How strong is the argument for requiring public deliberation by very large publics—at national or even global levels—before moving forward with efforts to use gene editing on wild populations of plants or animals? Should there be a general moratorium on any such efforts until such broad public deliberation has been successfully carried out? This article works toward recommendations about the need for and general framing of broad public deliberation. It finds that broad public deliberation is highly desirable but not flatly (...) necessary before moving forward with any local cases of gene editing in the wild. It also finds that broad public deliberation would be most helpful in generating very general guidance and is unlikely to be appropriate for specific cases. Broad public deliberation is most helpful for cases that involve higher levels of uncertainty and moral ambiguity, but separating out a distinct class of cases for deliberation is not yet possible. (shrink)

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be (...) valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work. (shrink)

Should there be limits to the human alteration of the natural world? Through a study of debates about the environment, agricultural biotechnology, synthetic biology, and human enhancement, Gregory E. Kaebnick argues that such moral concerns about nature can be legitimate but are also complex, contestable, and politically limited.

Advancing neuroscience is one of many topics that pose a challenge often called “the alignment problem”—the challenge, that is, of assuring that science policy is responsive to and in some sense squares with the public's values. This issue of the Hastings Center Report launches a series of scholarly essays and articles on the ethical and social issues raised by this vast body of medical research and bench science. The series, which will run under the banner “Neuroscience and Society,” is supported (...) by the Dana Foundation and seeks to promote deliberative public engagement, broadly understood, about neuroscience. As a social goal, deliberative public engagement is both ubiquitous and elusive—called for everywhere yet difficult to undertake at a national level on a complex scientific topic. To be meaningful, deliberative public engagement must occur in many locations in a society and be carried forward by many actors. Scholarly writing might contribute in several ways. (shrink)

Much work in bioethics tries to sidestep bedrock questions about moral values. This is fine if we agree on our values; arguments about human enhancement suggest we do not. One bedrock question underlying these arguments concerns the role of emotion in morality: worries about enhancement are derided as emotional and thus irrational. In fact, both emotion and reason are integral to all moral judgment.

A majority opinion seems to have emerged in scholarly analysis of the assortment of technologies that have been given the label “synthetic biology.” According to this view, society should allow the technology to proceed and even provide it some financial support, while monitor­ing its progress and attempting to ensure that the development leads to good outcomes. The near‐consensus is captured by the U.S. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues in its report New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology (...) and Emerging Technologies, which arguably marked the end of a preliminary round of analysis about the ethical and policy questions raised by synthetic bi­ology. Like a number of other, earlier documents issued by various groups around the world, the re­port called attention to questions about how the technology will be used; whether it might be mis­used; what sorts of accidents might happen along the way; the economic, environmental, and social impacts of the eventual applications; whether the very idea of “synthetic biology” should be trou­bling; and how the debate over all of these ques­tions will be conducted. Also like most similar documents, however, while it called for careful monitoring and oversight of technology, it did not recommend any significant new constraints on its development and use. The commission's stance was that it would be “imprudent either to declare a moratorium on synthetic biology until all risks can be determined and mitigated, or to simply ‘let science rip,’ regardless of the likely risks.”In this report, we will take stock of the current consensus, comment on some of the major points of disagreement, and identify the next steps for the debate. In part I, we offer a brief overview of the research and applications commonly grouped together under the heading of synthetic biology, partly in order to set the stage for the rest of the discussion and partly because we want to highlight some conceptual problems that attend the very la­bel given this field. In parts II, III, and IV, we take up, respectively, three broad classes of concerns that arise in the context of synthetic biology: con­cerns about the intrinsic or inherent value of do­ing synthetic biology, concerns about the concrete harms and benefits of doing synthetic biology, and concerns about justice. Addressing these concerns requires a method for bringing the public's values to bear on policy‐making concerning emerging biotechnologies; in part V, we discuss the chal­lenges in developing such a method. (shrink)

Can we make wise policy decisions about still‐emerging technologies—decisions that are grounded in facts yet anticipate unknowns and promote the public's preferences and values? There is a widespread feeling that we should try. There also seems to be widespread agreement that the central element in wise decisions is the assessment of benefits and costs, understood as a process that consists, at least in part, in measuring, tallying, and comparing how different outcomes would affect the public interest. But how benefits and (...) costs are best weighed when making decisions about whether to move forward with an emerging technology is not clear. Many commentators feel that the weighing is often inadequate or inappropriate. Those who argue for a “precautionary” approach to the weighing do so precisely because they feel the need for a restraint on the dominant decision‐making tools and processes for assessing outcomes.This Hastings Center special report examines those tools and processes, taking the method known as cost‐benefit analysis as a starting point. In U.S. governance, CBA, sometimes informed by risk assessment, is the most widely used and extensively studied method, and authoritative reports on genetic and reproductive technologies often use language suggestive of cost‐benefit analysis. There is also a long‐running debate about the role of values in CBA and other formal impact assessment mechanisms—and about how those mechanisms compare to the precautionary principle. The guiding idea in the report is to engage in a close examination of the strengths and limits of CBA for ensuring that emerging technologies are used in ways that square with the public's values, drawing on applications of synthetic biology to illustrate and sharpen the analysis and then considering corrections to CBA and some alternative methodologies that handle values differently. (shrink)

The lead article in this January‐February 2021 issue—the first of the Hastings Center Report's fiftieth year of publication—does not set out to change medicine. It tries instead to understand it. In “A Heart without Life: Artificial Organs and the Lived Body,” Mary Jean Walker draws on work in phenomenology and on empirical research with people who have received artificial heart devices to argue that such devices may have two very different effects on how a patient experiences the body and the (...) self. Several other pieces in this issue address the ongoing slew of patient care and health policy problems surrounding the Covid‐19 pandemic, and a special report titled Democracy in Crisis: Civic Learning and the Reconstruction of Common Purpose considers the requirements for public involvement in policy‐making about bioethical issues. (shrink)

The lead article in the Hastings Center Report's November‐December 2020 issue reconsiders the rationale for requiring that patients have a prescription from a physician to obtain a drug. Madison Kilbride, Steve Joffe, and Holly Fernandez Lynch conclude that growing respect for patient autonomy should lead to a new default for drug access: drugs should be available over the counter unless there are special concerns about harms to third parties or about patients' ability to make decisions for themselves. This conclusion would (...) be a substantial reorientation of drug policy in the United States. Bioethics at a societal level is a theme in the second article, “The Social Risks of Science,” and throughout the issue. (shrink)

: A comparison of casuistry with the strain of particularism developed by John McDowell and David Wiggins suggests that casuistry is susceptible to two very different mistakes. First, as sometimes developed, casuistry tends toward an implausible rigidity and systematization of moral knowledge. Particularism offers a corrective to this error. Second, however, casuistry tends sometimes to present moral knowledge as insufficiently systematized: It often appears to hold that moral deliberation is merely a kind of perception. Such a perceptual model of deliberation (...) cannot offer a convincing account of the possibility of moral progress. This second problem is one to which particularism is itself prone. To redress it, other aspects of casuistry must be exploited: Casuistry contains an account of presumptive generalizations that explains how moral deliberation might be structured by rules while also depending at critical junctures on perception. (shrink)

A range of views on the morality of synthetic biology and its place in public policy and political discourse.

This essay introduces a special report from The Hastings Center entitled Democracy in Crisis: Civic Learning and the Reconstruction of Common Purpose, which grew out of a project supported by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. This multiauthored report offers wide‐ranging assessments of increasing polarization and partisanship in American government and politics, and it proposes constructive responses to this in the provision of objective information, institutional reforms in government and the electoral system, and a reexamination of cultural and (...) political values needed if democracy is to function well in a pluralistic and diverse society. The essays in the special report explore the norms of civic learning and institutions, social movements, and communal innovations that can revitalize civic learning in practice. This introductory essay defines and explains the notion of civic learning, which is a lynchpin connecting many of the essays in the report. Civic learning pertains to the ways in which citizens learn about collective social problems and make decisions about them that reflect the duties and responsibilities of citizenship. Such learning can occur in many social settings in everyday life, and it can also be facilitated through participation in the processes of democratic governance on many levels. Civic learning is not doctrinaire and is compatible with a range of public goals and policies. It is an activity that increases what might be called the democratic capability of a people. (shrink)

Two articles in the September–October 2022 issue of the Hastings Center Report discuss health‐related reasons that people might have to actively bring their lives to an end. In one, Brent Kious considers the situation of a person who, because of illness, becomes a burden on loved ones. A person in such a situation might prefer to die, and Kious argues that, while there is no obligation to hasten one's death, the choice to do so could sometimes be reasonable. In a (...) second article, Henri Wijsbek and Thomas Nys discuss a case in the Netherlands in which a woman with severe dementia was euthanized at a point when her advance euthanasia directive did not align with what she said, when asked, about death. Wijsbek and Nys defend the authority of her advance directive against a range of objections.In a third article, Henry Silverman and Patrick Odonkor, physicians at the University of Maryland Medical Center, where the first pig‐to‐human heart transplantation was performed in early 2022, develop recommendations for clinical trials of porcine heart transplantation. And an essay in the issue criticizes the allocation recommendations developed for Covid‐19 vaccines by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. (shrink)

Both articles in the November‐December 2021 issue of the Hastings Center Report reflect bioethics’ growing interest in questions of justice, or more generally, questions of how collective interests constrain individual interests. Hugh Desmond argues that human enhancement should be reconsidered in light of developments in the field of human evolution. Contemporary understandings in this area lead, he argues, to a new way of thinking about the ethics of enhancement—an approach that replaces personal autonomy with group benefit as the primary criterion (...) for deciding what enhancements are acceptable. In the second article, Johannes Kniess considers the many attempts within bioethics to draw on John Rawls's work to discuss health care access and social determinants of health, and he comes across as moderately optimistic that Rawls's theory of justice has ongoing relevance. (shrink)

Two articles in the March‐April 2021 issue of the Hastings Center Report consider alterations to traditional informed consent. In “The Consent Continuum: A New Model of Consent, Assent, and Nondissent for Primary Care,” Marc Tunzi and colleagues argue that, in primary care settings, patient consent should be understood as taking a range of forms depending on the procedure, the patient, and the patient‐care context. Traditional informed consent is at the ceremonious end; for many things done in these settings, the authors (...) assert, assent or even nondissent is fine. In the lead article, health policy scholars Stephanie Morain and Emily Largent consider another continuum for informed consent, this one occurring with pragmatic research, at the intersection of clinical care with research. (shrink)

I want caregivers who are solid, well-rounded, well-grounded people and who relate well to other people. That probably means they have a pretty good sense of humor. I would also expect any doctor with a sense of humor sometimes to find humor in some of the more difficult aspects of patient care, and even to make jokes about very serious things—about tragedies, poor prognoses, deaths. Humor can also be put to good use in human interactions—it’s not just something I’d expect (...) to see in normal, healthy human interactions; it can be an exceptionally powerful tool for moving a conversation forward, and for bringing people in the conversation together. But of course, it has to be used properly. I don’t want my doctor to .. (shrink)

The November–December issue of the Hastings Center Report features a set of essays on the ethics of writing stories of patient care. The Report regularly features such stories, but some ways of telling them would be plainly unacceptable, and some in bioethics have suggested that the bar for acceptability is very high. Tod Chambers takes that position in this essay set. Drawing on the work of the literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin, he proposes that case studies should be “polyphonic”—meaning that they (...) contain “a diversity of voices that are unmediated and distinct.” In effect, he calls for a kind of coauthoring of stories about patients. In a second essay, Arthur Frank also calls for including the patient’s voice, but he builds on Bakhtin’s call for “dialogic” storytelling, in which the author seeks to represent the characters in the story as having their own voices and their own lives: “they can talk back.” A third essay, by Philip Rosoff, is concerned about the problem of harm and patient anonymity, which in the contemporary media environment has become harder to address. (shrink)

This issue of the Report is bookended by two pieces that take contrasting although perhaps compatible positions on medical care for those in dire straits. At the end of the issue is an article that considers whether patients may be denied admission to intensive care units on grounds that they are too sick to benefit. We think of ICUs as reserved for the sickest of the sick, notes author Andrew Courtwright, but in fact, “too sick to benefit” is an increasingly (...) common reason given for not putting a patient in the ICU. Meanwhile, the first essay in the book tells the story of a man whose physician more or less told him he was too sick to benefit (under some understanding of the idea) and should opt for death. (shrink)

The emergence of de‐extinction is a study in technological optimism. What has already been accomplished in recovering ancient genomes, recreating them, and reproducing animals with engineered genomes is amazing but also has a long ways to go to achieve “de‐extinction” as most people would understand that term. Still, with some caveats in place, creating a functional replacement for an extinct species may sometimes be doable, and given the right goals, might sometimes make sense. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (...) guidelines for de‐extinction do a reasonable job of keeping the caveats in place and clarifying the goals. In fact, given the right caveats about what de‐extinction can accomplish, we should pay a lot of attention to the technology and should think carefully about the goals. Not only has the technology been advancing, but our environmental standards have been getting looser and more flexible, providing less guidance for implementing the technology. The guiding ideals for conservation are often explained as a choice between John Muir, founder of The Sierra Club, and Gifford Pinchot, who helped create the U.S. Forest Service. Muir argued for preserving some places in the world in their natural state because of their great value and beauty. Pinchot, by contrast, was bluntly utilitarian. He argued for trying to keep some natural places more or less undamaged so that we could use them later. There has long been dissatisfaction with this choice, and in the last couple of decades, a number of prominent voices have proposed a “gardening ethic” as a new standard that combines elements of Muir and Pinchot. A gardening ethic is supposed to both celebrate the land and declare that it must now be managed. But what would good gardening mean when it comes to de‐extinction? (shrink)

In the lead article in the May‐June 2019 issue of the Hastings Center Report, Aaron Wightman and coauthors consider the guiding principles for making decisions about life‐sustaining treatment for children who have profound cognitive impairments. They argue that the usual standard, which asks decision‐makers to consider what will be in the child's best interests, cannot provide sufficient guidance. Discussing this problem in HCR thirty‐five years ago, the philosopher John Arras proposed addressing it by means of a “relational potential standard,” according (...) to which decisions about providing life‐sustaining treatment to a child should depend in part on whether the child has the capacity to form human relationships. Wightman et al. build on Arras's work, but where Arras had suggested that the capacity to form relationships could be gauged by examining the child's cognitive capabilities, the authors suggest that the medical team should lean heavily on the parents’ views. (shrink)

I once heard John Arras, who was one of bioethics’ bright lights and, toward the end of his life, a member of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, remark that it is hard for an ethics commission not to “do paint‐by‐numbers ethics.” What I think Arras had in mind is an approach that, in the set of essays that make up this special report, Rebecca Dresser describes as a listing of “general, often relatively uncontroversial” moral positions to (...) support largely procedural recommendations. Arras was calling attention to one of the challenges and sometimes frustrations of commission thinking. It is a recurring topic in this special report, Goals and Practices of Public Bioethics, which features a series of reflections about how national bioethics commissions around the world have contributed to public understanding and public policy about bioethical issues. Both the topic and the authors are drawn from the final two public meetings of the PCSBI, which was the most recent U.S. example of a national bioethics commission and whose winding down created an occasion for pondering the different forms and functions of bioethics commissions. (shrink)

Much work in bioethics tries to sidestep bedrock questions about moral values. This is fine if we agree on our values; arguments about human enhancement suggest we do not. One bedrock question underlying these arguments concerns the role of emotion in morality: worries about enhancement are derided as emotional and thus irrational. In fact, both emotion and reason are integral to all moral judgment.

Bioethicists have sometimes regarded the opioid epidemic as a problem with obvious answers and thus no need for the field's conceptual analysis. Yet, as three essays in the July‐August 2020 issue of the Hastings Center Report demonstrate, the opioid crisis contains a knot of distinctions and puzzles to be sorted out. Travis N. Rieder examines, for example, what is fundamentally driving the crisis—access to the drugs or large societal problems such as poverty and joblessness. The role of choice in addiction, (...) the effects of moral condemnation on approaches to addiction, and what treatment should look like are among the puzzles Hanna Pickard explores, while Daniel S. Goldberg focuses on the common and harmful conflation of the public health problems of substance misuse and pain. These philosophical and bioethical questions point in widely different directions, lying both inside and outside bioethics. They point toward systemic societal factors that determine health and well‐being yet have seemed outside bioethics' largely clinical boundaries. And they point toward a deeper look at the very idea of autonomy—an examination of a topic clearly within bioethics yet occurring at the fringes of its usual constructs. (shrink)

The lead article in this, the September‐October 2020, issue of the Hastings Center Report considers the use of metaphors in communications with clinicians and patients.

This volume probes whether "nature" and "the natural" are capable of guiding moral deliberations in policy making.

In a 2015 Hastings Center Report essay, Robert Truog and his coauthors argued that the clinical ethics portion of medical education should cast both a wider and a finer net than is sometimes realized. Many of the morally important moments in patient care are missed if we teach only general moral principles, they held; we also need to give attention to an indefinite stream of “microethical” decisions in everyday clinical practice. In the current issue, Truog plays out a similar theme (...) as he discusses the moral significance of touching a patient and asks how artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies may change this ancient part of the physician‐patient relationship. And one of the articles in this issue examines the significance of clinicians’ relationships with other clinicians. Donna Chen and colleagues propose, in effect, that “teamwork” has become part of the ethics of everyday clinical practice—a new addition to what Larry Churchill and David Schenck called the “healing skills.”. (shrink)

For the last couple of years, The Hastings Center has been running a research project titled “The Ethical Issues of Synthetic Biology” (funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation) that is focused primarily on whether the prospect of altering microorganisms to meet human ends is intrinsically troubling. “Synthetic biology” is not necessarily limited to the alteration of microorganisms, but the applications now under development—such as yeast that produce a precursor of the antimalarial drug artemisinin or blue-green algae that produce fuel—are (...) certainly limited to that. A set of essays in this issue of the Report features a variety of different takes on the field. For the last six months of the project .. (shrink)

In May 2016, right around the time that this issue of the Hastings Center Report should be published, The Hastings Center is holding a conference in New York City titled “Bioethics Meets Moral Psychology.” The goal of the conference is to consider the lessons that bioethicists should learn from the raft of literature now accumulating on how the mental processes of perception, emotion, and thinking affect things that bioethicists care about, from the education of health care professionals to the conflicts (...) that arise in clinical care, the “culture wars” over bioethical policy issues, the status of different cultures’ value systems, and the very understanding of the values that are foundational in moral thinking. The articles in this issue simply provide more evidence that bioethics is meeting moral psychology. (shrink)

We are living in what is widely considered the sixth major extinction. Most ecologists believe that biodiversity is disappearing at an alarming rate, with up to 150 species going extinct per day according to scientists working with the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Part of the reason the loss signified by biological extinction feels painful is that it seems irremediable. These creatures are gone, and there's nothing to be done about it. In recent years, however, the possibility has been (...) broached that, just possibly, something can be done, in at least some cases. Human ingenuity, a contributing factor in the extinction crisis, might achieve their “de‐extinction”—in at least some cases, and with sometimes significant qualifications about whether the original species had been “recreated” and whether it could resume its original place in the environment. De‐extinction is an entry point into a larger set of questions about how biotechnological tools can support, coexist with, or undermine the goals of conservation and about the very meaning of conservation. Are we beings in control of the world or beings who prosper by accommodating ourselves to webs of symbiotic interdependencies? Are we creators or creatures, or both—and if both, then how can we achieve the balance between them that might be called humility? The interplay of perfecting and accommodating is not unique to human beings—perhaps it characterizes all forms of life on Earth—but with humans, these modes of being are distinctive, and our technology greatly expands their scale and effects. It is such questions that the ten essays in this special report explore. (shrink)

The November‐December 2018 issue of the Hastings Center Report celebrates two anniversaries. In a supplement to the issue, the fifty‐year‐old debate about what “dead” means—a debate launched in 1968 by the publication of the Harvard report on brain death—is dissected and reinvigorated in a set of essays assembled by Robert Truog, of Harvard Medical School's Center for Bioethics, and The Hastings Center's Nancy Berlinger, Rachel Zacharias, and Mildred Solomon. Inside the regular issue, a set of essays celebrates the two‐hundredth anniversary (...) of the publication of Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, the novel about death, dissection, and reinvigoration and a touchstone for much commentary about emerging biotechnologies. Elsewhere in the issue are contrasting perspectives on physician‐assisted death, and in the lead article, Danielle Wenner explores the requirement, often noted but recently challenged, that medical research must have “social value” to be worth conducting. (shrink)

A competent person can avoid the onset of dementia by refusing life‐sustaining medical care and by voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, bringing life to an end well before any health crisis. A competent person can also try to limit the duration of dementia by drafting an advance directive that sets bounds on the life‐sustaining care, including artificial nutrition and hydration, that medical caregivers can provide when the person no longer has the capacity to make her own medical decisions. But between (...) these two strategies there can lie a significant gap. A person could live with moderate to severe dementia for a considerable time, no longer able to voluntarily stop eating and drinking yet also not yet requiring the life‐sustaining care forbidden by advance directive.This gap has been much discussed in recent years in the Hastings Center Report. Several years ago (in the May‐June 2014 issue), Paul Menzel and M. Colette Chandler‐Cramer argued for what they described as a moderate correction to the dominant view that food and water should always be offered to a patient with dementia if the patient expresses a desire to eat and drink. The problem is taken up again by the legal scholar Norman L. Cantor in this issue (July‐August 2018), and Cantor, too, tries to find a moderate alternative. (shrink)

Concerns about the sacred—common in everyday moral thinking—have crept into bioethics in various forms. Further, given a certain view of the metaphysics of morals that is now widely endorsed in Western philosophy, there is in principle no reason that judgments about the sacred cannot be part of careful and reasoned moral deliberation.