CRISPR human genome editing possesses untold potential to cure previously untreatahle diseases. However, in the United States, the rapid advancement of science is outpacing national laws and ...regulations, inhibiting the use of CRISPR in human medicine and creating opportunity for misuse. The enduring nature of germline edits means that current decisions will not only impact those treated, but also their offspring. The concept of "designer babies, " or the use of CRISPR for enhancement rather than treatment, poses a threat to social and economic equity as well. The evident tension between innovation and caution leaves lawmakers, ethicists, scientists, and clinicians debating the limits within which germline editing can operate. This Note calls for a multifactorial and proactive approach to this looming ethical and legal issue including legislation, oversight, and inclusive public discourse on germline editing use.
The role of science in policymaking has gained unprecedented stature in the United States, raising questions about the place of science and scientific expertise in the democratic process. Some ...scientists have been given considerable epistemic authority in shaping policy on issues of great moral and cultural significance, and the politicizing of these issues has become highly contentious.
Since World War II, most philosophers of science have purported the concept that science should be "value-free." InScience, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal,Heather E. Douglas argues that such an ideal is neither adequate nor desirable for science. She contends that the moral responsibilities of scientists require the consideration of values even at the heart of science. She lobbies for a new ideal in which values serve an essential function throughout scientific inquiry, but where the role values play is constrained at key points, thus protecting the integrity and objectivity of science. In this vein, Douglas outlines a system for the application of values to guide scientists through points of uncertainty fraught with moral valence.
Following a philosophical analysis of the historical background of science advising and the value-free ideal, Douglas defines how values should-and should not-function in science. She discusses the distinctive direct and indirect roles for values in reasoning, and outlines seven senses of objectivity, showing how each can be employed to determine the reliability of scientific claims. Douglas then uses these philosophical insights to clarify the distinction between junk science and sound science to be used in policymaking. In conclusion, she calls for greater openness on the values utilized in policymaking, and more public participation in the policymaking process, by suggesting various models for effective use of both the public and experts in key risk assessments.
Guidelines concerning the potentially harmful effects of scientific studies have historically focused on ethical considerations for minimizing risk for participants. However, studies can also ...indirectly inflict harm on individuals and social groups through how they are designed, reported, and disseminated. As evidenced by recent criticisms and retractions of high-profile studies dealing with a wide variety of social issues, there is a scarcity of resources and guidance on how one can conduct research in a socially responsible manner. As such, even motivated researchers might publish work that has negative social impacts due to a lack of awareness. To address this, we propose 10 simple rules for researchers who wish to conduct socially responsible science. These rules, which cover major considerations throughout the life cycle of a study from inception to dissemination, are not aimed as a prescriptive list or a deterministic code of conduct. Rather, they are meant to help motivated scientists to reflect on their social responsibility as researchers and actively engage with the potential social impact of their research.
From all too scarce, to professionalized, the ethics of research is now everybody's business, argues Sarah Franklin in the sixth essay in a series on how the past 150 years have shaped science, ...marking Nature's anniversary.
Should non-experts defer to epidemiologists with regard to the response to the coronavirus pandemic? We argue that deference is required with regard to settled science: non-experts (that is, people ...who may possess expertise of their own but whose expertise is not relevant to a particular question) ought to defer with regard to climate science and the efficacy of vaccines. However, we suggest that this deference is warranted because these questions have been appropriately probed many times by many different kinds of people. While non-experts should defer to epidemiologists with regard to matters within the sphere of epidemiology specifically, responding to the pandemic requires expertise from many fields. We best build a consensus worth deferring to by contributing our expertise now. Ethicists and philosophers are not epistemically arrogant if they question policy responses. Rather, they play a responsible role in building a reliable consensus.
This open access book provides an overview of issues of scientific responsibility. The volume comprises three types of contributions: first, analyses of the responsibility of science; second, ...analyses of the structural conditions for science and its responsibility; and third, normative versions of scientific responsibility. The questions and problems dealt with include science as a profession, ambivalence of research and dual-use, innovation vs. precaution, notions of responsibility, the role of science within society and its relation to human rights, as well as scientific and public discourses. The book addresses scholars in the fields of Science Studies and Research Policy. This is an open access book.
As we look towards the future of healthcare, integrating Care Robots (CRs) into health systems is a practical approach to address challenges such as an ageing population and caregiver shortages. ...However, ethical discussions about the impact of CRs on patients, caregivers, healthcare systems, and society are crucial. This normative research seeks to define an integrative and comprehensive ethical framework for CRs, encompassing a wide range of AI-related issues in healthcare. To build the framework, we combine principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, and explainability by integrating the AI4People framework for a Good AI Society and the traditional bioethics perspective. Using the integrated framework, we conduct an ethical assessment of CRs. Next, we identify three key ethical trade-offs and propose remediation strategies for the technology. Finally, we offer design recommendations for responsible development and usage of CRs. In conclusion, our research highlights the critical need for sector-specific ethical discussions in healthcare to fully grasp the potential implications of integrating AI technology.
PDF
