Volume 4, Issue 1

In this paper, we are concerned with the ethical implications of the distinction between natural reproduction (via sexual intercourse) and reproduction that requires assistance (either medical or social). We argue that the current practice of enforcing regulations on the latter but not on the former means of reproduction is ethically unjustified. It is not defensible to tolerate parental ignorance or abuse in natural reproduction and subsequently in natural parenting, whilst submitting assisted reproduction and parenting to invasive scrutiny. Our proposal is to guarantee equal (ethical and legal) treatment to people engaging in either form of reproduction or parenting.

Transgenic technologies avails new ways that alter plants and animals to be better suited for applications in food, feed, and processing. The ability to express foreign genes and proteins opens the door to producing many commercially important industrial and pharmaceutical products. However, despite the promise of these technologies, there are many concerns about the environmental impact of genetically engineered (GE) food plants and how to contain them. Risk assessment and monitoring are vital for this industry: the regulatory agencies aimed to monitor the specific environment and public health hazards associated with GE food and organisms. In the United States, the FDA, USDA, and EPA are responsible for these regulations. Several agencies in other countries also monitor GE foods and frame guidelines for the safe application of recombinant genes in agro-industries. This article gives an overview on the tracking of GE DNA in foods and the general public's concerns about them. The role of regulatory agencies are also summarized in regulating GE products while ensuring the public health.

This paper is in two parts, both of which are concerned to explore the justificatory presuppositions and limits of the idea of a universal framework for bioethical judgments; a global bioethics. The first part takes up the issues of the meaning and justification of global bioethics. After distinguishing the different ways in which global bioethics may be understood, various strategies for justifying the project are described. It is argued that in the absence of an actual global consensus on the content of the framework, a procedure for establishing what that content should be is required. This requirement is explored by outlining the contributions of Hermeneutics and Critical Theory. This part of the paper concludes with the view that one central presupposition of the project of global bioethics is that there is, or could be, a global consensus about the general norms of reason and discourse that disagreements over the ethical content of the framework should observe. Part two of the paper aims to explore one aspect of the rational limit to global bioethics that is revealed by the interplay between it and the claims of collective identity that groups of people make. The paper concludes that because of its ‘existential connotations' identity may be resistant to rational scrutiny, which paradoxically may not be irrational. Those for whom the ‘language of identity' gives way to the ‘language of interests' may well be able to engage in compromise and negotiation towards consensus on ethical principles and values.

This paper presents the principal findings from a three-year research project funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) on ethics of human enhancement technologies. To help untangle this ongoing debate, we have organized the discussion as a list of questions and answers, starting with background issues and moving to specific concerns, including: freedom & autonomy, health & safety, fairness & equity, societal disruption, and human dignity. Each question-and-answer pair is largely self-contained, allowing the reader to skip to those issues of interest without affecting continuity.

The growing threat of the misuse of science and technology for terrorist or criminal purposes has led scientists, institutions, professional organizations, funding agencies, journals, and governments to consider how best to control research that can be readily used to cause significant harm to public health, the economy, the environment, or national security, also known as dual use research. This commentary argues that scientists can regulate dual use research, provided that they are committed to developing effective dual use policies and a culture of shared responsibility.