{"title":"Review of Reinventing Data Protection?","authors":"S. Harmon","doi":"10.2202/1941-6008.1104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1104","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":88318,"journal":{"name":"Studies in ethics, law, and technology","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1941-6008.1104","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68798859","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}
{"title":"Review of Nanoethics: Big Ethical Issues with Small Technology","authors":"D. Resnik","doi":"10.2202/1941-6008.1135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1135","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":88318,"journal":{"name":"Studies in ethics, law, and technology","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1941-6008.1135","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68800125","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}
In most discussions of the social justice implications of new genetic technologies, enhancements are considered to be highly contentious. This is particularly so when we speak of enhancements that benefit the recipient in positional terms and enhancements that are germ-line and which can be passed on to future generations. I argue that the egalitarian reluctance, as displayed by Max Mehlman (2003:2005), to permitting enhancements is overblown. Recent writings from Buchanan (2008) and Farrelly (2004) highlight a more positive, context-dependent, role for permitting the socio-economically advantaged the freedom to gain access to enhancements, including enhancements of traits associated with positional or competitive advantage. I argue that this reasoning also (necessarily) applies to germ-line enhancements or, at least, to 'effective germ-line enhancements.' In other words, I argue that such enhancements should be more seriously considered in terms of this positive context-dependent role. Nevertheless, this support is not unqualified. I critically re-examine concerns regarding the notion of the genetic underclass and I raise some worries about the possible adverse consequence of such a regulatory framework on sustaining the required egalitarian ethos. Importantly, such worries (and suggestions to address them) will be focused on the adverse effects of inequalities, rather than germ-line enhancements themselves.
{"title":"Germ-line Enhancements, Inequalities and the (In)egalitarian Ethos","authors":"Oliver Feeney","doi":"10.2202/1941-6008.1122","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1122","url":null,"abstract":"In most discussions of the social justice implications of new genetic technologies, enhancements are considered to be highly contentious. This is particularly so when we speak of enhancements that benefit the recipient in positional terms and enhancements that are germ-line and which can be passed on to future generations. I argue that the egalitarian reluctance, as displayed by Max Mehlman (2003:2005), to permitting enhancements is overblown. Recent writings from Buchanan (2008) and Farrelly (2004) highlight a more positive, context-dependent, role for permitting the socio-economically advantaged the freedom to gain access to enhancements, including enhancements of traits associated with positional or competitive advantage. I argue that this reasoning also (necessarily) applies to germ-line enhancements or, at least, to 'effective germ-line enhancements.' In other words, I argue that such enhancements should be more seriously considered in terms of this positive context-dependent role. Nevertheless, this support is not unqualified. I critically re-examine concerns regarding the notion of the genetic underclass and I raise some worries about the possible adverse consequence of such a regulatory framework on sustaining the required egalitarian ethos. Importantly, such worries (and suggestions to address them) will be focused on the adverse effects of inequalities, rather than germ-line enhancements themselves.","PeriodicalId":88318,"journal":{"name":"Studies in ethics, law, and technology","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1941-6008.1122","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68800055","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}
The present document was developed by a group of scholars from law, medicine, political science, and sociology gathered in September 2008 in Crete to debate the issue of access to nanotechnology in healthcare during an international conference. Its purpose is to provide a set of general principles to guide stakeholders' debate, cooperation, and decision-making. The proposed principles are not an action plan, nor a set of tools to be applied, but instead an attempt to clarify the principles governing the research and development of nanotechnology and the relationship between interested parties, as well as to stimulate dialogue and collaboration of stakeholders, to pursue more inclusive processes and more effective outcomes.
{"title":"Crete Principles on Access to Nanotechnologies for Human Health","authors":"P. Poletti, M. Piccinni, S. Arnaldi","doi":"10.2202/1941-6008.1123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1123","url":null,"abstract":"The present document was developed by a group of scholars from law, medicine, political science, and sociology gathered in September 2008 in Crete to debate the issue of access to nanotechnology in healthcare during an international conference. Its purpose is to provide a set of general principles to guide stakeholders' debate, cooperation, and decision-making. The proposed principles are not an action plan, nor a set of tools to be applied, but instead an attempt to clarify the principles governing the research and development of nanotechnology and the relationship between interested parties, as well as to stimulate dialogue and collaboration of stakeholders, to pursue more inclusive processes and more effective outcomes.","PeriodicalId":88318,"journal":{"name":"Studies in ethics, law, and technology","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1941-6008.1123","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68800169","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}
{"title":"Review of Bioethics in the Age of New Media","authors":"D. Patrone","doi":"10.2202/1941-6008.1111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1111","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract","PeriodicalId":88318,"journal":{"name":"Studies in ethics, law, and technology","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1941-6008.1111","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68799070","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}
{"title":"Review of Who Owns You?: The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes","authors":"D. Resnik","doi":"10.2202/1941-6008.1090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1090","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract","PeriodicalId":88318,"journal":{"name":"Studies in ethics, law, and technology","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1941-6008.1090","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68798670","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}
Abstract This paper is in two parts, both of which are concerned to explore the justificatory presuppositions and limits of the idea of a universal framework for bioethical judgments; a global bioethics. The first part takes up the issues of the meaning and justification of global bioethics. After distinguishing the different ways in which global bioethics may be understood, various strategies for justifying the project are described. It is argued that in the absence of an actual global consensus on the content of the framework, a procedure for establishing what that content should be is required. This requirement is explored by outlining the contributions of Hermeneutics and Critical Theory. This part of the paper concludes with the view that one central presupposition of the project of global bioethics is that there is, or could be, a global consensus about the general norms of reason and discourse that disagreements over the ethical content of the framework should observe. Part two of the paper aims to explore one aspect of the rational limit to global bioethics that is revealed by the interplay between it and the claims of collective identity that groups of people make. The paper concludes that because of its ‘existential connotations' identity may be resistant to rational scrutiny, which paradoxically may not be irrational. Those for whom the ‘language of identity' gives way to the ‘language of interests' may well be able to engage in compromise and negotiation towards consensus on ethical principles and values.
{"title":"Global Bioethics, Collective Identities and the Limits of Rationality","authors":"Darryl Gunson","doi":"10.2202/1941-6008.1107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1107","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper is in two parts, both of which are concerned to explore the justificatory presuppositions and limits of the idea of a universal framework for bioethical judgments; a global bioethics. The first part takes up the issues of the meaning and justification of global bioethics. After distinguishing the different ways in which global bioethics may be understood, various strategies for justifying the project are described. It is argued that in the absence of an actual global consensus on the content of the framework, a procedure for establishing what that content should be is required. This requirement is explored by outlining the contributions of Hermeneutics and Critical Theory. This part of the paper concludes with the view that one central presupposition of the project of global bioethics is that there is, or could be, a global consensus about the general norms of reason and discourse that disagreements over the ethical content of the framework should observe. Part two of the paper aims to explore one aspect of the rational limit to global bioethics that is revealed by the interplay between it and the claims of collective identity that groups of people make. The paper concludes that because of its ‘existential connotations' identity may be resistant to rational scrutiny, which paradoxically may not be irrational. Those for whom the ‘language of identity' gives way to the ‘language of interests' may well be able to engage in compromise and negotiation towards consensus on ethical principles and values.","PeriodicalId":88318,"journal":{"name":"Studies in ethics, law, and technology","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1941-6008.1107","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68799300","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}
The paper discusses Dr. Floris Tomasini's paper What Is Bioethics: Notes toward a New Approach?. Based on Tomasini's account of methodological and ethical pluralism, the paper explores the demarcation problem of bioethics and suggests a full methodological laissez-faire.
{"title":"Sketching Further: A Comment on Tomasini's \"What Is Bioethics: Notes toward a New Approach?\"","authors":"Markus Neuvonen","doi":"10.2202/1941-6008.1139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1139","url":null,"abstract":"The paper discusses Dr. Floris Tomasini's paper What Is Bioethics: Notes toward a New Approach?. Based on Tomasini's account of methodological and ethical pluralism, the paper explores the demarcation problem of bioethics and suggests a full methodological laissez-faire.","PeriodicalId":88318,"journal":{"name":"Studies in ethics, law, and technology","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1941-6008.1139","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68800589","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}
During the last decades several tools have been developed to anticipate the future impact of new and emerging technologies. Many of these focus on hard, quantifiable impacts, investigating how novel technologies may affect health, environment and safety. Much less attention is paid to what might be called soft impacts: the way technology influences, for example, the distribution of social roles and responsibilities, moral norms and values, or identities. Several types of technology assessment and of scenario studies can be used to anticipate such soft impacts. We argue, however, that these methods do not recognize the dynamic character of morality and its interaction with technology. As a result, they miss an important opportunity to broaden the scope of social and political deliberation on new and emerging technologies.In this paper we outline a framework for building scenarios that enhance the techno-moral imagination by anticipating how technology, morality and their interaction might evolve. To show what kind of product might result from this framework, a scenario is presented as an exemplar. This scenario focuses on developments in biomedical nanotechnology and the moral regime of experimenting with human beings. Finally, the merits and limitations of our framework and the resulting type of scenarios are discussed.
{"title":"Anticipating the Interaction between Technology and Morality: A Scenario Study of Experimenting with Humans in Bionanotechnology","authors":"M. Boenink, T. Swierstra, D. Stemerding","doi":"10.2202/1941-6008.1098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1098","url":null,"abstract":"During the last decades several tools have been developed to anticipate the future impact of new and emerging technologies. Many of these focus on hard, quantifiable impacts, investigating how novel technologies may affect health, environment and safety. Much less attention is paid to what might be called soft impacts: the way technology influences, for example, the distribution of social roles and responsibilities, moral norms and values, or identities. Several types of technology assessment and of scenario studies can be used to anticipate such soft impacts. We argue, however, that these methods do not recognize the dynamic character of morality and its interaction with technology. As a result, they miss an important opportunity to broaden the scope of social and political deliberation on new and emerging technologies.In this paper we outline a framework for building scenarios that enhance the techno-moral imagination by anticipating how technology, morality and their interaction might evolve. To show what kind of product might result from this framework, a scenario is presented as an exemplar. This scenario focuses on developments in biomedical nanotechnology and the moral regime of experimenting with human beings. Finally, the merits and limitations of our framework and the resulting type of scenarios are discussed.","PeriodicalId":88318,"journal":{"name":"Studies in ethics, law, and technology","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1941-6008.1098","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68798538","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}
The question what is bioethics is a controversial area of debate amongst practitioners of bioethics, not least because it sets out disciplinary boundaries to practise the subject, which involve deeper assumptions about how one should approach and practise the subject. There are at least four ways of answering the question what is bioethics? that raise the controversy aforementioned. These can be identified in the following ways: (1) what has the word bioethics come to mean? What limits of scope should we place on an answer to what is bioethics?; (2) what discipline does bioethics involve? Does it involve a single disciplinary perspective or does it involve many disciplines?; (3) are there different cultural principles or values to be contested in bioethics?; and (4) conclusions - what methodological approach should we adopt in answering the question what is bioethics?
{"title":"What Is Bioethics: Notes toward a New Approach?","authors":"F. Tomasini","doi":"10.2202/1941-6008.1136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1136","url":null,"abstract":"The question what is bioethics is a controversial area of debate amongst practitioners of bioethics, not least because it sets out disciplinary boundaries to practise the subject, which involve deeper assumptions about how one should approach and practise the subject. There are at least four ways of answering the question what is bioethics? that raise the controversy aforementioned. These can be identified in the following ways: (1) what has the word bioethics come to mean? What limits of scope should we place on an answer to what is bioethics?; (2) what discipline does bioethics involve? Does it involve a single disciplinary perspective or does it involve many disciplines?; (3) are there different cultural principles or values to be contested in bioethics?; and (4) conclusions - what methodological approach should we adopt in answering the question what is bioethics?","PeriodicalId":88318,"journal":{"name":"Studies in ethics, law, and technology","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1941-6008.1136","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68800185","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：