contact may contaminate produce. An unpublished survey of 2020 food safety inspections conducted by the Northeast Center to Advance Food Safety identified handling of dropped covered produce as a common misunderstanding and non-compliance issue among Northeast growers. In considering this provision’s on-farm practicality, this review was conducted to evaluate the risks associated with dropped and drooping produce to guide growers in making informed risk management decisions, and to answer the following questions: 1) What are the risk factors that influence transferability of pathogens from touching the ground to produce?; and 2) What are the risks associated with harvesting dropped or drooping produce covered under the Rule? A search of online databases found twelve relevant publications, which highlight moisture, contact time, and crop features as affecting contamination rates from a ground surface to a crop surface. Soil and mulch pose a differential risk, with bare soil generally presenting a lower risk than plastic mulch. The effects of other mulch types is unclear. Mulches may promote pathogen persistence in soil, though they may also protect produce from contaminated soils. These studies are limited in their scope and applicability and most do not directly address dropped produce. Future research is needed to clarify the varying effects of dropped and drooping produce, the impact of ground surface type on pathogen survivability and transfer, soil and crop features that facilitate contamination, and post-harvest risks of harvesting dropped or drooping produce. A comprehensive understanding will guide growers in implementing preventive measures and better managing risk in a way practicable to their farm's unique conditions.

THE ROLE OF CAP RISK MANAGEMENT IN INCOME STABILISATION: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF IST IN SLOVAKIA

In the European Commission (EC) proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post2020 is emphasized the aim to better support the resilience of agricultural systems in the European Union (EU). This resilience is based on the concern that the agricultural sector should be supported in responding to current and future economic, societal, and environmental challenges and risks. Managing risk in farming includes number of activities and strong effort of farms and policy makers. One part of risk management refers to income stabilisation, aimed at decreasing the unstable financial situation and high level of income volatility in European agriculture. In the EU, every year at least 20% of farmers experience an income loss of more than 30% compared with their average income in the three previous years. The public instruments to mitigate the income risk of farmers included under the Pillar II (insurance premiums, mutual funds, and the Income stabilisation tool) have been implemented only by very low number of EU countries. In the paper, we analyze the ability to decrease the instability of Slovak farmers with the use of Income stabilisation tool of CAP. The Income stabilisation tool (IST) can be used to indemnify the farmers, who experienced a “severe drop” in income, reflecting the income loss of more than 20% or 30% compared to the 3-years average annual income, or the 5-years average annual income, excluding highest and lowest entry (Olympic average). The IST has not been used in the Slovakia, or any other European country operationally so far.

Analisis Tingkat Maturitas Implementasi Manajemen Risiko di IPB University

The implementation of risk management will not always achieve its goals. This problem can be caused by lack of consistency during the risk management implementation or it can not adapt to environmental changes. Therefore, an organization needs to measure the maturity level of the organization’s risk management implementation. This research aims to analyze the maturity level of risk management implementation at IPB University. The research was conducted at IPB University, and it was using primary and secondary data. Research shows that the characteristics that need to be measured, or the attributes that need to be measured, in measuring the maturity level of risk management implementation at IPB University are risk culture, risk management framework, risk management process and risk management documents. The attributes will have their indicators, parameters, and test factors. The result of the measuring of maturity level of risk management implementation at IPB University indicates that risk management at IPB University has been implemented systematically and the implementation has referred to the standard consistently and comprehensively. Risk management has begun to be integrated to organization governance and management. The risk management competence, leadership, and commitment are starting to expand through the organization but the positive attitudes in managing risk is still tend to be limited.