The French Jardé framework distinguishes “Research Involving the Human Person” (Recherche Impliquant la Personne Humaine; RIPH) from research involving human participants but falling outside this specific legal regime. In practice, however, qualification can be difficult, particularly for prospective studies in psychology, behavioral sciences, education, and sport/exercise sciences. This technical note revisits the legal architecture governing qualification and clarifies several points that are easily conflated. First, the legislative definitions in Article L1121-1 of the French Public Health Code must be distinguished from the regulatory provisions of Article R1121-1 and from the European Union framework governing clinical trials on medicinal products. Second, the explicit exclusion of some experiments in the human and social sciences (HSS) from RIPH does not mean that all research conducted within an HSS discipline is automatically non-RIPH: the purpose of the study as well as the acts performed on participants remain decisive. Psychology is a particularly important example because French law contains specific provisions concerning psychological and behavioral research. Drawing on the qualification method proposed by the Inserm Research Ethics Committee, we propose a stepwise approach to RIPH/non-RIPH classification and distinguish the respective roles of Committees for the Protection of Persons (CPPs) and research ethics committees (CERs). Better qualification should reduce both under-protection and unnecessary regulatory burden while improving legal certainty for investigators.
Text neck describes a contemporary postural phenomenon associated with prolonged smartphone and other digital device use, characterized by sustained forward positioning of the head and neck. However, activities requiring prolonged forward-inclined posture existed long before the digital era, particularly among artists working on canvases and drawings. This study aimed to examine the forward-inclined head and neck posture depicted in Lili Elbe’s 1920s portrait and compare it with forward head posture reported in contemporary young adults. The portrait was visually and anatomically evaluated for head-neck alignment and anterior head positioning. The historical representation was interpreted alongside contemporary studies assessing forward head posture using craniovertebral angle, forward head distance, and sagittal head posture, as well as smartphone use and neck-related outcomes. The portrait demonstrates a forward-inclined head and neck configuration visually resembling forward head posture described in contemporary young populations. Current studies report reduced craniovertebral angles and increased anterior head displacement, although associations with neck-related disability remain inconsistent. This historical representation suggests this text-neck-like postural phenotype may not be unique to the digital era. Although clinical diagnosis cannot be inferred from artwork, historical visual evidence provides a novel perspective on relationships among human behavior, occupation, and posture across time.
When public health researchers treat gambling as a hazardous product, critics sometimes call this bias, arguing that conclusions were fixed before the work began. This article examines the epistemological assumptions behind that charge. Drawing on Bayesian philosophy of science, Longino’s social epistemology, and established standards of public health inquiry, it argues that the critique confuses evidentially grounded prior belief with ideological prejudice. In science, the relevant question is never whether researchers hold prior beliefs (they always do), but whether those priors are proportioned to existing evidence. The contribution is applied rather than theoretical. The epistemological materials are long established; what is new is their use to adjudicate a live dispute about the governance of gambling science, where charges of researcher bias now bear on how research funding and independence are governed. The article further acknowledges that some concerns about researcher positionality in gambling studies have been raised by credible independent scholars and deserve genuine engagement, before arguing that these concerns, properly understood, reinforce rather than undermine the case for transparent, evidence-proportioned priors. Given the accumulated epidemiological, neurobiological, and public health literature on gambling-related harm, treating gambling as a product that carries intrinsic population-level risk is not a predetermined conclusion. It is what the current evidence warrants, and it remains open to revision as that evidence develops.
Objective To analyze trends in measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccine coverage in Brazil, focusing on emerging luxury tourism destinations, and to examine vaccination as both a preventive strategy and an ethical obligation to ensure free and equitable protection of host populations. Methods This ecological study used open-access data from the Brazilian Ministry of Health to assess MMR vaccine coverage from 2019 to 2024. Five municipalities identified as “quiet luxury” destinations were analyzed. Descriptive statistics were applied to evaluate temporal trends and their alignment with tourism growth. Results National vaccine coverage declined during the Covid-19 pandemic and partially recovered to 80.09% in 2024, remaining below 2019 levels (81.55%). Marked disparities were observed across municipalities: Passo de Camaragibe showed substantial improvement (58.38% increase in vaccine coverage), whereas Tamandaré exhibited a sharp decline (decrease of 47.95% from 2019 to 2024). These findings indicate a misalignment between tourism expansion and investment in local health protection, increasing vulnerability to outbreaks in high-contact settings. Conclusion Vaccination is essential for sustainable tourism and represents an ethical obligation to protect host communities. Ensuring free and equitable access to vaccines strengthens population immunity, safeguards residents and visitors, and supports resilient and responsible tourism development.
