What are 60 warblers worth? Killing in the name of conservation

Ecological research sometimes entails animal suffering and even animal killing. The ethical appropriateness of animal suffering and killing in conservation research may entail considerations that differ from many other kinds of research. This is true, insomuch as conservation research is specifically motivated by an ethical premise: an appreciation for non-human life. In striking contrast with other academic fields (e.g. medicine), however, the ethical dimension of conservation research is only rarely discussed. When it is discussed, it tends to be characterized by logical errors. These errors are important because they are general (i.e. both common and with far-reaching implications), and they are easily made by intelligent people; especially those with no formal training in ethics or logic. Failure to recognize these errors could stymie efforts to increase the ethical quality of ecological research conducted in the name of conservation.
We take advantage of a recently published dialogue concerning the ethical appropriateness of a specific field experiment that entailed killing black-throated blue warblers, Dendroica caerulescens . Both sides of this debate exemplify the kinds of errors to which we refer. In this paper we briefly review the arguments presented on each side of this debate, highlight their mistakes, and indicate necessary corrections. We argue that: (1) compliance with animal research regulations, while important, inadequately accommodates the ethical aspects of animal research, and (2) individual ecologists ought to understand themselves what does and does not represent sound and valid arguments for ethical decisions. Finally, we discuss how any ecological researcher might begin to apply our analysis to his or her own research.     

THE ETHICS OF SHAM SURGERY IN PARKINSON'S DISEASE: BACK TO THE FUTURE?

Despite intense academic debate in the recent past over the use of ‘sham surgery’ control groups in research, there has been a recent resurgence in their use in the field of neurodegenerative disease. Yet the primacy of ethical arguments in favour of sham surgery controls is not yet established. Preliminary empirical research shows an asymmetry between the views of neurosurgical researchers and patients on the subject, while different ethical guidelines and regulations support conflicting interpretations. Research ethics committees faced with a proposal involving sham surgery should be aware of its ethical complexities. An overview of recent and current placebo‐controlled surgical trials in the field of Parkinson's Disease is provided here, followed by an analysis of the key ethical issues which such trials raise.     

Promoting organ donation registration with the priority incentive: Israeli transplantation surgeons' and other medical practitioners' views and ethical concerns

Because the number of organs available for transplantation does not meet the needs of potential recipients, some have proposed that a potentially effective way to increase registration is to offer a self-benefit incentive that grants a 'preferred status' or some degree of prioritization to those who register as potential donors, in case they might need organs. This proposal has elicited an ethical debate on the appropriateness of such a benefit in the context of a life-saving medical procedure. In this paper we review arguments and ethical concerns raised by scholars, and studies of views of members of the public regarding the prioritization incentive system. We also report on our study of the views of those involved in organ transplant and of other medical professionals in Israel, as over half a decade ago Israel implemented a prioritization incentive system. Bioethicists propose that key stakeholders' views can provide additional arguments and perspectives on controversial issues. Proponents justify the prioritization incentive drawing mainly on arguments related to its potential effectiveness, reciprocity and fairness. Opponents point to the fact that registering is not binding and not an actual donation, and raise concerns regarding equity, autonomy and gaming the system. Ethical concerns raised by the practitioners in the study were examined in light of scholars' arguments and actual registration and donation data. Practitioners involved in transplantation raised ethical concerns corresponding to those raised by scholars as well as additional concerns. They also challenged proponents' assumptions regarding the utility of the incentive system from their own experience and argued that proponents obscure the meaning of reciprocity.     

Safe biotechnology (4). Recommendations for safety levels for biotechnological operations with microorganisms that cause diseases in plants

The Working Party on Safety in Biotechnology of the European Federation of Biotechnology has proposed a classification of microorganisms that cause diseases in plants. In this paper appropriate safety levels are proposed for these classes of microorganisms in order to ensure that research, development and industrial fermentation work with plant pathogens will limit the risk of outbreaks of diseases in crops that could result from work with such microorganisms when they are cultivated in laboratories, glasshouses and biotechnology installations.Co-opted: J. Dähne, J. Drozd, M. Lemattre, I. M. Smith , E. M. A. WaterschootA Report prepared by the Working Party on Safety in Biotechnology of the European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB)

---

     

Ethical Research Issues: Going Beyond the Declaration of Helsinki

La Vaque and Rossiter made a strong, supported argument that it is unethical to use a no treatment control group in a research study if a known, effective treatment is available. Their argument is based on the supposition that the Declaration of Helsinki is the ethical world standard for research with humans. Their argument appears to be straightforward, but is not simple to apply. The issues are very complex, include issues not discussed in their argument, and can lead to a different conclusion as pointed out in this paper. The World Medical Association developed the Declaration of Helsinki as one of their official policies. The Declaration of Helsinki, however, is not accepted as the world ethical standard, as demonstrated by its lack of adoption by many professional associations or even by the United States Federal Government. Perhaps it is not mentioned because its ethical provisions are aspirational rather than mandatory as implied by La Vaque and Rossiter. Researchers and clinicians should also be aware of other ethical issues not directly discussed in the La Vaque and Rossiter paper. The Belmont Report is the basis for the ethical protection of human research subjects for at least 17 federal agencies and does not mention the Declaration of Helsinki. The Belmont Report mentions several ethical principles that form the basis for informed consent, risk/benefit assessment, confidentiality of data, subject selection, Institutional Review Boards, and other protections needed when doing research with human subjects. At least 2 of these core principles have direct implications to the discussion related to the use of placebo controls. The ethical principle of fidelity is also important in guiding research activities with human subjects. Researchers should be familiar with the La Vaque and Rossiter argument, the Belmont Report, and the federal policies developed to implement the provisions of that report, for example, Regulation 45 CFR 46.     

Ethical issues concerning animal research outside the laboratory

Unique ethical issues can be associated with research outside the customary laboratory setting. Protocols involving wild animals must consider that any infringement on the wild nature of the species can be disruptive and may involve pain, fear, anxiety, and frustration, all of which constitute ethical harm that must be balanced with anticipated benefit. Agricultural and companion animal research, however, take place in a human-engineered environment and involves domesticated species adapted to human contact. Special animal welfare issues can be related to agricultural production goals that fail to deal adequately with moral concerns. Human/companion animal relationships, on the other hand, present unique moral obligations to animal owners. Other factors may present additional ethical issues when research is performed outside the laboratory. These factors include a required sensitivity to the environment of wild animals and an awareness that this outside research may to quite public and, therefore, vulnerable to community perception. The institutional animal care and use committee(IACUC) has the responsibility to ensure that research in outside settings is ethical and properly implemented. This responsibility requires that IACUC members have knowledge of the needs of a wide range of species and that a process is in place to allow effective monitoring of research in remote locations. Finally, and most important, there must be a sensitivity to the unique ethical considerations outlined here. Armed with these strengths, the IACUC will be effective in what may be unfamiliar surroundings and will have a significant opportunity to cause improvements in animal welfare.     

The context of embryonic development and its ethical relevance

Research on human stem cells and embryos creates ethical issues. Here I discuss ten frequently used arguments against research and point out their weaknesses. These arguments include the possessed potentiality of the embryo per se and, in contrast to other cell systems, the "slippery slope" argument, the right of disposal of parents, totipotency versus pluripotency, the burden of proof for research, natural versus artificial, and three arguments based on the precaution principle (the open biological questions, uncertainty regarding clinically applicable therapies, and the problem solving rule). I finally suggest a different answer to the ethical questions concerning research on human embryos and embryonic stem cells, which takes into consideration their biological context.     

Risky individuals and the politics of genetic research into aggressiveness and violence

New genetic technologies promise to generate valuable insights into the aetiology of several psychiatric conditions, as well as a wider range of human and animal behaviours. Advances in the neurosciences and the application of new brain imaging techniques offer a way of integrating DNA analysis with studies that are looking at other biological markers of behaviour. While candidate 'genes for' certain conditions, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, are said to be 'un-discovered' at a faster rate than they are discovered, many studies are being conducted on personality traits such as aggressiveness and anti-social traits. The clinical applicability and implications of these studies are often discussed within the scientific community. However, little attention has so far been paid to their possible policy implications in relation to criminality management and to Criminal Law itself. Similarly, the related ethical issues arising in the field of crime control, and the tensions between enhancing security for society and protecting civil liberties, are currently under-explored. This paper investigates these ethical issues by focusing on the views of those professionals - including judges, lawyers, probation officers and social workers - who work with individuals 'deemed at risk' of violent and aggressive behaviours. It also discusses and problematizes mainstream rhetoric and arguments around the notion of 'risky individuals'.     

An International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy working group short report on the future of expanded access to unapproved cell and gene therapies

Patient interest in non-trial access pathways to investigational cell-and gene-based interventions, such as expanded access in the USA, is increasing, while the regulatory and business environments for non-trial access in the cell and gene therapy field are shifting. Against this background, in 2022 the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy (ISCT) established a Working Group on Expanded Access to identify practical, ethical, and regulatory issues emerging from the use (and possible misuse) of the expanded access pathway in the cell and gene therapy field. In this Short Report, the Working Group sets the stage for its future activities by analyzing the history of expanded access and identifying three examples of questions that we anticipate arising as uses of expanded access for investigational cell and gene-based interventions increase and evolve.     

Ethical issues in animal cloning

The issue of human reproductive cloning has recently received a great deal attention in public discourse. Bioethicists, policy makers, and the media have been quick to identify the key ethical issues involved in human reproductive cloning and to argue, almost unanimously, for an international ban on such attempts. Meanwhile, scientists have proceeded with extensive research agendas in the cloning of animals. Despite this research, there has been little public discussion of the ethical issues raised by animal cloning projects. Polling data show that the public is decidedly against the cloning of animals. To understand the public's reaction and fill the void of reasoned debate about the issue, we need to review the possible objections to animal cloning and assess the merits of the anti-animal cloning stance. Some objections to animal cloning (e.g., the impact of cloning on the population of unwanted animals) can be easily addressed, while others (e.g., the health of cloned animals) require more serious attention by the public and policy makers.     

Breakdown of the potentiality principle and its impact on global stem cell research

Totipotency, defined as the ability of a single cell to generate an entire individual, has traditionally served as a cornerstone to frame the moral relevance of nascent human life. This "potentiality principle" has served as an ethical reference point for shaping legal regulations for stem cell research in most Western countries. Based on heterogeneous ethical, religious, and political views, different countries cope with recent advances in mammalian cloning and reprogramming in a remarkably diverse manner. This and related issues were key topics at a recent meeting held in Berlin, Germany, on ethical aspects of stem cell research in Europe. An emerging view from this event is that international heterogeneity in stem cell politics and legislation must be overcome in order to develop this field toward biomedical application.     

BIOETHICS AND DEMOCRACY: COMPETING ROLES OF NATIONAL BIOETHICS ORGANISATIONS

In establishing National Bioethics Organisations (NBOs), liberal democracies seek to acknowledge the diversity of strongly held ethical positions and the imperative to engage in public debate about important bioethical decisions. NBOs are typically given a range of responsibilities, including contributing to and stimulating public debate; providing expert opinion on relevant issues for policy deliberations; and developing public policy. The state is now found to have an interest in areas previously thought to be a matter of individual choice. NBOs can provide one way of opening up public debate to allow the diversity of views to be heard in a manner that is well‐informed, articulate and responsive to both expert and ‘lay’ public views. We draw on debates in political theory about democratic decision‐making and on the policy making roles of some key NBOs. We are particularly interested in examining the capacity of NBOs to meet the democratic ideal of effective participation by the public, or citizenry, especially by those who are directly affected by the policies, in the development of effective public policy. We provide a basic framework for policy development involving NBOs that can begin to meet this ideal, a process of ‘contested deliberation’.     

German law on circumcision and its debate: How an ethical and legal issue turned political

The article aims to illuminate the recent debate in Germany about the legitimacy of circumcision for religious reasons. The aim is both to evaluate the new German law allowing religious circumcision, and to outline the resulting conflict between the surrounding ethical and legal issues. We first elucidate the diversity of legal and medical views on religious circumcision in Germany. Next we examine to what extent invasive and irreversible physical interventions on infant boys unable to given their consent should be carried out for non‐medical reasons. To this end, the potential benefits and harms of circumcision for non‐medical reasons are compared. We argue that circumcision does not provide any benefits for the ‘child as a child’ and poses only risks to boys. We then set out to clarify and analyse political (rather than ethical) justifications of the new circumcision law. We demonstrate through this analysis how the circumcision debate in Germany has been transformed from a legal and ethical problem into a political issue, due at least in part to Germany's unique historical context. Although such a particular political sensibility is entirely comprehensible, it raises particular problems when it comes to framing and responding to medical ethical issues – as in the case of religious circumcision.     

TWO STALEMATES IN THE PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE ABOUT ABORTION AND WHY THEY CANNOT BE RESOLVED USING ANALOGICAL ARGUMENTS

Philosophical debate about the ethics of abortion has reached stalemate on two key issues. First, the claim that foetuses have moral standing that entitles them to protections for their lives has been neither convincingly established nor refuted. Second, the question of a pregnant woman's obligation to allow the gestating foetus the use of her body has not been resolved. Both issues are deadlocked because philosophers addressing them invariably rely on intuitions and analogies, and such arguments have weaknesses that make them unfit for resolving the abortion issue. Analogical arguments work by building a kind of consensus, and such a consensus is virtually unimaginable because (1) intuitions are revisable, and in the abortion debate there is great motive to revise them, (2) one's position on abortion influences judgments about other issues, making it difficult to leverage intuitions about other ethical questions into changing peoples' minds about abortion, and (3) the extent of shared values in the abortion debate is overstated. Arguments by analogy rely on an assumption of the commensurability of moral worldviews. But the abortion debate is currently unfolding in a context of genuinely incommensurable moral worldviews. The article ends by arguing that the default position must be to permit abortion as a consequence of the freedom of conscience protected in liberal societies.     

Human and animal research guidelines: aligning ethical constructs with new scientific developments

Both human research and animal research operate within established standards and procedures. Although the human research environment has been criticized for its sometimes inefficient and imperfect process, reported abuses of human subjects in research served as the impetus for the establishment of the Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, and the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research and the resulting Belmont Report. No similar, comprehensive and principled effort has addressed the use of animals in research. Although published policies regarding animal research provide relevant regulatory guidance, these policies have not emerged from the process of specifying consistent and reasoned ethical principles. The lack of a fundamental effort to explore the ethical issues and principles regarding the use of animals in research has led to unclear and disparate policies. Recent studies have increased our understanding of animal cognition and emotion, suggesting that animals' potential for experiencing a wide variety of harms, such as pain and fear, is greater than has been previously appreciated. Furthermore, relationships between methods of captivity and certain laboratory procedures and the resulting adverse physical, social and psychological effects have been established. In light of this information, current protections may need to be reconsidered and modified. This paper explores the historical convergence and divergence in the creation of human and animal research guidelines, as well as opportunities to align ethical frameworks with new scientific discoveries.     

The biopolitics of frozen embryos

The unresolved debate about frozen embryos has left open the discussion on "what to do with them". There are only three ways to deal with frozen embryos: 1) to leave them frozen indefinitely; 2) to defrost and discard them and 3) to use them for research. In this paper, we suggest that the application of current scientific knowledge, instead of inappropriately referring to ethical principles or to the concept of person, could help with the decision about what to do with hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos, thus bringing the sensitive debate on bioethical issues to shared practical solutions. We face a new individual only when a new functional copy of his genome is formed. In both natural and artificial animal and plant reproduction, this principle applies. This status occurs in humans at the 4-8 cell stage. Acknowledgement of this factual datum would allow advocates of all religious and ideological beliefs to defend their principles and to realign their positions to a setting within the boundaries of current scientific knowledge.     

Beneficence, determinism and justice: an engagement with the argument for the genetic selection of intelligence

In 2001, Julian Savulescu wrote an article entitled 'Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children', in which he argued for the genetic selection of intelligence in children. That article contributes to a debate on whether genetic research on intelligence should be undertaken at all and, if so, should intelligence selection be available to potential parents. As such, the question of intelligence selection relates to wider issues concerning the genetic determinism of behavioural traits, i.e. alcoholism. This article is designed as an engagement in the intelligence selection debate using an analysis of Savulescu's arguments to raise a series of problematic issues in relation to the ethics of parental selection of intelligence. These problematic issues relate to wider assumptions that are made in order to put forward intelligence selection as a viable ethical option. Such assumptions are more generic in character, but still relate to Savulescu's article, concerning issues of genetic determinism, private allocation and inequality, and, finally, individual versus aggregate justice. The conclusion focuses on what the implications are for the question of agency, especially if intelligence selection is allowed.     

On the co‐evolution of surface oxygen levels and animals

Few topics in geobiology have been as extensively debated as the role of Earth's oxygenation in controlling when and why animals emerged and diversified. All currently described animals require oxygen for at least a portion of their life cycle. Therefore, the transition to an oxygenated planet was a prerequisite for the emergence of animals. Yet, our understanding of Earth's oxygenation and the environmental requirements of animal habitability and ecological success is currently limited; estimates for the timing of the appearance of environments sufficiently oxygenated to support ecologically stable populations of animals span a wide range, from billions of years to only a few million years before animals appear in the fossil record. In this light, the extent to which oxygen played an important role in controlling when animals appeared remains a topic of debate. When animals originated and when they diversified are separate questions, meaning either one or both of these phenomena could have been decoupled from oxygenation. Here, we present views from across this interpretive spectrum—in a point–counterpoint format—regarding crucial aspects of the potential links between animals and surface oxygen levels. We highlight areas where the standard discourse on this topic requires a change of course and note that several traditional arguments in this “life versus environment” debate are poorly founded. We also identify a clear need for basic research across a range of fields to disentangle the relationships between oxygen availability and emergence and diversification of animal life.     

The Ashley Treatment: Improving Quality of Life or Infringing Dignity and Rights?

The ‘Ashley treatment’ (growth attenuation, removal of the womb and breasts buds of a severely disabled child) has raised much ethical controversy. This article starts from the observation that this debate suffers from a lack of careful philosophical analysis which is essential for an ethical assessment. I focus on two central arguments in the debate, namely an argument defending the treatment based on quality of life and an argument against the treatment based on dignity and rights. My analysis raises doubts as to whether these arguments, as they stand in the debate, are philosophically robust. I reconstruct what form good arguments for and against the treatment should take and which assumptions are needed to defend the according positions. Concerning quality of life (Section 2), I argue that to make a discussion about quality of life possible, it needs to be clear which particular conception of the good life is employed. This has not been sufficiently clear in the debate. I fill this lacuna. Regarding rights and dignity (section 3), I show that there is a remarkable absence of references to general philosophical theories of rights and dignity in the debate about the Ashley treatment. Consequently, this argument against the treatment is not sufficiently developed. I clarify how such an argument should proceed. Such a detailed analysis of arguments is necessary to clear up some confusions and ambiguities in the debate and to shed light on the dilemma that caretakers of severely disabled children face.