The prospect of consumable meat produced in a laboratory setting without the need to raise and slaughter animals is both realistic and exciting. Not only could such in vitro meat become popular due to potential cost savings, but it also avoids many of the ethical and environmental problems with traditional meat productions. However, as with any new technology, in vitro meat is likely to face some detractors. We examine in detail three potential objections: 1) in vitro meat is disrespectful, either (...) to nature or to animals; 2) it will reduce the number of happy animals in the world; and 3) it will open the door to cannibalism. While each objection has some attraction, we ultimately find that all can be overcome. The upshot is that in vitro meat production is generally permissible and, especially for ethical vegetarians, worth promoting. (shrink)

The predominant view is that a study using health data is observational research and should require individual consent unless it can be shown that gaining consent is impractical. But recent arguments have been made that citizens have an ethical obligation to share their health information for research purposes. In our view, this obligation is sufficient ground to expand the circumstances where secondary use research with identifiable health information is permitted without explicit subject consent. As such, for some studies the Institutional (...) Review Board/Research Ethics Committee review process should not assess the practicality of gaining consent for data use. Instead the review process should focus on assessing the public good of the research, public engagement and transparency. (shrink)

Ethical decision-making frameworks assist in identifying the issues at stake in a particular setting and thinking through, in a methodical manner, the ethical issues that require consideration as well as the values that need to be considered and promoted. Decisions made about the use, sharing, and re-use of big data are complex and laden with values. This paper sets out an Ethics Framework for Big Data in Health and Research developed by a working group convened by the Science, Health and (...) Policy-relevant Ethics in Singapore Initiative. It presents the aim and rationale for this framework supported by the underlying ethical concerns that relate to all health and research contexts. It also describes a set of substantive and procedural values that can be weighed up in addressing these concerns, and a step-by-step process for identifying, considering, and resolving the ethical issues arising from big data uses in health and research. This Framework is subsequently applied in the papers published in this Special Issue. These papers each address one of six domains where big data is currently employed: openness in big data and data repositories, precision medicine and big data, real-world data to generate evidence about healthcare interventions, AI-assisted decision-making in healthcare, public-private partnerships in healthcare and research, and cross-sectoral big data. (shrink)

The future of health research will be characterised by three continuing trends: rising demand for health data; increasing impracticability of obtaining specific consent for secondary research; and decreasing capacity to effectively anonymise data. In this context, governments, clinicians and the research community must demonstrate that they can be responsible stewards of health data. IRBs and RECs sit at heart of this process because in many jurisdictions they have the capacity to grant consent waivers when research is judged to be of (...) particular value. However, several different terms are used to refer to this value, indicating a lack of conceptual clarity regarding the appropriate test for access to health data for research without consent. In this paper we do three things. First we describe the current confusion and instability in terminology relating to public interest in the context of consent waivers. Second we argue for harmonisation of terminology on the grounds of clarity, transparency and consistency. Third we argue that the term ‘public interest’ best reflects the normative work required to justify consent waivers because it is the broadest of the competing terms. ‘Public interest’ contains within its scope positive and negative implications of a study, as well as welfare, justice and rights considerations. In making this argument, we explain the normative basis for consent waivers, and provide a starting place for further discussion about the precise conditions in which a given study can be said to advance the public interest. Ipsos MORI study found that: … the public would be broadly happy with administrative data linking for research projects provided Those projects have social value, broadly defined. Data are de-identified. Data are kept secure. Businesses are not able to access the data for profit. (shrink)

This essay examines some of the ways in which the assumption of the essential finitude of the human mind, in contrast to the infinitude of God’s mind, bears on Leibniz’s and Kant’s accounts of our representational capacities. This examination reveals several underappreciated similarities between their views, but also some notable differences that help us pinpoint where and in what ways Kant departs from his celebrated predecessor. The fruits of this examination are a better understanding of Kant’s conception of the discursivity (...) of our understanding, his account of the difference between concepts and intuitions, and the particular flavor of his idealism. -/- . (shrink)

A popular story about Kant's relation to Leibniz presents Kant as a Leibniz-Wolffian by education who, inspired by his encounter with the teachings of Newton and Hume, took on the project of reconciling Leibniz-Wolffian metaphysics with Newtonian science and of responding to epistemological skepticism, a project that led him further and further away from his Leibniz-Wolffian roots and culminated in the total rejection of the Leibniz-Wolffian philosophy in the Critique of Pure Reason. In this essay, four shortcomings of the popular (...) story are identified and several suggestions are made about how to amend and expand the story in order to overcome these shortcomings. Furthermore, some of the most important Leibnizian doctrines that influenced Kant are collected and their role in Kant's philosophy is discussed. (shrink)

Wittgenstein famously criticizes the philosophical practice of analyzing the meaning of words outside their ordinary use in everyday language, whereby often self-made pseudo-problems arise. In order to shed further light on Wittgenstein’s critique, this article makes use of the Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology. First, starting from the remark in Vol. I, §52, his criticism of the philosophical method of selection and generalization is explained in detail. Next, I give a brief outline of Wittgenstein’s own way of philosophizing by (...) reference to a selection of comments concerning the use of psychological words in everyday language, which will also further elucidate his critique. Finally, I enter into the question which significance everyday language according to Wittgenstein has for philosophy. (shrink)

Response to critical comments by Edward Slowik on my article 'Leibniz on Motion and the Equivalence of Hypotheses' in The Leibniz Review 18 (2008).

Ethics committees like Institutional Review Boards and Research Ethics Committees are typically empowered to approve or reject proposed studies, typically conditional on certain conditions or revisions being met. While some have argued this power should be primarily a function of applying clear, codified requirements, most institutions and legal regimes allow discretion for IRBs to ethically evaluate studies, such as to ensure a favourable risk-benefit ratio, fair subject selection, adequate informed consent, and so forth. As a result, ethics committees typically make (...) moral demands on researchers: require them to act in a way the committee considers ethically right or appropriate. This paper argues that moral demands are legitimate only if publicly justifiable; and as a result, committee decisions are subject to a public justification requirement. Ethics committees can permissibly request for more information, changes to the research protocol or that the research is delayed or even stopped only if these demands are publicly justifiable. This latter claim is in turn justified on the basis that moral demands to φ are permissible only if we are in a position to know that the addressee ought to φ and that we are in a position to know a proposition only if it is publicly justifiable. This argument suggests that ethics committees must consciously and explicitly appeal to public reasons in their decision-making. In cases where public reasons cannot be offered, committees would not be permitted to reject a given study or make approval conditional on an amendment. (shrink)

A strength of liberal political institutions is their ability to accommodate pluralism, both allowing divergent comprehensive doctrines as well as constructing the common ground necessary for diverse people to live together. A pressing question is how far such pluralism extends. Which comprehensive doctrines are simply beyond the pale and need not be accommodated by a political consensus? Rawls attempted to keep the boundaries of reasonable disagreement quite broad by infamously denying that political liberalism need make reference to the concept of (...) truth, a claim that has been criticized by Joseph Raz, Joshua Cohen, and David Estlund. In this paper, we argue that these criticisms fail due to the fact that political liberalism can remain non-committal on the nature of truth, leaving the concept of truth in the domain of comprehensive doctrines while still avoiding the issues raised by Raz, Cohen, and Estlund. Further substantiating this point is the fact that Rawls would, and should, include parties in the overlapping consensus whose views on truth may be incoherent. Once it is seen that political liberalism allows such incoherence to reasonable parties, it is clear that the inclusion of truth and the requirement of coherence urged by Raz, Cohen, and Estlund requires more of reasonable people than is necessary for a political consensus. (shrink)

What role should legislation or policy play in avoiding the complications of in-vitro fertilization? In this article, we focus on single versus double embryo transfer, and assess three arguments in favour of mandatory single embryo transfer: risks to the mother, risks to resultant children, and costs to society. We highlight significant ethical concerns about each of these. Reproductive autonomy and non-paternalism are strong enough to outweigh the health concerns for the woman. Complications due to non-identity cast doubt on the extent (...) to which children are harmed. Twinning may offer an overall benefit rather than burden to society. Finally, including the future health costs for children in reproductive policy is inconsistent with other decisions. We conclude that mandatory single embryo transfer is not justified and that a number of countries should reconsider their current embryo transfer policy. (shrink)

Some have objected to human enhancement on the grounds that it violates the autonomy of the enhanced. These objections, however, overlook the interesting possibility that autonomy itself could be enhanced. How, exactly, to enhance autonomy is a difficult problem due to the numerous and diverse accounts of autonomy in the literature. Existing accounts of autonomy enhancement rely on narrow and controversial conceptions of autonomy. However, we identify one feature of autonomy common to many mainstream accounts: reasoning ability. Autonomy can then (...) be enhanced by improving people’s reasoning ability, in particular through cognitive enhancement; given how valuable autonomy is usually taken to be, this gives us extra reason to pursue such cognitive enhancements. Moreover, autonomy-based objections will be especially weak against such enhancements. As we will argue, those who are worried that enhancements will inhibit people’s autonomy should actually embrace those enhancements that will improve autonomy. (shrink)

Moral enhancement is an ostensibly laudable project. Who wouldn’t want people to become more moral? Still, the project’s approach is crucial. We can distinguish between two approaches for moral enhancement: direct and indirect. Direct moral enhancements aim at bringing about particular ideas, motives or behaviors. Indirect moral enhancements, by contrast, aim at making people more reliably produce the morally correct ideas, motives or behaviors without committing to the content of those ideas, motives and/or actions. I will argue, on Millian grounds, (...) that the value of disagreement puts serious pressure on proposals for relatively widespread direct moral enhancement. A more acceptable path would be to focus instead on indirect moral enhancements while staying neutral, for the most part, on a wide range of substantive moral claims. I will outline what such indirect moral enhancement might look like, and why we should expect it to lead to general moral improvement. (shrink)

The current prevailing view is that participation in biomedical research is above and beyond the call of duty. While some commentators have offered reasons against this, we propose a novel public goods argument for an obligation to participate in biomedical research. Biomedical knowledge is a public good, available to any individual even if that individual does not contribute to it. Participation in research is a critical way to support an important public good. Consequently, all have a duty to participate. The (...) current social norm is that individuals participate only if they have a good reason to do so. The public goods argument implies that individuals should participate unless they have a good reason not to. Such a shift would be of great aid to the progress of biomedical research, eventually making society significantly healthier and longer lived. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed numerous weaknesses in pandemic preparedness and response, including underfunding, inadequate surveillance, and inequitable distribution of countermeasures. To overcome these weaknesses for future pandemics, WHO released a zero draft of a pandemic treaty in February, 2023, and subsequently a revised bureau's text in May, 2023. COVID-19 made clear that pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response reflect choices and value judgements. These decisions are therefore not a purely scientific or technical exercise, but are fundamentally grounded in ethics. The latest (...) treaty draft reflects these ethical considerations by including a section entitled Guiding Principles and Approaches. Most of these principles are ethical—they establish core values that undergird the treaty. Unfortunately, the treaty draft's set of principles are numerous, overlapping, and show inadequate coherence and consistency. We propose two improvements to this section of the draft pandemic treaty. First, key guiding ethical principles should be clearer and more precise than they currently are. Second, the link between ethical principles and policy implementation should be clearly established and define boundaries on acceptable interpretation, ensuring that signatories abide by these principles. (shrink)

„Im Grunde gibt es nur die Liebe“, sagte Picasso einst. Kaum ein Mensch durchläuft sein Leben, ohne früher oder später von jenen Gefühlen gebeutelt zu werden, welche als Liebe bezeichnet werden. Aber was ist Liebe überhaupt? Gibt es klare Kriterien, die Liebe notwendigerweise aufweist? Welchen Einfluss haben die kulturellen Vorbedingungen auf unsere Vorstellungen von Liebe?

While philosophers are often concerned with the conditions for moral knowledge or justification, in practice something arguably less demanding is just as, if not more, important – reliably making correct moral judgments. Judges and juries should hand down fair sentences, government officials should decide on just laws, members of ethics committees should make sound recommendations, and so on. We want such agents, more often than not and as often as possible, to make the right decisions. The purpose of this paper (...) is to propose a method of enhancing the moral reliability of such agents. In particular, we advocate for a procedural approach; certain internal processes generally contribute to people’s moral reliability. Building on the early work of Rawls, we identify several particular factors related to moral reasoning that are specific enough to be the target of practical intervention: logical competence, conceptual understanding, empirical competence, openness, empathy and bias. Improving on these processes can in turn make people more morally reliable in a variety of contexts and has implications for recent debates over moral enhancement. (shrink)

It has recently been argued that reproductive genetic manipulation technologies like mitochondrial replacement and germline CRISPR modifications cannot be said to save anyone’s life because, counterfactually, no one would suffer more or die sooner absent the intervention. The present article argues that, on the contrary, reproductive genetic manipulations may be life-saving (and, from this, have therapeutic value) under an appropriate population health perspective. As such, popular reports of reproductive genetic manipulations potentially saving lives or preventing disease are not necessarily mistaken, (...) though such terminology still requires further empirical validation. (shrink)

„Gemeinschaft“ steht in der Philosophie nicht nur im Zusammenhang mit ethischen Überlegungen, sondern auch mit Fragen nach der Natur von sozialen Handlungen und dem charakteristischen Wesen von Kollektiven. Gibt es Bedingungen, die erfüllt sein müssen, damit man von einer Gemeinschaft – in Abgrenzung zu „Gesellschaft“ – sprechen kann?

As opposed to a ‘one size fits all’ approach, precision medicine uses relevant biological, medical, behavioural and environmental information about a person to further personalize their healthcare. This could mean better prediction of someone’s disease risk and more effective diagnosis and treatment if they have a condition. Big data allows for far more precision and tailoring than was ever before possible by linking together diverse datasets to reveal hitherto-unknown correlations and causal pathways. But it also raises ethical issues relating to (...) the balancing of interests, viability of anonymization, familial and group implications, as well as genetic discrimination. This article analyses these issues in light of the values of public benefit, justice, harm minimization, transparency, engagement and reflexivity and applies the deliberative balancing approach found in theEthical Framework for Big Data in Health and Research to a case study on clinical genomic data sharing. Please refer to that article for an explanation of how this framework is to be used, including a full explanation of the key values involved and the balancing approach used in the case study at the end. Our discussion is meant to be of use to those involved in the practice as well as governance and oversight of precision medicine to address ethical concerns that arise in a coherent and systematic manner. (shrink)

Um was geht es beim Bedingungslosen Grundeinkommen? Und weshalb ist es auch ein Thema der Philosophie? Sollte die Gesellschaft grundsätzlich hinterfragen, was unter dem Begriff „Arbeit“ zu verstehen ist? Würde das Grundeinkommen Gerechtigkeit ermöglichen oder verunmöglichen?

The right to withdraw from participation in research is recognized in virtually all national and international guidelines for research on human subjects. It is therefore surprising that there has been little justification for that right in the literature. We argue that the right to withdraw should protect research participants from information imbalance, inability to hedge, inherent uncertainty, and untoward bodily invasion, and it serves to bolster public trust in the research enterprise. Although this argument is not radical, it provides a (...) useful way to determine how the right should be applied in various cases. (shrink)

Dieses Themendossier zeigt auf, mit welchen Themen sich die Philosophie befasst und wem die Philosophie was nützt. Wo heutzutage Philosophinnen und Philosophen wirken, wird ebenso betrachtet, wie die Frage, weshalb es sich überhaupt lohnt zu philosophieren.

-/- Shitstorms, Hate Speech oder virale Videos, die zum Klicken, Liken, Teilen bewegen: Die vernetzte Gesellschaft ist von Affekten getrieben und bringt selbst ganz neue Affekte hervor. -/- Die Beiträge des Bandes nehmen die medientechnologischen Entwicklungen unserer Zeit in den Blick und untersuchen sie aus der Perspektive einer kritischen Affekt- und Sozialphilosophie. Sie zeigen: Soziale Medien und digitale Plattformen sind nicht nur Räume des Austauschs, sie erschaffen Affektökonomien – und darin liegt auch ihre Macht. Indem sie neue Formen des sozialen (...) Umgangs stiften und bestimmen, wie wir kommunizieren, verschieben sie auch die politische Topographie. -/- Mit einem Beitrag von Antonio Negri. (shrink)

Muss ein Mensch Selbstachtung haben, um Empfänger der Menschenwürde zu sein? Spielt Menschenwürde auch in der Wirtschaft und im Rechtssystem eine Rolle? Und wie lässt sich „Menschenwürde“ überhaupt definieren? Im Dossier findet man die philosophischen Hintergründe zum Thema „Menschenwürde“.

Dieses Dossier diskutiert die ethischen Aspekte der direkten aktiven Sterbe- hilfe und die Legitimität des Suizids. Hervorgehoben wird dabei die Relevanz der ethischen Perspektive und der Nutzen der philosophischen Diskussion hin- sichtlich dieser brisanten gesellschaftlichen Frage.

On définit souvent la philosophie comme l’« amour de la sagesse ». En grec, le terme « philosophe » qui signifie « ami de la sa- gesse » (philós= ami, sophía= sagesse) se rapporte à une personne qui aspire à une connaissance globale des choses. (1) Mais que sait-on vraiment de la philosophie? Comment procède-t-elle, à quels thèmes s‘intéresse-t-elle?

Die Aufgabe der Philosophie besteht nicht darin, den moralischen Zeigefinger zu erheben und vorzugeben, was man tun soll und was nicht. Vielmehr zeigt die Philosophie unterschiedliche Argumente auf, weshalb die eine oder andere Haltung vertretbar oder aus gewissen Gründen gegebenenfalls vertretbarer ist als eine andere. Insofern eine Gesellschaft an Klugheit interessiert ist und sich einer zukünftigen Entwicklung verantwortungsvoll stellt, kann die Philosophie eine wertvolle Aufgabe übernehmen: Die Methode, analytisch das Für und Wider abzuwiegen, bedeutet nicht zuletzt viel Arbeit und Aufmerksamkeit (...) für das Detail. Wie beispielsweise das Kapitel zur Grünen Gentechnik (Seite 6) zeigt, sind die Diskussionen um die zu fällenden moralischen Urteile nicht an ein externes Gremium zu delegieren. Im Gegenteil: Die Diskussion sollte innerhalb der Gesellschaft stattfinden, einerseits um den unterschiedlichen Haltungen Platz zu geben, andererseits aber, weil nur auf diese Weise ein echter Konsens zu Stande kommen kann. Die Rolle der Philosophie zeigt sich ähnlich auch, wenn es um die für die pluralistische Gesellschaft zentrale Toleranz geht. Die wertenden Einstellungen der Bürgerinnen und Bürger verdienen es, ernst genommen zu werden und offen diskutiert zu werden. Nur durch eine tiefgreifende Auseinandersetzung lässt sich verhindern, dass populistische Wortführer mit eigennützigen, aber aufmerksamkeitsstarken Argumenten von den Themen ablenken, die ernsthaft angegangen werden möchten: Die Vision einer friedlichen und freiheitlichen Gesellschaft, das demokratische Ideal, wird nicht mit dem Verweis auf die „Krise“ aufgegeben. Verantwortung interessiert die Bürgerinnen und Bürger schliesslich eben doch mehr, als Donald Trumps neuste Lüge. Das philosophische Themendossier zeigt, dass die akademische Philosophie viel leis-tet, um eine oberflächliche Auseinandersetzung mit gesellschaftlich und zukunftsrelevanten Themen zu verhindern. Auch wenn das auf den ersten Blick nach viel Anstrengung klingt, so zeigt der zweite Blick, dass darin viel Wohlwollen zugunsten der Gesellschaft steckt. Es lohnt sich, den Mut aufzubringen, sich intensiv mit den eigenen Werturteilen auseinanderzusetzen und das Auge vom eigenen Wohl auch auf das Wohle aller schweifen zu lassen. Philosophie kann „ansteckend“ sein und viel Freude hervorrufen: Gerade dann, wenn man neue Ideen mit dazu gewinnt oder andere Argumente für bereits gefasste Entscheidungen kennenlernt. Die Philosophie entwickelt sich fortlaufend weiter und bleibt somit mehr denn je: stets aktuell. (shrink)

Welche alltäglichen Probleme regen zu vertieftem Nachdenken an? Was bietet uns die Philosophie an möglichen Antworten an? Können wir von den Philosophinnen und Philosophen tatsächlich etwas lernen? Und: Ist der Begriff „Alltag“ gar selbst ein Untersuchungsgegenstand der Philosophie?

Dieses Dossier stellt die Fragen der Debatte des Kommunitarismus: Wie ent- wickeln Menschen ihre Identität? Welche Konsequenzen hat diese Identitäts- bildung auf die Werte einer Gesellschaft? Inwiefern ist der Mensch ein auto- nomes Wesen und inwiefern ist er in Strukturen eingebunden? Und: Ist auch die politische Ebene durch diese Fragen betroffen?

Hat das menschliche Wesen einen klaren Kern, welchen ihn erst zum Menschen macht? Wie wäre dieser zu definieren? Der Mensch verfügt über viele Fähigkeiten, die ihn zu einem vernünftig agierenden Tier machen. Aber ist das der wesentliche Unterschied zu den anderen Tieren? Das vorliegende Dossier geht der Frage nach, was der Mensch ist und was ihn auszeichnet.

Dieses Heft befasst sich mit der Bedeutung und der fortlaufenden Entwicklung der Wirtschaftsethik. Es wird gezeigt, wie die Wirtschaftsethik auf die aktuellen Krisen reagiert, warum einem Unternehmen eine moralische Verantwortung zukommt und was man sich unter ethischen Managementprinzipien vorstellen könnte.

Gibt es einen Zusammenhang zwischen Politik und Philosophie? Bei Fragen, wie sich der Staat legitimieren lässt, was Gerechtigkeit ist oder welche Rolle Interkulturalität, Toleranz und Anerkennung in der heutigen Gesellschaft spie- len, bietet die Philosophie Antworten und Denkanstösse.

Was ist Macht? Hat der Mensch „von Natur aus“ das Bedürfnis, nach Macht zu streben? Ist Macht „schlecht“, weil sie Machtmissbrauch ermöglicht? Wieviele Aspekte das Thema Macht wirklich hat und ob Macht beispielsweise auch etwas mit Gewalt zu tun hat, erfährt man im vorliegenden Dossier.

Ist ein gutes Leben gleichzusetzen mit einem glücklichen Leben? Lässt sich Glück antrainieren? Wie gestaltet sich ein gutes Leben im Alter? Solcherlei Fragen, aber auch die Untersuchung, ob nur eine moralisch gute Lebensführung ein gutes Leben ermöglicht, werden im vorliegenden Dossier bearbeitet.

Dieses Dossier befasst sich mit der Gleichstellung der Geschlechter: Wie muss man sich Gleichberechtigung in der Kindererziehung vorstellen? Können auch Männer Feministen sein? Was ist feministische Philosophie? Welche philoso- phischen Theorien gibt es zu Männern und Frauen?

Wie wird Wissenschaft in der Gesellschaft wahrgenommen? Diese Frage lässt sich nicht leicht beantworten: Ist die gesellschaftliche Wahrnehmung von Wis- senschaft von Misstrauen geprägt? Oder von Unwissen über die Funktionswei- se von wissenschaftlicher Forschung?

Dieses Heft präsentiert philosophische Perspektiven zu Umweltproblemen. Hierbei sollen einerseits die fünf Hauptpositionen der Umweltethik (Anthropozentrismus, Pathozentrismus, Biozentrismus, Holismus & Tiefen-Ökologie) vorgestellt werden. An- dererseits wird anhand der Erhöhung der Grimselstaumauer die Relevanz der Philosophie hinsichtlich des Dilemmas zwischen Nutzen für den Menschen und Schaden an der Natur deutlich gemacht.

Dieses Heft umreisst philosophische Perspektiven zur Zukunft der Alters- und Hin- terbliebenenversicherung (AHV). Welche Pflichten haben die heutigen Generationen gegenüber den zukünftigen? Inwiefern ist die Zukunft der AHV ein philosophisches Thema?

Dieses Dossier stellt die Fragen der Migrationsethikdebatte: Gibt es ein Recht auf Einwanderung in einem liberalen demokratischen Staat wie der Schweiz? Welche Argumente sprechen grundsätzlich für oder gegen offene Grenzen? Was leistet die Philosophie hinsichtlich der Einwanderungsproblematik?

Welche philosophischen Perspektiven gibt es in Bezug auf Rauschmittel? Das Dossier zeigt die Spannbreite: Ob Substanzen, die unsere Leistung erhöhen, sogar moralisch gefordert sein könnten, warum der Staat den Menschen nicht jeden Rausch verbieten sollte, und ob Süchtige Kriminelle sind.

Welche Zukunft erwartet die Menschheit? Oder müsste man fragen: Welche möglichen Zukünfte liegen im Gestaltungsbereich des Menschen? Was passiert, wenn wir eine superintelligente Maschine erfinden, die uns sogar ermöglicht, der Vergänglichkeit zu entrinnen? Welchen Einfluss haben die Technologien auf die Arbeit oder auf unsere Wahrnehmung der Zeit?

Dieses Heft beinhaltet philosophische Perspektiven der Debatten der personalen Identität und der Liebe. Neben der Darstellung der Kerninhalte der beiden Debatten wird die Frage „Wen liebe ich?“ philosophisch problematisiert. Dabei soll aufgezeigt werden, was unter einer philosophischen Herangehensweise zu verstehen ist und wie sich dies konkret im Fall der angeführten Frage niederschlägt.

Dieses Dossier befasst sich mit den philosophischen Perspektiven zum Thema Bewusstsein: Was kennzeichnet „das Geistige“ und hat es ein einheitliches Merkmal? Wie kommt die Welt in den Kopf? Was bedeutet „subjektiv“ und haben auch Tiere und Pflanzen ein Bewusstsein?

Dieses Dossier wirft die Frage auf, welche Wirkung das digitale Zeitalter auf die Menschen hat und zeigt, welcher Zusammenhang zwischen der Philosophie und der Informationstechnologie besteht: Privatsphäre im Internet, künstliche Intelligenz, Computerethik und auch in Bezug auf Datenschutzfragen.

Mitochondrial replacement therapy requires oocytes of women whose mitochondrial DNA will be transmitted to resultant children. These techniques are scientifically, ethically and socially controversial; it is likely that some women who donate their oocytes for general in vitro fertilisation usage would nevertheless oppose their genetic material being used in MRT. The possibility of oocytes being used in MRT is therefore relevant to oocyte donation and should be included in the consent process when applicable. In present circumstances, specific consent should be (...) obtained. However, once MRT becomes more routine, such consent could be incorporated into the general consent process for oocyte donation. The reported lack of proper consent for MRT from the oocyte donor in the first baby born via the technique is an ethical failing and should be corrected in any future practice of MRT. (shrink)

Background Several jurisdictions, including Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and most recently Ireland, have a public interest or public good criterion for granting waivers of consent in biomedical research using secondary health data or tissue. However, the concept of the public interest is not well defined in this context, which creates difficulties for institutions, institutional review boards and regulators trying to implement the criterion. Main text This paper clarifies how the public interest criterion can be defensibly deployed. We first explain the (...) ethical basis for requiring waivers to only be granted to studies meeting the public interest criterion, then explore how further criteria may be set to determine the extent to which a given study can legitimately claim to be in the public interest. We propose an approach that does not attempt to measure magnitude of benefit directly, but rather takes into account metrics that are more straightforward to apply. To ensure consistent and justifiable interpretation, research institutions and IRBs should also incorporate procedural features such as transparency and public engagement in determining which studies satisfy the public interest requirement. Conclusion The requirement of public interest for consent waivers in secondary biomedical research should be guided by well-defined criteria for systematic evaluation. Such a criteria and its application need to be periodically subject to intra-committee and intra-institution review, reflection, deliberation and amendment. (shrink)

It is generally unquestioned that human subjects research review boards should assess the ethical acceptability of protocols. It says so right on the tin, after all: they are explicitly called research ethics committees in the UK. But it is precisely those sorts of unchallenged assumptions that should, from time to time, be assessed and critiqued, in case they are in fact unfounded. John Stuart Mill's objection to suppressers of dissent is instructive here: “If the opinion is right, they are deprived (...) of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error”.1 Andrew Moore and Andrew Donnelly's compelling article, “The job of ‘ethics committees’”, is just this sort of challenge to conventional wisdom, a rejection of the notion that review boards should be considering ethical matters at all.2 If true, we should be substantially reforming our research ethics policies. And if false, rebuttals would help strengthen and ground the otherwise unquestioned assumption of the role of ethics committees. As it happens, I will argue that their critiques fall into the second category. While mistaken, they present a valuable opportunity to clarify the role of ethics committees and their relationship to relevant codes. In particular, I will defend a hybrid account where codes have strict primacy, but leave significant room for review boards …. (shrink)

Volume 19, Issue 7, July 2019, Page 28-30.

With the recent report of a live birth after use of Mitochondrial replacement therapy, sometimes called ‘Three-parent IVF’, the clinical application of the technique is fast becoming a reality. While the United Kingdom allows the procedure under regulatory scrutiny, it remains effectively outlawed in many other countries. We argue that such prohibitions may violate individuals’ procreative rights, grounded in individuals’ interest in genetic affinity. The interest in genetic affinity was recently endorsed by Singapore’s highest court, reflecting an emphasis on the (...) importance of biological ties found across the globe. We apply that reasoning to make the case for a right to ‘Three-parent IVF’. (shrink)