Driven by technological innovations, newborn screening (NBS) panels have been expanded and the development of genomic NBS pilot programs is rapidly progressing. Decisions on disease selection for NBS are still based on the Wilson and Jungner (WJ) criteria published in 1968. Despite this uniform reference, interpretation of the WJ criteria and actual disease selection for NBS programs are highly variable. A systematic literature search [PubMED search “Wilson” AND “Jungner”; last search 16.07.22] was performed to evaluate the applicability of the WJ (...) criteria for current and future NBS programs and the need for adaptation. By at least two reviewers, 105 publications (systematic literature search, N = 77; manual search, N = 28) were screened for relevant content and, finally, 38 publications were evaluated. Limited by the study design of qualitative text analysis, no statistical evaluation was performed, but a structured collection of reported aspects of criticism and proposed improvements was instead collated. This revealed a set of general limitations of the WJ criteria, such as imprecise terminology, lack of measurability and objectivity, missing pediatric focus, and absent guidance on program management. Furthermore, it unraveled specific aspects of criticism on clinical, diagnostic, therapeutic, and economical aspects. A major obstacle was found to be the incompletely understood natural history and phenotypic diversity of rare diseases prior to NBS implementation, resulting in uncertainty about case definition, risk stratification, and indications for treatment. This gap could be closed through the systematic collection and evaluation of real-world evidence on the quality, safety, and (cost-)effectiveness of NBS, as well as the long-term benefits experienced by screened individuals. An integrated NBS public health program that is designed to continuously learn would fulfil these requirements, and a multi-dimensional framework for future NBS programs integrating medical, ethical, legal, and societal perspectives is overdue. (shrink)

Throughout the biological and biomedical sciences there is a growing need for, prescriptive ‘minimum information’ (MI) checklists specifying the key information to include when reporting experimental results are beginning to find favor with experimentalists, analysts, publishers and funders alike. Such checklists aim to ensure that methods, data, analyses and results are described to a level sufficient to support the unambiguous interpretation, sophisticated search, reanalysis and experimental corroboration and reuse of data sets, facilitating the extraction of maximum value from data sets (...) them. However, such ‘minimum information’ MI checklists are usually developed independently by groups working within representatives of particular biologically- or technologically-delineated domains. Consequently, an overview of the full range of checklists can be difficult to establish without intensive searching, and even tracking thetheir individual evolution of single checklists may be a non-trivial exercise. Checklists are also inevitably partially redundant when measured one against another, and where they overlap is far from straightforward. Furthermore, conflicts in scope and arbitrary decisions on wording and sub-structuring make integration difficult. This presents inhibit their use in combination. Overall, these issues present significant difficulties for the users of checklists, especially those in areas such as systems biology, who routinely combine information from multiple biological domains and technology platforms. To address all of the above, we present MIBBI (Minimum Information for Biological and Biomedical Investigations); a web-based communal resource for such checklists, designed to act as a ‘one-stop shop’ for those exploring the range of extant checklist projects, and to foster collaborative, integrative development and ultimately promote gradual integration of checklists. (shrink)

Heiko Puls’ work Sittliches Bewusstsein und Kategorischer Imperativ in Kants Grundlegung: Ein Kommentar zum dritten Abschnitt, presents an attempt to show that, in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant’s argumentation for the objective value of the categorical imperative is almost based upon the same principle as the one presented in the second Critique. More precisely, Puls claims that, like in the Critique of Practical Reason, the Groundwork operates with some kind of fact of reason-theory, which means that (...) our consciousness of the moral law is the ratio cognoscendi of our freedom of will. Accordingly, there is no conclusion from a kind of non-moral consciousness of freedom to the freedom of will and from here to the objective value of the categorical imperative, as many interpreters assume. Due to the ambitiousness of his main thesis and his detailed and subtle way of arguing, Puls’ work represents an important and innovative contribution to recent research on Kant’s Groundwork. Nevertheless, his interpretations sometimes seem to favour analysis of loose philological relationships over closer looks on the contexts of passages. Or he focuses excessively on isolated textual evidences for his readings without appropriately recognising the various other evidences against it. In what follows, I give examples for this criticism. (shrink)

I endorse a 12-word metaphysics. [1] Stoff ist Kraft ≈ being is energy. [2] Wesen ist Werden ≈ being is becoming. [3] Sein ist Sosein ≈ being is qualit[ativit]y. [4] Ansichsein ist Fürsichsein ≈ being is mind. [1]–[3] are plausible metaphysical principles and unprejudiced consideration of what we know about concrete reality obliges us to favor [4], i.e. panpsychism or panexperientialism, above all other positive substantive proposals. For [i] panpsychism is the most ontologically parsimonious view, given that the existence (...) of conscious experience is certain and that panpsychism doesn’t posit the existence of any kind of stuff other than conscious experience. [ii] A question also arises about why metaphysicians have posited the existence of something for which there is zero evidence: non-experiential concrete reality. The question is the more pressing because of the silence of physics: physics with its numbers and equations is perfectly silent on the question of the intrinsic non-structural nature of reality. (shrink)

Die Natur ist als Thema in der Phänomenologie von Husserl bis zu Schmitz wenig bearbeitet worden. Der Grund ist teilweise in der respektvollen oder auch kritischen Distanz vieler Phänomenologen zur Naturwissenschaft zu suchen, teils darin, dass es auf dem Feld der Selbstgegebenheit - Leib, Gefühl, zwischenmenschliche Beziehungen - zunächst die eigentlichen Entdeckungen zu machen galt. Selbst die Leibphilosophie wurde nicht als ein Teil einer Phänomenologie der Natur entwickelt. Doch ist der Leib nicht die Natur, die wir selbst sind? Im vorliegenden (...) Band unternehmen Forscher verschiedener Herkunft die gemeinsame Anstrengung, mit dem Thema Natur der Phänomenologie ein neues Forschungsfeld zu eröffnen. Dabei wird nicht nur an die phänomenologische Bewegung angeknüpft, sondern auch an aristotelische goethische Naturwissenschaft, soweit sie als phänomenologisch betrachtet werden kann. Damit wird die Absicht verfolgt, die Phänomenologie der Natur als eine alternative Erkenntnisweise im Unterschied zur herrschenden naturwissenschaftlich-technischen zu entwickeln. Nach der Entfaltung des Programms wird zunächst die goethische Naturwissenschaft als ein Paradigma von Naturphänomenologie dargestellt. Dann werden die Beiträge aus der phänomenologischen Bewegung (Husserl, Klages, Schmitz) durchmustert. Und schließlich werden Fallbeispiele gegenwärtiger phänomenologischer Erforschung der Natur vorgeführt. Dabei geht es einerseits um Beiträge von seiten goetheanischer Wissenschaft (Botanik und Wärmelehre), andererseits um Beispiele, die im Rahmen der Naturphilosophie entstanden sind (Phänomenologie von Wind und Wetter, Phänomenologie des eigenen Leibes als Natur, Phänomenologie der Stoffe). (shrink)

Ludwig Büchner wrote one of the most popular and polemical books of the strong materialist movement in the later nineteenth-century Germany, his Kraft und Stoff (Force and Matter) (1855). He tried to develop a comprehensive worldview, which was based solely on the findings of empirical science and did not take refuge in religion or any other transcendent categories in explaining nature and its development, including human beings. When Büchner tried to expose the backwardness of traditional philosophical and religious views (...) in scientific matters, his arguments had some force, but the positive part of his programme was not free of superficiality and naivety. Büchner’s writings helped to strengthen progressive and rational traditions inside and outside philosophy, but they can also serve as the prime example of the uncritical nineteenth- century belief in science’s capacity to redeem humankind from all evil. (shrink)

Der menschliche Verstand, sagt Kant, „kann nur d e n k e n und muss in den Sinnen die Anschauung suchen“ [KrV, §16]. Da der Verstand nur denken kann, ist denken und Anschauung suchen nicht zweierlei. Denn auch die Anschauung suchen muss man können. Daher sieht Kant das Besondere „unseres discursiven, der Bilder bedürftigen Verstandes (intellectus ectypus )“ [KdU §77] im „Vermögen, den Gegenstand sinnlicher Anschauung zu denken“ [KrV B75/A51]. Daher ist Verstand primär ein Erkenntnisvermögen. Denn ohne „den Stoff (...) zum Denken“ aus empirischer Anschauung „würde der Actus, Ich denke, doch nicht stattfinden“ [B423], und indem er sucht, findet er (cum quaerit, invenit): „Ich, der ich denke und anschaue, ist die Person“ [Preisschrift]. In diesem Aufsatz werden in einem ersten Ausblick einige grundlegende Textstellen auf dieser Basis analysiert. -/- Short summary: What is it like to be human understanding, according to Kant? Understanding is in search of intuition (intellectus ectypus quaerens sensibilitatem), and happens to be pretty successful, at least everywhere and anytime. The IQ (intellectus quaerens) project is a Kant interpretation which takes Kants talk of understanding seeking intuition as a serious thing in itself. Let‘s see how it works, with a few examples. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to explore a pragmatic approach to hope and the ethics of belief that allows rational hope against hope. Hope against hope is hope that goes beyond what the evidence supports by hoping for something that is both highly unlikely and highly valuable. However, this could take different forms. One could either hope against the evidence or merely go beyond it; the evidence could be inconclusive or conclusive, conflicting or clear, misleading or plain, absent or (...) neutral. Hope against hope then covers everything from hoping for something that appears unlikely to hoping for something that appears impossible, judging by the available evidence. However, there is a very long tradition of criticizing hope for being false or irrational. But hope can only be false or irrational if it is subject to rational assessment. This presupposes that it is appropriate to ask for a reason or a justification for hoping, since one can be answerable or responsible for hoping. Moreover, this typically assumes that hopes can be changed in response to reasons. False hopes, notably, should be given up (if possible). However, if hope is subject to rational assessment, it is also possible for hope to be rational or justified. Indeed, I will explore how practical reasons or pragmatic considerations may justify hope against hope, sketching criteria for rational hope that allow hope against hope. Section I introduces evidentialism and pragmatism regarding belief. Sections II and III discuss whether or not rational hope against hope is compatible with evidentialism, favoring a pragmatist approach to hope and belief. Section IV discusses evidentialism and pragmatism, whereas sections V-VII sketch constraints on pragmatism and rational hope. (shrink)