Pub Date : 2018-10-05DOI: 10.7765/9781526127686.00021
S. Giordano, John Harris, L. Piccirillo
{"title":"Introduction to Part II","authors":"S. Giordano, John Harris, L. Piccirillo","doi":"10.7765/9781526127686.00021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526127686.00021","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":368881,"journal":{"name":"The freedom of scientific research","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124969451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-10-05DOI: 10.7765/9781526127686.00014
D. Cutas, A. Smajdor
The first IVF baby was born in 1978 in the UK, following an intervention that had not been preceded by any clinical trials. After Louise Brown’s birth, legislators and policymakers rushed to create an ethico-legal framework within which this new development could be practised without outraging public sensibilities. Since then, the speed and direction of scientific research as well as the practice and regulation of reproductive technology have been inexorably shaped by assumptions concerning family, fertility and reproduction. Research towards ever more sophisticated medical technologies for the purpose of the relief of infertility has raised relatively few concerns, provided the procedures were proven to be satisfactorily safe, and insofar as they were used to facilitate and reinforce existing norms about family structure and relationships. Ideas of what a family is (or should be) have a powerful influence on determining which potential technological innovations in human reproduction are developed and funded, and who can access them. Social, legal and biological parenthood did not invariably coincide in the past. Different jurisdictions have various approaches to the ascription of parental rights and responsibilities. However, the default legal position is that a woman who gives birth to a child is that child’s mother and her husband is the father – regardless of whether she is the genetic mother or he the genetic father. Embedded in this view is the expectation that the two members of the married couple are the legal and social parents and also the biological parents of the child. These legal measures have not been extended in the same way to the case of same-sex married couples. Furthermore, the child’s ‘right to know’ her genetic origins, which features as a core argument for transitioning from anonymous to non-anonymous gamete donation in many countries, has not persuaded legislators that children who are born to married couples via sexual reproduction should also be aware of who their genetic father is (Ravelingien and Pennings 2013). These assumptions indicate that biological relationships are subservient to the nuclear family in the eyes of the law – and
第一个体外受精婴儿于1978年在英国出生，此前没有任何临床试验的干预。露易丝·布朗出生后，立法者和政策制定者急于建立一个伦理法律框架，在这个框架内，这种新的发展可以在不激怒公众感情的情况下实施。从那时起，科学研究的速度和方向以及生殖技术的实践和管理都不可避免地受到有关家庭、生育和生殖的假设的影响。为缓解不孕症而对越来越复杂的医疗技术进行的研究引起的关注相对较少，只要这些程序被证明是令人满意的安全，并且只要它们被用来促进和加强有关家庭结构和关系的现有规范。关于家庭是什么(或应该是什么)的观念对决定哪些潜在的人类生殖技术创新得到开发和资助，以及谁可以获得这些创新具有强大的影响。在过去，社会、法律和生理上的亲子关系并不总是一致的。不同的司法管辖区对父母权利和责任的归属有不同的方法。然而，默认的法律立场是，生孩子的妇女是孩子的母亲，而她的丈夫是孩子的父亲——无论她是孩子的亲生母亲还是他是孩子的亲生父亲。这种观点包含着这样一种期望，即已婚夫妇的两个成员是法律上和社会上的父母，也是孩子的亲生父母。这些法律措施并没有以同样的方式延伸到同性已婚夫妇的案件中。此外，孩子的“知道基因起源的权利”是许多国家从匿名配子捐赠向非匿名配子捐赠过渡的核心论点，但这并没有说服立法者，已婚夫妇通过有性生殖所生的孩子也应该知道他们的亲生父亲是谁(Ravelingien and Pennings 2013)。这些假设表明，从法律的角度来看，生物关系服从于核心家庭
{"title":"Reproductive technologies and the family in the twenty-first century","authors":"D. Cutas, A. Smajdor","doi":"10.7765/9781526127686.00014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526127686.00014","url":null,"abstract":"The first IVF baby was born in 1978 in the UK, following an intervention that had not been preceded by any clinical trials. After Louise Brown’s birth, legislators and policymakers rushed to create an ethico-legal framework within which this new development could be practised without outraging public sensibilities. Since then, the speed and direction of scientific research as well as the practice and regulation of reproductive technology have been inexorably shaped by assumptions concerning family, fertility and reproduction. Research towards ever more sophisticated medical technologies for the purpose of the relief of infertility has raised relatively few concerns, provided the procedures were proven to be satisfactorily safe, and insofar as they were used to facilitate and reinforce existing norms about family structure and relationships. Ideas of what a family is (or should be) have a powerful influence on determining which potential technological innovations in human reproduction are developed and funded, and who can access them. Social, legal and biological parenthood did not invariably coincide in the past. Different jurisdictions have various approaches to the ascription of parental rights and responsibilities. However, the default legal position is that a woman who gives birth to a child is that child’s mother and her husband is the father – regardless of whether she is the genetic mother or he the genetic father. Embedded in this view is the expectation that the two members of the married couple are the legal and social parents and also the biological parents of the child. These legal measures have not been extended in the same way to the case of same-sex married couples. Furthermore, the child’s ‘right to know’ her genetic origins, which features as a core argument for transitioning from anonymous to non-anonymous gamete donation in many countries, has not persuaded legislators that children who are born to married couples via sexual reproduction should also be aware of who their genetic father is (Ravelingien and Pennings 2013). These assumptions indicate that biological relationships are subservient to the nuclear family in the eyes of the law – and","PeriodicalId":368881,"journal":{"name":"The freedom of scientific research","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125233701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-10-05DOI: 10.7765/9781526146472.00022
A. Ballabeni, D. Danovi
Threats and obstructions to scientific freedom, fairness and efficiency are commonly perceived as surrounding the scientific world. However, bottlenecks can also occur from within the system itself as some of the current regulations and forces shaping research (referred to here as ‘science policies’) substantially decrease the freedom and motivation of scientists. Indeed, inadequate policies can restrict the ability to perform research, the breadth of the fields of study, the methods of carrying out investigations and the dissemination of findings. Conversely, virtuous policies can have a positive impact on the freedom, quality of work and satisfaction of individual scientists. Importantly, from the societal perspective, the more scientists work freely, broadly and with motivation, the more they produce knowledge, data and innovation for the benefit of society, collectively ameliorating the scientific research system. Unfortunately, ‘science of science’ is in its infancy. There has never been awareness of the importance of policies nor consistent interest in studying them, and specialised journals and articles are very few for several possible reasons. First, many researchers do not perceive the importance of policies for the functioning of science or may simply dislike ‘science of science’ studies and prefer to focus on their discipline. Second, many feel that their individual contribution would not be sufficient to affect the system and see no purpose in sacrificing their time and energy, as in the so-called ‘paradox of voting’ (Downs 1957: 25). Third, or a consequence of all the above, with few academic positions and funding opportunities, the field is at the moment not profitable with regard to career returns. Nonetheless in order to promote research and discussion on policies with a view to improving them, it is of great importance that science policy experts reach out to the rest of the scientific community. It is key to spread awareness of the many possible changes (however small or big) that can affect the freedom, fairness and efficiency of scientific work. Moreover, it
{"title":"Advocating a radical change in policies and new models to secure freedom and efficiency in funding and communication of science","authors":"A. Ballabeni, D. Danovi","doi":"10.7765/9781526146472.00022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526146472.00022","url":null,"abstract":"Threats and obstructions to scientific freedom, fairness and efficiency are commonly perceived as surrounding the scientific world. However, bottlenecks can also occur from within the system itself as some of the current regulations and forces shaping research (referred to here as ‘science policies’) substantially decrease the freedom and motivation of scientists. Indeed, inadequate policies can restrict the ability to perform research, the breadth of the fields of study, the methods of carrying out investigations and the dissemination of findings. Conversely, virtuous policies can have a positive impact on the freedom, quality of work and satisfaction of individual scientists. Importantly, from the societal perspective, the more scientists work freely, broadly and with motivation, the more they produce knowledge, data and innovation for the benefit of society, collectively ameliorating the scientific research system. Unfortunately, ‘science of science’ is in its infancy. There has never been awareness of the importance of policies nor consistent interest in studying them, and specialised journals and articles are very few for several possible reasons. First, many researchers do not perceive the importance of policies for the functioning of science or may simply dislike ‘science of science’ studies and prefer to focus on their discipline. Second, many feel that their individual contribution would not be sufficient to affect the system and see no purpose in sacrificing their time and energy, as in the so-called ‘paradox of voting’ (Downs 1957: 25). Third, or a consequence of all the above, with few academic positions and funding opportunities, the field is at the moment not profitable with regard to career returns. Nonetheless in order to promote research and discussion on policies with a view to improving them, it is of great importance that science policy experts reach out to the rest of the scientific community. It is key to spread awareness of the many possible changes (however small or big) that can affect the freedom, fairness and efficiency of scientific work. Moreover, it","PeriodicalId":368881,"journal":{"name":"The freedom of scientific research","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121258948","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-10-05DOI: 10.7765/9781526127686.00002
Simona Giordano, John Harris
{"title":"Dedication","authors":"Simona Giordano, John Harris","doi":"10.7765/9781526127686.00002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526127686.00002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":368881,"journal":{"name":"The freedom of scientific research","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114490420","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-10-05DOI: 10.7765/9781526127686.00019
L. Piccirillo
{"title":"Big science and small science","authors":"L. Piccirillo","doi":"10.7765/9781526127686.00019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526127686.00019","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":368881,"journal":{"name":"The freedom of scientific research","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128962903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-10-05DOI: 10.7765/9781526127686.00017
C. Rhodes
{"title":"Scientific freedom and responsibility in a biosecurity context","authors":"C. Rhodes","doi":"10.7765/9781526127686.00017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526127686.00017","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":368881,"journal":{"name":"The freedom of scientific research","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115678098","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-10-05DOI: 10.7765/9781526146472.00027
Roberto Baldoli, C. Radaelli
{"title":"Evidence-based policy and the precautionary principle","authors":"Roberto Baldoli, C. Radaelli","doi":"10.7765/9781526146472.00027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526146472.00027","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":368881,"journal":{"name":"The freedom of scientific research","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130582464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-10-05DOI: 10.7765/9781526127686.00005
{"title":"List of tables","authors":"","doi":"10.7765/9781526127686.00005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526127686.00005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":368881,"journal":{"name":"The freedom of scientific research","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126469374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：