| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Cutas, Daniela, 1978, et al.
(författare)
-
Legal imperialism in the regulation of stem cell research and therapy: the problem of extraterritorial jurisdiction
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Capps BJ & Campbell AV (eds.). CONTESTED CELLS: Global Perspectives on the Stem Cell Debate. - London : Imperial College Press. - 9781848164376 ; , s. 95-119
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Countries worldwide have very different national regulations on human embryonic stem (ES) cell research, informed by a range of ethical values. Some countries find reason to extend the applicability of their regulations on such research to its citizens when they visit other countries. Extraterritorial jurisdiction has recently been identified as a potential challenge towards global regulation of ES cell research. This chapter explores the implications and impact of extraterritorial jurisdiction and global regulation of ES cell research on researchers, clinicians and national health systems, and how this may affect patients. The authors argue that it would make ethical sense for ES cell restrictive countries to extend its regulations on ES cell research beyond its borders, because, if these countries really consider embryo destruction to be objectionable on the basis on the status of the embryo, then they ought to count it morally on par with murder (and thus have a moral imperative to protect embryos from the actions of its own citizens). However, doing so could lead to a legal situation that would result in substantial harm to central values in areas besides research, such as health care, the job market, basic freedom of movement, and strategic international finance and politics. Thus, it seems that restrictive extraterritorial jurisdiction in respect to ES cell research would be deeply problematic, given that the ethical permissibility of ES cell research is characterised by deep and wide disagreement.
|
|
| 3. |
- Johnsson, Linus, 1978-
(författare)
-
Trust in Biobank Research : Meaning and Moral Significance
- 2013
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- What role should trust have in biobank research? Is it a scarce resource to be cultivated, or does its moral significance lie elsewhere? How does it relate to the researcher’s individual responsibility?In this thesis I draw four general conclusions. First, trust is still very much present in at least some biobanking settings, notably in Sweden, but possibly also internationally. Second, a morally relevant conception of trust entails that to be trustworthy, researchers must consider the normative expectations that people have of them, and renegotiate expectations that are mistaken. Third, this conception differs from “public trust” assessed through surveys. The main use of the latter is to legitimate policy, not to identify moral duties. Fourth, in spite of ethics review, guidelines and informed consent procedures, ethical issues will always arise during the course of a research project. Researchers can therefore never avoid their individual moral responsibility. Ensuring that one is adequately trusted is one step towards conducting morally acceptable research.Study I indicates that few Swedes refuse storage of samples in healthcare-associated biobanks and their use in research. Study II suggests that people are somewhat more willing to donate samples than surveys indicate, especially when approached face-to-face by health care personnel. Relationships of trust might thus be important in people’s decision-making. Study III investigates trust as a moral concept. The trustee is often in a unique position to determine what the other’s trust amounts to. When it is mistaken, the trustee has an obligation to counteract it, compensate for it, or renegotiate the expectations that cannot be met. In Study IV, I critique the feasibility of guaranteeing the trustworthiness of the research apparatus through formal measures such as ethics review and guidelines. Not only are there limitations of such measures to consider. They also risk blinding researchers to ethical issues that are not covered by the rules, fostering moral complacency, and alienating researchers to ethics.
|
|
| 4. |
- Lehrman, Anna, et al.
(författare)
-
Shaping our food – an overview of crop and livestock breeding
- 2014
-
Bok (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- You may not have thought about why tomatoes look the way they do, why our pets and farm animals are so calm and friendly, or how it is possible to get a watermelon without any seeds in it. Although the breeding of plants and livestock have shaped more or less everything we eat, few people know about the scientific achievements and the tedious work that results in the food we see on our plates every day. With this book we wish to give an overview of the background of domestication and breeding, from the beginning of farming more than 10,000 years ago to the molecular work of today. We present the basics of the structures and functions of genes, describe why and how different breeding methods are applied to crops and livestock, and give some insight into legislation surrounding the use of biotechnology in breeding in the EU and in Sweden. We also provide an overview of different products produced through genetic modification, a summary of the economic impact of such crops, and some ethical issues related to breeding in general and to genetic modification in particular.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Munthe, Christian, 1962
(författare)
-
Precautionary Principle
- 2013
-
Ingår i: International Encyclopedia of Ethics. - Chichester : Blackwell. - 9781444367072 ; , s. 4031-4039
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Following the statement in the United Nations' Rio Declaration of 1992 that countries should apply a “precautionary approach” in policymaking on environmental and technological issues, the notion of a precautionary principle (PP) has gained ground in worldwide policymaking and regulation, thus catching the interest of ethics scholars. Although seldom explained in much detail, and resulting in quite different policy results in different countries and areas (O'Riordan et al. 2001; Sandin 1999; Trouwborst 2002; Zander 2010), PP is generally understood as a norm urging or permitting policymakers to take preventive action in the face of unknown, uncertain, or probable dangers, motivated by the experience of how seemingly valuable and promising practices may lead to seriously adverse consequences in spite of lack of solid evidence to this effect (Sandin 1999). In ethics debate, this idea has been applied not only to matters regarding the large-scale introduction and use of technology (e.g., regarding energy production, transport and communication, nano- or biotechnology, and so on) (see Biotechnology; Nanotechnology, Ethics of) with possible ensuing impact on the natural environment connecting to the notion of sustainability (see Sustainability), but also, for example, to abortion (see Abortion), medical genetics, embryo experimentation (see Embryo Research), the treatment of animals (see Animal Experimentation), terrorism (see Terrorism), and general research ethics (see Research Ethics) (Munthe 2011). Many of these applications advocate strong conclusions in spite of the fact that PP or its normative justification have not been made very clear. At the same time, PP has been the subject of criticism, much of which boils down to three points: lack of clarity, lack of practicality, and/or ethical implausibility. Curiously, these critical points have often been made in conjunction, in spite of the fact that a clear sense of what PP means seems necessary for backing up the other two objections.
|
|
