Tag: human dignity

Uncategorized

Material as opposed to what? Three recent ethnographies of welfare, biological labor, and human dignity by Leo Coleman

Catherine Fennell. Last Project Standing: Civics and Sympathy in Post-Welfare Chicago. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2015.

Kalinda Vora. Life Support: Biocapital and the New History of Outsourced Labor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2015.

Gaymon Bennett. Technicians of Human Dignity: Bodies, Souls, and the Making of Human Dignity. New York: Fordham University Press, 2016

A new materialist studying housing projects, a feminist-Marxist postcolonialist, and a Foucauldian bioethicist—what do they have in common? This sounds like the start of a very bad academic joke. But a great deal of cultural anthropological research has in fact been motivated and disciplined—made readable as part of a common project—over the past fifteen or twenty years by such oddly overlapping interests in materiality or materialisms of diverse stripes, on the one hand, and reasoning about biology and the biological constitution of the human, on the other. Drawing on usefully heterogeneous philosophical and social-scientific currents, the discipline has turned to examine the physical effectiveness of things, networks, or infrastructures in shaping populations, and the medical and technical regulation of the biological life of these populations. World-spanning (and world-making) institutions and infrastructures have been opened to ethnographic investigation under the rubrics of technopolitics and biopower. This was no mere scholarly “turn” but was impelled by real forces that included an intense medical and institutional recrafting of humanity itself as a global biological reality (Rees 2014), and the disparate impact of novel machines, techniques, and infrastructures that worked to disaggregate governance, individualize the political subject and materially support new authority for corporate and private actors (e.g.,

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

Ethical reflection on the latest biomedical experiments by Juan Carlos Izpisua and his group

Juan Carlos Izpisua biomedical experiments. They present serious ethical problems primarily because some of them use human embryonic stem cells

pdfOver the last few days, some of the biomedical experiments conducted by Juan Carlos Izpisua and his group — in which researchers from several Spanish universities take part — have been widely reported by various media.

Let us say at the outset that we see no need to highlight the biomedical importance of these experiments (some of which we would dare describe as spectacular), as this has already been abundantly emphasised by the media. Quite another matter is the possibility of being able to use what they have achieved in human medicine, which could take several years.

The bioethical aspects of these experiments have scarcely been addressed, however, and we believe they merit consideration.

Before we go any further, and in order to structure this report, the experiments by Izpisua to which we are referring should be divided into three groups. Concisely (although we will refer to this in more detail below) they are: a) to create quasi-human organs in animals, to be ultimately used for clinical transplants; b) to modify the CRISPR technique that offers so many biomedical possibilities, to make it more efficient, and c) to apply cell reprogramming “in vivo”, to try to rejuvenate a group of experimental animals.

  1. To create quasi-human organs in animals.

chimeraThese experiments were first reported in an article published in Nature in May 2015. They essentially consist in injecting human embryonic stem cells into mice so that they can generate quasi-human organs, since the human cells injected into the animal will produce organs with a genome that is very close to the human one.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

Ethical reflection on the latest biomedical experiments by Juan Carlos Izpisua and his group

Juan Carlos Izpisua biomedical experiments. They present serious ethical problems primarily because some of them use human embryonic stem cells

pdfOver the last few days, some of the biomedical experiments conducted by Juan Carlos Izpisua and his group — in which researchers from several Spanish universities take part — have been widely reported by various media.

Let us say at the outset that we see no need to highlight the biomedical importance of these experiments (some of which we would dare describe as spectacular), as this has already been abundantly emphasised by the media. Quite another matter is the possibility of being able to use what they have achieved in human medicine, which could take several years.

The bioethical aspects of these experiments have scarcely been addressed, however, and we believe they merit consideration.

Before we go any further, and in order to structure this report, the experiments by Izpisua to which we are referring should be divided into three groups. Concisely (although we will refer to this in more detail below) they are: a) to create quasi-human organs in animals, to be ultimately used for clinical transplants; b) to modify the CRISPR technique that offers so many biomedical possibilities, to make it more efficient, and c) to apply cell reprogramming “in vivo”, to try to rejuvenate a group of experimental animals.

  1. To create quasi-human organs in animals.

chimeraThese experiments were first reported in an article published in Nature in May 2015. They essentially consist in injecting human embryonic stem cells into mice so that they can generate quasi-human organs, since the human cells injected into the animal will produce organs with a genome that is very close to the human one.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

Greek Island Refugee Camp a Place without ‘Human Dignity’: U.S. Doctor

January 16, 2017

(Reuters) – A camp on the Greek island of Lesbos housing more than 2,500 migrants denies people the most basic human dignity in bitterly cold winter weather, a doctor working at the camp said. Diane Sampson, an American paediatrician, said she had treated desperate patients at the Moria camp suffering from frostbite, shivering with cold and drenched by snow and rain that had washed through the flimsy tents they are staying in.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

The inconsistency of many who reject human dignity

I just finished reading Richard Weikart’s new book, The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life. Weikart is a professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus and has presented several papers at CBHD summer conferences. His latest book looks at how western culture has lost an understanding of the concept of human dignity and the value of human life. He details the historical… // Read More »

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

Xenobiology and environment

PDF-logoSynthetic biology and xenobiology could be great tools for improving the environment, but there must be a balance in which the pursuit of benefits for humans is combined with respect for nature and its laws.

On 15th May 2015, Pope Francis published his encyclical Laudato si, in which he gave his views on the problem of environmental pollution that is devastating our planet, and how it affects not only nature, but ourselves, especially the most disadvantaged.

The problem of pollution, over-exploitation of resources and the global warming caused by these is being studied from different perspectives. One of these is the drive for research into new methods that can help us to obtain clean energy that will allow us to continue our development, obtain more resources for food and industry without depleting the planet, and methods for decontamination and repair of damaged ecosystems. Xenobiology could have a huge impact on all these projects in the future.

Xenobiology is a young discipline within synthetic biology that is at the forefront of some of the proposed projects. Xenobiology aims to add letters to the natural genetic alphabet to be able to obtain new words, and to write a story different the one told to us by nature. In the words of Floyd E. Romesberg, one of the principal investigators in the expansion of the genetic alphabet: “If you’re given more letters, you can invent new words, you can find new ways to use those words and you can probably tell more interesting stories” (Callaway, 2014).

A transformation of biology such as that envisaged by xenobiology still presents risks and certain ethical questions, but at the same time, it represents a new way to overcome our environmental problems.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

The ‘P’ Word: Hospital Ethics Committees and Palestinian National Identity by Guy Shalev

Anthropologists like to tell their stories of ‘entering the field,’ whether they are left alone on a tropical beach as their dinghy sails away (Malinowski 1922) or run away from the police into a local’s courtyard (Geertz 1973). These stories are often told to show us, their readers, the distance anthropologists must travel from their own worlds into those of their research subjects. If stories traditionally fall within the thriller or adventure genres, my own is rather more Kafkaesque. And much like the stories from The Trial and The Castle, it is more about the system in which my interlocutors and I live than our own personal stories.

It took me more than six months to get my research with Palestinian physicians approved in two large Israeli hospitals. In a third hospital my access was denied. My ‘entry story’ is thus about my repeated attempts to obtain the approval of three Helsinki Committees (HCs, Israeli hospitals’ research ethics committees) to conduct ethnographic research with Palestinian physicians in Israeli public hospitals. While my research was eventually approved in two of these institutions, correspondence with HC representatives, as well as evidence of their informal moves with institutions’ management, reflect their perceptions of the risk my study posed.

I had already passed the University of North Carolina’s meticulous ethical approval process, and so the very different response of Israeli committees left me bewildered. Had the UNC’s committee overlooked important risks? In fact, the discrepancies between these committees calls into question the very idea of a universal ethical code of research conduct, as the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki aimed to establish.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

Dangers of an Unscientific Policy Process: Why the UK

Several researchers around the world have now turned the CRISPR genome editing craze towards human embryos, reigniting questions around the feasibility, legality, and morality of creating genetically modified humans. Some have suggested that we look for guidance to the United Kingdom’s policy process for “mitochondrial replacement,” also known as “three-person IVF,” which culminated in the world’s first legalization of a procedure that is technically a form of heritable human genetic modification in 2015.

How did the UK come to enable techniques that arguably contradict a policy in force throughout Europe for more than 15 years?

Having followed the process for several years, I would argue that we can learn a great deal from its history, but more specifically in what not to do moving forward in the CRISPR policy debate. In this blog, I will try to explain why.

I am a UK citizen who generally respects Britain’s regulatory models. However, I believe this process failed to live up to its self-image of openness and transparency. The experience taught me that science and technology hold such ingrained cultural and economic capital that people often hear any concern raised – even when it comes from other scientists – as “anti-science” or “anti-technology.” Moreover, it taught me that simple stories can become so compelling and satisfying that they do not bend, even in the presence of critical new information.

In this case, a consequential law was altered on the basis of a group of scientific methods whose human health and safety consequences have not been vetted, and could end up harming those they were designed to help.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

We goofed. Sorry

We goofed. Sorry

We goofed and we’re eating humble pie. Wednesday, October 19, was World Bioethics Day. I’m afraid that it passed unnoticed at BioEdge, perhaps because every day is World Bioethics Day here. But was also the first time it was celebrated, so we shall be better prepared next year.

However, it appears that very few people were popping champagne bottles in the UK and US even though they must have the larges number of bioethicists. No events were planned in the United Kingdom, only one in the US, and 29 in India. World-wide, there were events in 55 countries, most on the theme of the Day, “human dignity and human rights”. 

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Uncategorized

World Bioethics Day: Human Dignity and Human Rights

World Bioethics Day: Human Dignity and Human Rights

The first World Bioethics Day, sponsored by the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics, is taking place on October 19. This year’s theme of Human Dignity and Human Rights will be celebrated in 55 countries worldwide (see here for a list of participating countries and here for a list of planned events).

While most countries are hosting one or two World Bioethics Day events, India has planned a whopping 29. The only event scheduled in the United States is at Indiana University Northwest, which will include presentations on bioethics and human rights and a screening of “No Más Bebés,” a documentary about Mexican-American women who were coercively sterilized at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center in the 1960s and 1970s. (Filmmakers Virginia Espino and Renee Tajima-Peña joined CGS on the UC Berkeley campus in 2016 to screen the film as a part of the Being Human in a Biotech Age series. They were also interviewed for the CGS online series Talking Biopolitics by eugenics scholar and CGS advisory board member Alexandra Minna Stern, see here and on YouTube.)

Human dignity and human rights, in addition to being the theme of this first annual World Bioethics Day celebration, form the primary framework of most of the international and national legislation worldwide that prohibits inheritable genetic modification, also known as human germline modification. The most notable among these is the Council of Europe’s 1997 Convention on Biomedicine and Human Rights (see here for a global list of national legislation banning inheritable genetic modification).

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.