The world today is facing unprecedented challenges of governance far beyond what the United Nations, established more than 70 years ago, was designed to face. The grave effects of global climate change are already manifesting themselves, requiring rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society if we are to arrest catastrophic and probably irreversible consequences. Science has uncovered the frightening and rapid collapse in global biodiversity, threatening ecosystems across the planet that maintain the correct functioning of the biosphere, (...) upon which we rely for survival. But there is more; there are other global catastrophic risks. We live in a world in which a diminished faith in our political leaders and governmental structures, public disillusionment with partisan politics and a willingness to believe populist promises, disturbing trends in income inequality, human rights violations and the spread of corruption have coincided with the rise of autocratic leaders, often intent on awakening the voices of nationalisms which have been so destructive during the 20th century. The rejection by some nations of the benefits of multilaterism and international cooperation, which have been at the center of the postwar global order, has heightened the risks of fundamental instabilities that could precipitate a range of major crises, disregarding the lessons of the past. (shrink)

Mechanisms in a theory are defined here as bits of theory about entities at a different level (e.g., individuals) than the main entities being theorized about (e.g., groups), which serve to make the higher-level theory more supple, more accurate, or more general. The criterion for whether it is worthwhile to theorize at lower levels is whether it makes the theory at the higher levels better, not whether lower-level theorizing is philosophically necessary. The higher-level theory can be made better by mechanisms (...) known to be inadequate in the discipline dealing with the lower level. Conditions for the usefulness of lower-level theorizing are proposed, with many examples from various social and physical sciences. (shrink)

In the space at my disposal I cannot attempt to deal with all the points which arise in the Second Part of the dialogue, and I therefore confine myself to a few which seem to be of special interest and importance. I hope it may be possible to deal more exhaustively with the dialogue in a fuller commentary. As in the previous part of the article, I have assumed the results of my study of the Sophist already referred to.

The recent review by Monrad1 presents several issues about secondary vaccine trials. It lays out the case in which a vaccine has been tested through phases I–III and is being deployed. Subsequently, consideration is being given to conducting ‘trials for another vaccine for the pathogen’. Monrad states: ‘In summary, we may say that researchers have strong prima facie reasons not to conduct a secondary vaccine trial.’ Monrad discusses several factors meriting careful consideration about the need for developing and testing more (...) than one vaccine: relative efficacy, length of immunity, adverse reactions, ease of storage and administration, economic and logistical factors. What is not addressed are the ethical duties that exist when there are competing phase III vaccine candidates for COVID-19. We have serious concerns about potential ethical inadequacies about these ongoing trials and …. (shrink)

There has been a great deal of discussion, in this journal and others, about obstacles hindering the evolution of the philosophy of medicine. Such discussions presuppose that there is widespread agreement about what it is that constitutes the philosophy of medicine.Despite the fact that there is, and has been for decades, a great deal of literature, teaching and professional activity carried out explicitly in the name of the philosophy of medicine, this is not enough to establish that consensus exists as (...) to the definition of the field. And even if consensus can be obtained as to what constitutes the philosophy of medicine, this does not mean that it exists as a field. (shrink)

Experts discuss the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of genetic testing in determining eligibility for life insurance. Insurance companies routinely use an individual's medical history and family medical history in determining eligibility for life insurance; this is part of the process of medical underwriting. Insurers have also long used genetic information, often derived from family history, in underwriting. But rapid advances in gene identification and genetic testing are changing the way we look at genetic information. Should the (...) results of genetic testing (which might identify a predisposition toward disease not related to medical history) be available to life insurance medical underwriters? Few if any life insurers currently require genetic testing, but there are no laws or regulations prohibiting its use. Genetics and Life Insurance examines the complex economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of genetic information in life insurance underwriting. The contributors are legal scholars, representatives of the life insurance industry (including an actuary and an insurance physician), a geneticist, a genetic counselor, a philosopher, and a consumer advocate. They explore all aspects of an issue that has only recently drawn the attention of policymakers and the public. The book opens with a report on the results of a public opinion poll on genetics and life insurance. Succeeding chapters present the insurer perspective, a discussion of the economics of risk selection in life insurance, background information on the process of underwriting, a scientific analysis of genetic risks and mortality rates, a philosophical discussion of fairness and genetic underwriting, the viewpoints of consumers and genetics counselors, a comparison of different international policy approaches to the issue, and a legal analysis of antitrust implications when insurers collaborate in setting standards for medical underwriting. In the final chapter the editor addresses various policy options, examining the pros and cons of each one and assessing their political feasibility. (shrink)

Years ago, one of us had the opportunity to talk with a starting guard in the National Basketball Association about his health care. The player, then a rookie, did not have his own personal doctor. Instead, he received his health care from the team doctor. This athlete was very well paid and could have received care anywhere he wished in the area. But he came from a very poor neighborhood. Growing up, he said, he had no health care other than (...) hearing and eye tests done at his school and maybe vaccinations given by the school nurse. The player said he now felt fine and trusted his team to look out for his health since they were paying him a lot of money and obviously wanted him on the court. While it might seem obvious that conflicts of role could arise for doctors working simultaneously for a team and for an athlete—wanting to please coaches, owners, and maybe fans while looking out for the athletes on the team—that is not how this young player saw things. He trusted his team and those who worked for them, and he figured that their interest in keeping him healthy overlapped nicely with his interest in staying healthy. As someone who did not get much access to health care as a child and had little need for it, he did not have concerns about conflicts of interest and second opinions foremost in his mind. But as is clear from a recent scandal involving the National Football League and concussion research, there are reasons for concern when athletes deal with health care workers paid by their teams. (shrink)

If scientists can successfully clone sheep, will humans be next? Today's headlines read like a science fiction novel! Due Consideration takes a poignant look at the rapidly changing field of biomedicine and the consequences it will have on our lives. Arthur Caplan, one of this nation's leading bioethicists, explores these issues and analyzes moral questions including: * Will we retain our essential humanity if we modify our biological blueprint? * Would it be irresponsible to procreate without a thorough genetic (...) examination? * Who will decide if physical traits like short stature and baldness are considered diseases? * Can biomedicine make our lives better? You'll also learn about the most current and controversial topics such as: * Cloning, abortion and assisted suicide. * Genetically engineering a human to be immune from infectious diseases. * The ability to "design" our children from head to toe. * Diagnosing and treating illnesses during fetal development. * Programs to prevent the transmission of HIV. No other book on the market today combines this analytic clarity with the latest from medical journals and media headlines. Now, you can decide for yourself what the future ought to hold in store. (shrink)

The transplant community has quietly initiated efforts to expand the current pool of cadaver organ donors to include those who are dead by cardiac criteria but cannot be pronounced dead using brain-based criteria. There are many reasons for concern about "policy creep" regarding who is defined as a potential organ donor. These reasons include loss of trust in the transplant community because of confusion over the protocols to be used, blurring the line between life and death, stress on family members, (...) and burdens imposed on health care providers when a long-standing policy regarding who can serve as a cadaver organ donor is unilaterally changed. While these concerns are not sufficient reason for abandoning efforts to broaden existing eligibility standards for cadaver donation, they are sufficient reasons for the transplant community to desist in changing existing standards without widespread professional and public discussion. (shrink)

The contributions that the philosophy of medicine can make to both the philosophy of science and the practice of science have been obscured in recent years by an overemphasis on personalities rather than critical themes. Two themes have dominated general discussion within contemporary philosophy of science: methodological essentialism and dynamic gradualism. These themes are defined and considered in light of Kenneth Schaffner's argument that theories in biomedicine have a structure and logic unlike that found in theories of the natural sciences. (...) Schaffner's arguments are suggestive but not definitive as a refutation of methodological essentialism. I argue that a primary reason for differences in the logic and structure of theories in biomedicine is not, as some philosophers have suggested, a product of ontological differences, but rather a product of the practical and pragmatic concerns of scientific theorizing in many areas of science, such as medicine. Keywords: philosophy of medicine, philosophy of science, logic of medicine, medical theory, methodological essentialism, dynamic gradualism CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

Biomedical science suffered a loss of trust during the Covid‐19 pandemic. Why? One reason is a crisis fueled by confusion over the epistemology of science. Attacks on biomedical expertise rest on a mistaken view of what the justification is for crediting scientific information. The ideas that science is characterized by universal agreement and that any evolution or change of beliefs about facts and theories undermines trustworthiness in science are simply false. Biomedical science is trustworthy precisely because it is fallible, admits (...) error, adjusts to new information, and, most importantly, is practical. Successful diagnosis and cure demarcate the boundaries of warranted knowledge. The other reason is sociological. As the pandemic made all too clear, the loss of faith in scientific experts was due to the failure of most of them to engage in regular public dialogue, reflecting a failure to recognize the obligation that science has to bolster trust in its work and findings by concerted public engagement. (shrink)

Patients have received experimental pharmaceuticals outside of clinical trials for decades. There are no industry-wide best practices, and many companies that have granted compassionate use, or ‘preapproval’, access to their investigational products have done so without fanfare and without divulging the process or grounds on which decisions were made. The number of compassionate use requests has increased over time. Driving the demand are new treatments for serious unmet medical needs; patient advocacy groups pressing for access to emerging treatments; internet platforms (...) enabling broad awareness of compelling cases or novel drugs and a lack of trust among some that the pharmaceutical industry and/or the FDA have patients’ best interests in mind. High-profile cases in the media have highlighted the gap between patient expectations for compassionate use and company utilisation of fair processes to adjudicate requests. With many pharmaceutical manufacturers, patient groups, healthcare providers and policy analysts unhappy with the inequities of the status quo, fairer and more ethical management of compassionate use requests was needed. This paper reports on a novel collaboration between a pharmaceutical company and an academic medical ethics department that led to the formation of the Compassionate Use Advisory Committee. Comprising medical experts, bioethicists and patient representatives, CompAC established an ethical framework for the allocation of a scarce investigational oncology agent to single patients requesting non-trial access. This is the first account of how the committee was formed and how it built an ethical framework and put it into practice. (shrink)

Minnesota's recently enacted HealthRight legislation places the state at the forefront of American health reform. How did the state manage to overcome the policy gridlock in evidence in other states and at the national level? And how well does the legislation fare under close ethical scrutiny? Among the most important factors that permitted Minnesota to enact reforms were the explicit linkage in the legislative debate of the goal of cost containment to the desire to expand access, the public perception that (...) HealthRight is incremental and consistent with earlier reform efforts in Minnesota, and the lengthy public debate that preceded the enactment of HealthRight. Although it endeavors to create a fair and efficient health care system, it is not at all certain that HealthRight, in its present form, will achieve these normative goals. (shrink)

Myxobacteria are social organisms that usually remain together even though they are not chemically attached to each other. They cooperatively feed and form aggregates and fruiting bodies. Their mode of movement, the forces and mechanisms that allow movement, the factors that keep them together, and the processes leading to the structures composed of many cells are only now beginning to be understood. Possibilities that may be key to their abilities are three models proposed elsewhere for different aspects of their biology. (...) One hypothesis attempts to explain mound and fruiting body formation by assuming that the cells move in circular patterns around the major cell mass. The second explains gliding motility on the existence of shunts that periodically short out the proton gradient across the cell membrane, causing expansion and contraction of portions of the cell. The third model proposes that occasionally cells arise that move unidirectional instead of back and forth. These few cells may lead the majority of cells in new directions. BioEssays 20:1030–1038, 1998. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (shrink)