Reply to Kanani and Elliott

Reply to Comment by Briere and Elliott

M. R. Nash, T. L. Hulsey, M. C. Sexton, T. L. Harralson, and W Lambert respond to J. Briere and D. M. Elliott's (1993, this issue) comments regarding their study (1993, this issue). The investigation was in no way designed or presented as a causal analysis; covariance analysis is an acceptable means of identifying and controlling for important mediating variables. The authors cite some methodol...

Intermittent versus continuous visual control: a reply to Elliott.

Recently, Elliott (1986) has reported data that he claims are inconsistent with my hypothesis that a short-term motor memory system exists for guiding locomotion and other actions in space (Thomson, 1983). In fact, methodological flaws in Elliott's design make such conclusions unjustified and inappropriate. Moreover, insofar as comparisons can be made at all, the results are completely consiste...

Research Ethics Boards: Reply from Trudo Lemmens and Carl Elliott

Joal Hill I read with interest the debate about for-profi t versus non-profi t institutional review boards (IRBs) [1], but was disappointed that no one addressed the ability (or inability) of for-profi t IRBs to review studies with the local context of research subjects in mind and then monitor what actually occurs during the consent process throughout the research trial. To my mind the “bignes...

Homage to Richard M. Elliott

In the last 25 years, the scientific and public attention paid to bunyaviruses has increased considerably.[...].

Christopher Elliott