When victims don't cry: children's understandings of victimization, compliance, and subversion.

How do children understand situations in which the targets of moral transgressions do not complain about the way they are treated? One-hundred and twenty participants aged 5, 7, 10, 13, and 16 years were interviewed about hypothetical situations in which one child ("transgressor") made an apparently unfair demand of another child ("victim"), who then responded by either resisting, complying, or subverting. In general, 5-year-olds judged compliance positively and resistance negatively and 7- to 16-year-olds judged resistance positively and compliance negatively; all but 16-year-olds judged subversion negatively. Most participants judged the transgressor's actions negatively, regardless of how the victim had responded. The findings are discussed in terms of their implications for children's developing understandings of victimization.

Children's thinking about diversity of belief in the early school years: judgments of relativism, tolerance, and disagreeing persons.

Children's thinking about diversity of belief in 4 realms--morality, taste, facts, and ambiguous facts--was examined. Ninety-six participants (ages 5, 7, and 9) were interviewed about beliefs different from their own that were endorsed by characters with different status; their judgments of relativism, tolerance, and disagreeing persons were assessed. Five-year-olds made fewer relative and tolerant judgments than 7- and 9-year-olds. Nevertheless, participants of all ages organized their judgments according to the realm of diversity, thought that some beliefs are relative and some are nonrelative, and made tolerant judgments of some divergent beliefs (and their proponents) but not of others. The findings suggest that, in the early school years, children have multiple and well-differentiated perspectives on belief diversity.

Preclinical safety testing of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals: understanding the issues and addressing the challenges.

The unique and complex nature of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals has meant that it is often not possible to follow the conventional safety testing programs used for chemicals, and hence they are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Nonclinical safety testing programs must be rationally designed with a strong scientific understanding of the product, including its method of manufacture, purity, sequence, structure, species specificity, pharmacological and immunological effects, and intended clinical use. This knowledge, coupled with a firm understanding of the regulatory requirements for particular product types, will ensure that the most sensitive and regulatory-compliant test systems are used to optimize the chances of gaining regulatory approval for clinical testing or marketing authorization in the shortest possible time frame.