河猪

在博物馆里,至今仍然会遇到一些观众,他们怀疑古生物这门科学,认为我们只根据一些骨块或牙齿的化石,就说它们是几百万年或几千万年前的某些动物,很难令人相信。这是因为人们习惯从动物的整体去认识动物。其实,动物的每个骨块和牙齿都有不同的特点,古动物学家根据它们的大小和形     

苏联动物学家对我国海洋科学的无私帮助

就在今年四月,苏联科学院动物研究所的动物学家们来到了青岛。我当时在中国科学院海洋生物研究所工作,这是非常幸运的机会。在一起工作几个月以后,非但做了好朋友,并且结成了向大自然,向海洋斗争的亲密战友。虽则他们已暂时回国去了,但这个斗争还要继续下去,这就是说以后我们还有很多的机会要在一起工作的。在庆祝十月革命四十周年,举     

追蜜蜂的人

正伊乌安:今天要给大家讲一个动物学家的故事。大拇哥:不用讲,我已经知道了。伊乌安:你知道什么了?大拇哥:动物学家的故事啊!这个动物学家叫……呃,这个不重要。他的家庭条件还不错,爸爸不是律师就是医生或牧师。家里人希望他能子承父业,但他从小就对自然感兴趣。他上大学之后,一开始确实学了家里人希望他学的相关专业,但后来他发现自己最爱的还是动物,于是又学了动物的相关专业,最后他走上了研究动物的道路。而且,这个人的智商肯定是很高的,拿上一两个博士学位简直是小菜一碟。     

巧克力的黑历史

正除了我们人类,许多动物也喜欢巧克力。比如说,下面这个故事里的鹦鹉。故事发生在科学家卡特雷尔的实验室里。这天,为了找到一只新西兰鹦鹉的死因,科学家解剖了它。你猜怎么着?连科学家自己都不敢相信,导致鹦鹉死亡的竟然是巧克力。原来,贪吃的鹦鹉撬开了垃圾筒的盖子,偷吃了人们丢弃的巧克力,后来,它就被毒死了。暗黑美食巧克力因为贪吃巧克力,鹦鹉成了倒霉蛋儿,这都得怨可可碱。巧克力的原料可可豆含有这种成分。这东西在动物体内的代谢速度比在人体内慢得多,过量的话动物就会死亡。所以,你听说的"狗狗不能吃巧克力"绝对不是迷信。     

当强者消亡时

恐龙绝灭的原因何在?是快速绝灭,还是延续了数千万年之久?恐龙与同时代的哺乳动物的关系如何?怎样解释进化过程的原因和动力?下面分别介绍苏联古植物学家克拉西洛夫教授和古动物学家塔塔里诺夫院士对上述问题的看法。大自然的实验我们人类,无疑是地球上的主宰。就凭这一点,过去主宰过大地的各个物种为什么绝灭了,就不能     

今天,我是公民科学家

<正>"科学家好酷!他们手里的仪器好专业,工作时的样子好帅气!他们的贡献好伟大……"等等,按捺住你的激动,控制住你的声音,请把目光转过来,看看图片里这些你的同龄人。对,没错,就是他们。读下去,你会发现,好酷、好专业、好帅气这些词同样属于他们。因为今天,他们都是科学家。少年科学家们都是怎么做研究的呢?接下来,有请他们为你直播——     

跟着松鼠学理财

正一直以来,糖兄都是编辑部里出了名的月光族。每个月月初,他就把零花钱花光光,剩下的日子里挨个向其他小编借钱。火狐狸姐姐实在看不下去,就提议糖兄去上理财课程。"什么理财课程?别糊弄我。""松鼠理财。专业靠谱,保证有效。""什么鼠?""亏你还是动物杂志的小编,不知道松鼠是动物界的理财大师吗?它们的理财课啊,教你这种人类小白绰绰有余。"     

珍稀动物和它们的“辛德勒”——《动物辛德勒名单》评介

在当代中国出版的琳琅满目的众多图书中,描写科学家的甚为少见。由《大自然》杂志的编辑罗娅萍女士和北京自然博物馆李湘涛研究员撰写、福建少年儿童出版社新近推出的《动物辛德勒名单》一书,把几十位中外动物学家和他们所研究、拯救的珍稀野生动物一起呈现在读者面前,无论理念、题材和表现形式均令人耳目一新。     

熟悉而陌生的朋友——动物

越来越多的科学家认为，和人一样，动物也有意识的并且具备表达基本情感的能力，例如高兴、悲伤、厌倦或者沮丧。少数科学家甚至相信，动物可能拥有更为高级的人类情感，例如喜欢、妒忌以及怨恨。翻开查尔斯&#183;达尔文时代以来的科学文献，我们会发现里面列举了大量与动物“爱情生活”有关的案例。     

加强中学生物学同其它学科交叉的教学

1　问题的提出本世纪70年代中后期,国际上出现了综合理科课程,即把理、化、生、地等基础科学的主要内容提练出来,组成综合性的科学课程。这是现代科学在高度分化和广泛渗透的基础上,逐步走向综合化和社会化在课程设计上的具体体现。就生物学领域来说,物理、化学等方法的渗透和移植,对现代生物学的许多重大发现都做出了实质性的贡献。例如从1943年物理学家薛定谔提出“遗传密码”概念到1969年64种遗传密码的含义全部译出,就综合了物理、化学、生物各学派的研究方法和研究成果的精华。这就给我们一个启示:在教学中,必须注意生物学同其它学科的…     

The Ethical and Legal Framework for the Decision Not to Resuscitate

Practicing physicians are frequently faced with the question of whether or not to institute cardiopulmonary resuscitation in case of cardiac or respiratory arrest in a patient in hospital. Medical training has usually not included any systematic analysis of this issue from either an ethical or a legal standpoint. Many physicians may be unaware that ethical and legal principles, as well as professional guidelines, exist to guide such decision making. In practice, physicians make this decision without the benefit of training in ethical analysis. The problem is especially acute in teaching hospitals when young physicians unacquainted with formal ethics or the law must often make decisions emergently. Studies show some discrepancy between ethical and legal principles and the actual decision making by physicians. For this reason, we recommend an approach that will enable physicians to make and implement decisions not to resuscitate that are consistent with current ethical and legal standards.     

A moderate Buddhist animal research ethics

Though there is a burgeoning interest in applied Buddhist ethics, Buddhist animal research ethics remains an underdeveloped area. In this paper I will explore how some central Buddhist ethical considerations can usefully engage our use of other animals (henceforth, animals) in science. As the scientific use of animals is broad, I will narrow my focus to laboratory science. I will show that, though a Buddhist abolitionism would not be unmotivated, it is possible to reject it. While doing so, it will be important to resist emphasizing elements of Buddhist thought that merely provide reasons to adopt the dominant ethical framework governing laboratory animal research ethics, known as the 3Rs. Though I will suggest how a Buddhist animal research ethics can sometimes permit the use of animals in harmful research, it will also require ethical constraints that resonate with some of the more progressive elements in ‘Western’ bioethics.     

Moral expertise: a problem in the professional ethics of professional ethicists

Philosophers, particularly moral philosophers, are increasingly being involved in public decision-making in areas which are seen to raise ethical issues. For example, Dame Mary Warnock chaired the 'Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilization and Embryology' in the UK in 1982-4; the Philosophy Department at Auckland was commissioned by the Auckland Regional Authority to report on the ethical aspects of fluoridating the public water supply in 1990; and many of us are serving on ethics committees of various sorts. Not only are philosophers actually being called on or consulted, but many of us would argue that a philosophical contribution in such areas is essential. The involvement of moral philosophers in public policy decisions raises a question of professional ethics, viz, what role should a philosopher's own moral perspective or judgements play in the advice s/he gives, or contribution s/he makes, to public decision-making on ethical issues. Like most problems in professional ethics, this prompts reflection on the nature of the profession, and in particular on the expertise we take moral philosophy to offer. It also prompts reflection on how processes of public decision making in ethically problematic areas should be understood. I explore these issues in this paper.     

Links between ecology and ecophilosophy,ethics and the requirements of environmental management

Abstract This paper concerns the ways that our philosophical attitudes to the environment can influence the appropriateness of methodologies for solving environmental problems. Sometimes a public perception is expressed that science takes scant regard of the concerns of the people affected. Is it possible for scientists and managers to respond to such concerns and still fulfil the logical and methodological rigour that their discipline demands? I believe we have to address fundamental issues of definitions and meaning before useful debate can occur among parties interested in environmental decision-making. Delving into the ideas behind our everyday practices of environmental management should promote re-evaluation of our beliefs, attitudes and concerns about nature. I examine environmental science from both ethical and managerial perspectives. I explore how our assumptions and attitudes might influence ecology, in particular issues raised by environmental impacts and conservation. The major points argued here are:

• 1 Any legal requirements of environmental investigations must be met, but perhaps we should act more in line with the spirit of legislation.
• 2 The managerial imperatives of environmental investigations need to be examined closely because of widely perceived problems with the use of science in impact assessment. We must change either our methods of assessment or the regulations and administration of environmental impact assessment (EIA).
• 3 Science is not paramount in the processes of environmental decision-making. We need to be aware of how psychosocial factors affect the ultimately political decisions about environmental problems.
• 4 Philosophy and ethics offer a range of perspectives that may benefit ecology. Scientists need to be aware of these just as they should be of their own leanings about how we treat nature.
• 5 Scientists need to translate social concerns or demands about the environment into properly defined scientific questions, and then study them as a matter of urgency.
• 6 Ecology needs to guide ecophilosophers and environmental ethicists as to how nature works, why we expect variability in ecosystems, what is naturalness, and other issues where a scientific understanding of nature has progressed beyond the point where these observers of ecology have so far taken inspiration.

     

MORAL EXPERTISE: A PROBLEM IN THE PROFESSIONAL ETHICS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICISTS

Philosophers, particularly moral philosophers, are increasingly being involved in public decision-making in areas which are seen to raise ethical issues. For example, Dame Mary Warnock chaired the ‘Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilization and Embryology’ in the UK in 1982–4; the Philosophy Department at Auckland was commissioned by the Auckland Regional Authority to report on the ethical aspects of fluoridating the public water supply in 1990; and many of us are serving on ethics committees of various sorts. Not only are philosophers actually being called on or consulted, but many of us would argue that a philosophical contribution in such areas is essential. The involvement of moral philosophers in public policy decisions raises a question of professional ethics, viz, what role should a philosopher's own moral perspective or judgements play in the advice s/he gives, or contribution s/he makes, to public decision-making on ethical issues. Like most problems in professional ethics, this prompts reflection on the nature of the profession, and in particular on the expertise we take moral philosophy to offer. It also prompts reflection on how processes of public decision making in ethically problematic areas should be understood. I explore these issues in this paper.     

EMPIRICAL ETHICS AS DIALOGICAL PRACTICE

In this article, we present a dialogical approach to empirical ethics, based upon hermeneutic ethics and responsive evaluation. Hermeneutic ethics regards experience as the concrete source of moral wisdom. In order to gain a good understanding of moral issues, concrete detailed experiences and perspectives need to be exchanged. Within hermeneutic ethics dialogue is seen as a vehicle for moral learning and developing normative conclusions. Dialogue stands for a specific view on moral epistemology and methodological criteria for moral inquiry. Responsive evaluation involves a structured way of setting up dialogical learning processes, by eliciting stories of participants, exchanging experiences in (homogeneous and heterogeneous) groups and drawing normative conclusions for practice. By combining these traditions we develop both a theoretical and a practical approach to empirical ethics, in which ethical issues are addressed and shaped together with stakeholders in practice. Stakeholders' experiences are not only used as a source for reflection by the ethicist; stakeholders are involved in the process of reflection and analysis, which takes place in a dialogue between participants in practice, facilitated by the ethicist. This dialogical approach to empirical ethics may give rise to questions such as: What contribution does the ethicist make? What role does ethical theory play? What is the relationship between empirical research and ethical theory in the dialogical process? In this article, these questions will be addressed by reflecting upon a project in empirical ethics that was set up in a dialogical way. The aim of this project was to develop and implement normative guidelines with and within practice, in order to improve the practice concerning coercion and compulsion in psychiatry.     

伦理管理在人类辅助生殖技术中的应用与价值

辅助生殖技术（assisted reproduction technique,ART）的飞速发展给社会带来了复杂伦理难题。因此,在ART全过程中加强伦理管理并对其后果进行评价,具有深刻的内涵价值和深远的社会意义。只有发挥生殖医学伦理委员会作为一个工作机构的职能,在医患人群中加强ART技术基本原理及相关伦理原则的宣传教育,强化医学伦理的监督机制,落实充分的知情同意等措施,才能促使医患人群都能够自觉遵守优良的医学伦理道德规范,保证人类辅助生殖技术的健康发展,使ART发挥积极的、革命性的意义。     

Teaching Medical Ethics to Meet the Realities of a Changing Health Care System

The changing context of medical practice—bureaucratic, political, or economic—demands that doctors have the knowledge and skills to face these new realities. Such changes impose obstacles on doctors delivering ethical care to vulnerable patient populations. Modern medical ethics education requires a focus upon the knowledge and skills necessary to close the gap between the theory and practice of ethical care. Physicians and doctors-in-training must learn to be morally sensitive to ethical dilemmas on the wards, learn how to make professionally grounded decisions with their patients and other medical providers, and develop the leadership, dedication, and courage to fulfill ethical values in the face of disincentives and bureaucratic challenges. A new core focus of medical ethics education must turn to learning how to put ethics into practice by teaching physicians to realistically negotiate the new institutional maze of 21st-century medicine.     

Research versus practice: The dilemmas of research ethics in the era of learning health‐care systems

In this article we attempt to answer the question of how the ethical and conceptual framework (ECF) for a learning health‐care system (LHS) affects some of the main controversies in research ethics by addressing five key problems of research ethics: (a) What is the difference between practice and research? (b) What is the relationship between research ethics and clinical ethics? (c) What is the ethical relevance of the principle of clinical equipoise? (d) Does participation in research require a higher standard of informed consent than the practice of medicine? and (e) What ethical principle should take precedence in medicine? These questions allow us to construct two opposite idealized positions on the distinction between research and practice: the integration model and the segregation model of research and practice. We then compare the ECF for an LHS with these two idealized positions. We argue that the ECF for a LHS does not, in fact, solve these problems, but that it is a third, separate position in the relationship between research ethics and clinical ethics. Moreover, we suggest that the ECF for a LHS raises new ethical problems that require additional ethical analysis and justification. Our article contributes to the discussion on the relationship between research ethics and clinical ethics, revealing that although a learning health‐care system may significantly change the landscape of health care, some ethical dilemmas still require resolving on both theoretical and policy‐making levels.     

The ethics and obligations of long-term ethnographic relationships: revelatory moments and the concept of solidarity

This article reflects on an ethical and revelatory moment in the development of my long-term fieldwork relationships with people of the Lihir Islands in Papua New Guinea. Ethnographic research globally is now shaped through formal processes of ethical review, with the requirements for informed consent, privacy, and consideration of harm and beneficence. Researchers then have to put these procedures into practice, often encountering the need to weigh competing ethical principles, particularly when unforeseen events occur. Reflexivity has been argued to be crucial on these occasions. Yet both ethical codes and reflexivity fall short of managing ethical and relational implications of long-term field relationships. This article suggests that the concept of solidarity as theorized recently in bioethics may be helpful, particularly the discernment of three layers of relationship. What responsibilities might we as anthropologists have to the people we work with that go beyond procedural ethics? And how do moments such as the one described in this article shape ongoing field research?