| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
- Cutas, Daniela, 1978
(författare)
-
Postmenopausal motherhood reloaded
- 2012
-
Ingår i: MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory 2012.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- "Motherhood after the age of the menopause, facilitated by in vitro fertilisation technologies (IVF), has raised much controversy in the last decade. The achievement of pregnancy in postmenopausal women has so far involved donated oocytes. This was the case for several reasons. Firstly, technology did not allow the adequate preservation of oocytes. Secondly, postmenopausal women either lacked own viable oocytes, or the risks involved in using their own (aged) oocytes would have been too high. Some of the objections to allowing the use of the technology in such cases have been formulated in terms of the burden that donating oocytes imposes on the donors. Given that postmenopausal motherhood is a controversial achievement, involving (incrementally) higher risks at all levels (of miscarriage, of need for C-section, of parental loss too early in life), it is often argued that such uses of the technology and donor eggs should not be supported or allowed at all. Moreover, gamete donation does not provide women with “their own” children: and this may be seen as a shortcoming both by opponents of such uses, and by the prospective mothers themselves. Due to recent developments, however, oocytes can now be preserved, and it may become feasible to create oocytes from women’s genetic material. These two possibilities avoid the abovementioned two objections, and multiply the range of choices that prospective mothers after the age of the menopause may have in the future. In this presentation (and draft paper) I will be looking at these possibilities and what they mean for arguments in the area of the ethics and policy of postmenopausal motherhood."
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
- Cutas, Daniela, 1978
(författare)
-
Publication ethics: co-authorship and the vulnerable researcher
- 2012
-
Ingår i: 2012 Conference: Building and Sustaining Research Ethics Capacity in Low- and Middle- Income Countries.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- That there are problems in the co-authorship decision-making within research groups, and that the biomedical sciences feature prominently among the affected research areas, are well-known facts [1-19]. Co-authorship practices may include honorary, guest, or ghost authorship, as well as, more generally, co-authorship ranking on criteria other than merit. Moreover, some of the difficulties in the practice of co-authorship may be linked to shortcomings in the co-authorship criteria, where indeed explicit criteria exist at all: in the case of biomedical research, the relevant regulations are the “Vancouver rules”, to which most publishers adhere. Academic publishing is a very important part of research dissemination, not only for the progress of research itself, but also for society as a whole, as well as for individual researchers. In all scientific areas, publications are increasingly the most important merit in the competition for employment and funding. This status quo imposes a heavy burden on researchers to publish (“or perish”). Moreover, it increases the costs of any shortcomings or failures in the practice of authorship. Suspicions or violations of uniform co-authorship criteria diminish trust in science as well as the incentive for scientists to follow them. Cross-disciplinary research funding, as well as increasing internationalisation and migration of researchers are aggravating factors that increase the vulnerability of researchers subjected to the variety of practices across research units, disciplines, and geographical areas. Arguably, junior researchers are the most vulnerable parties in this process. It is therefore important that the practice of scientific co-authorship is transparent and just. In this presentation, I will look at some of the most sensitive areas of concern, implications for researchers (in particular for junior researchers), and possible solutions. My main expectation from this experience is to hopefully find partners for a collaborative project focused on the ethics of research co-authorship.
|
|
| 25. |
|
|
| 26. |
- Cutas, Daniela, 1978
(författare)
-
Sex is overrated : On the right to reproduce
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Research Seminar Series - Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation. ; June 12-14
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 27. |
|
|
| 28. |
|
|
| 29. |
|
|
| 30. |
- Cutas, Daniela, 1978
(författare)
-
The future of bioethics and the family
- 2010
-
Ingår i: The Future of European Bioethics. ; February 8-9, Manchester, UK
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
