[Nature experience and mental health in children-theoretical approaches and selected empirical findings]. / Naturerfahrung und seelische Gesundheit bei Kindern ­ theoretische Ansätze und ausgewählte empirische Befunde.

The widely documented beneficial effects of children's experiences with nature make it plausible to assume that an environment close to nature also has a positive effect on health in childhood, that is, that it can also contribute to health maintenance and prevention. The findings on health-promoting effects of nature are remarkable and are accentuated and theoretically substantiated here with a focus on mental health.The basis is a so-called three-dimensional personality model, according to which mental development is not only a function of the subject's relationship to other people, but also to the world of things, including nature. In addition, three explanatory approaches for the health effects of nature experiences are outlined: (1) the anthropologically based "Stress Recovery Theory," (2) the "Attention Restoration Theory," and (3) the assumption that nature as a symbolic storehouse for self- and world interpretations can accompany the meaning constitution of the subjects ("Therapeutic Landscapes").The health effects of accessible open spaces close to nature are discussed, whereby the state of research for adults is much richer than for children. With regard to mental health or its influencing variables, the following dimensions are elaborated with empirical results: stress reduction, antidepressant and mood enhancing effects, prosocial behavior, attention and ADHD, cognitive development, self-esteem and self-regulation, nature experience, and exercise. From a salutogenetic perspective, nature does not have a deterministic effect on health, but rather, in a sense, an incidental effect when open spaces close to nature are accessible and used. This casualness of the effect of nature experiences has to be considered in possible therapeutic or educational interventions.

Students' attitudes towards somatic genome editing versus genome editing of the germline using an example of familial leukemia.

Although the discussion on possibilities and pitfalls of genome editing is ever present, limited qualitative data on the attitudes of students, who will come into contact with this technology within a social and professional context, is available. The attitude of 97 medical students and 103 students of other subjects from Hannover and Oldenburg, Germany, was analyzed in winter 2017/18. For this purpose, two dilemmas on somatic and germline genome editing concerning familial leukemia were developed. After reading the dilemmas, the students filled out a paper-and-pencil test with five open questions. The qualitative evaluation of the answers was carried by a deductive-inductive procedure of content analysis. There was a high approval for the use of somatic genome editing. When it came to germline genome editing, concerns were raised regarding enhancement, interventions in nature, and loss of uniqueness. The students recognized that somatic genome editing and germline genome editing prove different ethical challenges and need to be judged separately. Many students expressed not feeling fully informed. The results of this project show the importance of educating the public about the possibilities, limitations, and risks of somatic and germline genome editing. We recommend that this should already be addressed in schools in order to optimally prepare students and adults for participation in public discourse. Especially for patients affected by genetic diseases, it is of great importance that the treating physicians and geneticists are sufficiently informed about the method of genome editing to ensure good counseling.