First,do no harm: Generalized procreative non‐maleficence

New reproductive technologies allow parents some choice over their children. Various moral principles have been suggested to regulate such choices. This article starts from a discussion of Julian Savulescu's Principle of Procreative Beneficence (PPB), according to which parents ought to choose the child expected to have the best quality of life, before combining two previously separate lines of attack against this principle. First, it is suggested that the appropriate moral principles of guiding reproductive choices ought to focus on general wellbeing rather than prioritizing that of the child and, second, that they ought to be non‐maximizing (e.g. seeking the ‘good enough’ or to avoid harm). Though neither of these suggestions is entirely novel, combining them results in a new, and arguably more plausible, principle to regulate procreative choices, which I call the Principle of Generalized Procreative Non‐Maleficence (PGPNM). According to this principle, the primary obligation on parents is not to cause harm to other people through their reproductive choices.     

Enrichment and nonhuman primates: "first, do no harm"

Since the 1998 publication of The Psychological Well-Being of Nonhuman Primates by the National Research Council, and the 1991 implementation of the 1985 Animal Welfare Act Amendment, many formal and informal nonhuman primate enrichment programs have been put into practice. Reports of their successes and failures, however, are few. All programs have at least two things in common: (1) They are best when designed and maintained by teams of individuals with species-specific expertise; (2) the members of those teams, the stakeholders, usually include principal investigators, animal care and use committee members, veterinarians, and animal care staff. Discussions in this article address general principles about enrichment, goals of such programs from the perspective of each of the major stakeholders, and recently published sources of related information. These discussions follow the central premise that enrichment should benefit all involved and "First, do no harm."     

Why do male Callosobruchus maculatus harm their mates?

Males of the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculatus have spineson their intromittent organs that puncture the female reproductivetract during mating. Females kick their mates during copulation.If females are prevented from kicking the males, copulationslast longer and the injuries females sustain are more severe.We tested whether or not these injuries represent real fitnesscosts that can be mitigated by kicking and also what males gainby inflicting them. Our results show that females do indeedsuffer lowered lifetime fecundity if they are prevented fromkicking. However, we could find no evidence that males gainbenefits through harming their mates. It has been suggestedthat the way females respond to the harm may benefit the malecausing it. Injured females may be less willing to remate toavoid sustaining further injuries, or they may respond by increasingtheir rate of oviposition if they perceive the injuries as athreat to their survival. In our study, however, females thatwere prevented from kicking did not respond by delaying rematingor increasing their rate of oviposition. Furthermore, preventingfemales from kicking during their second copulation did notmake their second mates more successful in sperm competition.This suggests that the spines have evolved for other reasonsthan harming the females, such as serving as an anchor duringcopulation, and that the harm they cause is a side effect ofa male adaptation and is not itself adaptive for either sex.     

Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons

A number of widely debated research articles claiming possible technology-related health concerns have influenced the public opinion on genetically modified food safety. We performed a statistical reanalysis and review of experimental data presented in some of these studies and found that quite often in contradiction with the authors’ conclusions the data actually provides weak evidence of harm that cannot be differentiated from chance. In our opinion the problem of statistically unaccounted multiple comparisons has led to some of the most cited anti-genetically modified organism health claims in history. We hope this analysis puts the original results of these studies into proper context.