diff --git a/_index.db b/_index.db index 81f646146..294c69938 100644 Binary files a/_index.db and b/_index.db differ diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_enhancement-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_enhancement-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f81044b6d --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_enhancement-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +--- +title: "Moral enhancement" +chunk: 1/3 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_enhancement" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:48.024842+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Moral enhancement (abbreviated ME), also called moral bioenhancement (abbreviated MBE), is the use of biomedical technology to morally improve individuals. MBE is a growing topic in neuroethics, a field developing the ethics of neuroscience as well as the neuroscience of ethics. After Thomas Douglas introduced the concept of MBE in 2008, its merits have been widely debated in academic bioethics literature. Since then, Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu have been among the most vocal MBE supporters. Much of the debate over MBE has focused on Persson and Savulescu's 2012 book in support of it, Unfit for the Future? The Need for Moral Enhancement. + +== Different kinds of moral enhancement == +Moral enhancement in general is sometimes distinguished from MBE specifically, such that ME includes any means of moral improvement while MBE only involves biomedical interventions. Some also distinguish invasive from non-invasive, intended from resultant, treatment-focused from enhancement-focused, capability-improving from behavior-improving, and passive from active ME interventions. Vojin Rakić has distinguished involuntary (such as for the unborn) from compulsory and voluntary MBE, claiming that compulsory MBE is not justifiable and proposing that "a combination of [voluntary MBE] and [involuntary MBE] might be the best option humans have to become better". Parker Crutchfield has argued in favor of covert and compulsory use of ME upon unsuspecting populations. Other thinkers have argued in favor of a partial or limited form of MBE such as 'indirect enhancement' or 'moral supplementation' while rejecting more comprehensive forms of MBE as undesirable or unachievable. + +== Arguments in favour == +The simplest argument for MBE is definitional: improving moral character is morally good, so all else being equal, any biomedical treatment that actually improves moral character does moral good. +Douglas originally suggested MBE as a counter-example to what he calls the "bioconservative thesis," which claims that human enhancement is immoral even if it is feasible. He argues that enhancements to improve someone’s moral motivations would at least be morally permissible. For example, he cites enhancements to reduce "counter-moral" racist and aggressive emotional reactions as morally permissible because they remove impediments to morality. +In 2009, Mark Alan Walker proposed a "Genetic Virtue Project" (GVP) to genetically enhance moral traits. Given that personality traits are heritable, and some traits are moral while others are immoral, he suggests increasing moral traits while reducing immoral ones through genetic engineering. + +=== Companions in innocence === +Walker argues for the GVP based on what he calls a ‘‘companions in innocence’’ strategy, which says that “any objection raised against the GVP has an analogue in socialization and educational efforts. Since such objections are not understood as decisive against nurturing attempts, they should not be considered decisive against the GVP.” In other words, any objection to MBE which also applies to traditional moral education has reduced itself to absurdity, because few would argue that teaching someone to be moral is inherently objectionable. +Several other MBE proponents have cited moral education as an example of socially accepted non-biomedical moral enhancement. For example, Douglas calls it “intuitively clear” that any given person has a reason to undergo moral self-enhancement by reducing counter-moral emotions through self-reflection. Douglas says that at least some of the intuitive reasons that anyone should become morally better through self-reflection, like increasing concern for others or good consequences, apply to voluntary MBE. + +=== Unfit for the Future === +Based on the fact that human technological progress has advanced faster than human moral psychology can adapt through evolution, Persson and Savulescu point out that humans' capability to cause large-scale destruction has increased exponentially. However, given that humans tend to care only about their immediate acquaintances and circumstances instead of thinking on a larger scale, they are vulnerable to tragedies of the commons like climate change and to technologies like nuclear weapons which may pose an existential threat to humanity. +Given that moral education and liberal democracy are insufficient, MBE is needed at least as a supplementary method to solve these problems. Persson and Savulescu's argument relies on the notion that it is much easier to cause great harm than it is to cause goodness to an equal extent. Because of the human population size there will inevitably be a fraction of humanity which is immoral enough to desire to inflict this great harm. Persson and Savulescu conclude that the intervention of extensive human moral enhancement is a necessary component to address this threat. + +== Criticism == +Central issues debated in literature about MBE include whether there is an urgent need for it, if a sufficient consensus on the definition of morality is achievable, technically feasible and ethically permissible interventions to carry out MBE, the ability to ensure no violation of consent in those interventions, and the ability to ensure no harmful social side-effects that they produce. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_enhancement-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_enhancement-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a050feaec --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_enhancement-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +--- +title: "Moral enhancement" +chunk: 2/3 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_enhancement" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:48.024842+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== The Freedom to Fall === +John Harris criticised moral enhancement on the grounds of 'The Freedom to Fall'. His principal argument is that moral enhancement is wrong because it restricts one's freedom to do wrong, making it impossible to act immorally, thus undermining their autonomy. Harris referred to Book III of Milton's Paradise Lost, in which Milton reported God saying, 'Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.' Harris believed that one should hang on to their freedom to fall. Without it, one is unable to discern right from wrong, taking away both freedom and virtue. Harris asserted that there is no virtue involved in performing activities that one is instructed to. +There are two further criticisms of moral enhancement. First, the distinction between right and wrong is highly context-dependent. For example, in the case of self-defense, harming another person can potentially be morally justifiable, as it might be the best compromise of welfare. Harris suggested that it is unclear whether MBE would be nuanced enough to take such situations into account. Second, he pointed out that there is an element of value judgement when one makes a choice between 'right' and 'wrong', and he said that people are entitled to willingly make the wrong choices. This would not be possible with MBE, which compromises this 'freedom to fall.' +Harris advocates science, innovation and knowledge — particularly in the form of education — as possible solutions to the possibility of mass destruction. Again, he refers to Milton, in particular the power of freedom and sense of justice installed within subjective selves. Most importantly, the roles of freedom and autonomy entails that one cannot have the sufficiency to stand without the freedom to fall. + +==== Replies ==== +Harris's "Freedom to Fall" has been widely criticized by MBE proponents, who have argued that MBE is benign to freedom and can sometimes increase freedom. Freely chosen moral enhancement is no threat to freedom, as described by Vojin Rakić. By reducing biases that impair moral judgement, Thomas Douglas argues, MBE can remove constraints on the ability to be moral. This does not take away anyone's freedom to be immoral. Instead, it simply grants them more freedom to be moral. Similarly, Persson and Savulescu point out that increasing someone's motivation to act rightly for the right reasons makes them no less free than "the garden-variety virtuous person" who already has that motivation. +Several MBE proponents have pointed out that Harris's "Freedom to Fall" assumes the controversial view that if someone's actions are fully determined by previous causes, then that person cannot act freely. If anyone can be free to act one way when they will certainly act another way, then MBE can cause moral improvement without taking away any valuable freedom. Most philosophers believe that free will is compatible with determinism in this way. If they are right, then MBE can improve moral behavior without affecting anyone's freedom. + +=== Sufficiency of non-biomedical methods === +Terri Murray disputes the claim by Persson and Savulescu that political will and moral education are insufficient to ensure that people will behave responsibly, claiming that Persson and Savulescu unjustly reify moral dispositions in biology. Murray argues that political and social pressure are sufficient to improve behavior, explaining that although certain Islamic countries state that women should be forced to wear the burka and stay indoors because men cannot control their sexual urges, this is shown to be false by men in Western countries, both Muslim or otherwise, exercising their ability to control their sexual urges. She explained that this is due to the deterrent effect of both laws and social pressure: + +"The truth is that there is a political will to treat women as equals in the West that is apparently absent from countries governed by Islamic law. What Savulescu and Persson do is to similarly treat the will not to be moral on a larger scale as though it were an inevitable and natural part of human biology rather than a political and cultural choice." + +=== Ethical basis of moral enhancement === +Since the nature of morality has historically caused wide disagreements, several authors have questioned whether it is possible to come up with a sufficiently widely accepted ethical basis for MBE, especially with respect to what qualities should be enhanced. Joao Fabiano argues that attempting to produce a full account of morality in order to enable moral enhancement would be "both impractical and arguably risky". Fabiano also suggests that "we seem to be far away from such an account" and notes that 'the inability for prior large-cooperation" plays a role in this. + +==== Replies ==== +Although there are a wide variety of disagreeing ethical systems, David DeGrazia argues, there are “points of overlapping consensus among competing, reasonable moral perspectives.” Traditional moral education generally teaches children to stay within that consensus. DeGrazia’s idea of this overlapping consensus includes disapproval of antisocial personality disorder, sadism, some kinds of moral cynicism, defective empathy, out-group prejudice, inability to face unpleasant realities, weak will, impulsivity, lack of nuance in moral understanding, and inability to compromise. Biomedically reducing these traits would, per DeGrazia’s reasoning, count as moral enhancement from these “reasonable moral perspectives.” \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_enhancement-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_enhancement-2.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7a6613493 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_enhancement-2.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +--- +title: "Moral enhancement" +chunk: 3/3 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_enhancement" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:48.024842+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Other issues === +MBE proponents have been accused of being too speculative, overstating the capabilities of future interventions and describing unrealistic scenarios like enhancing "all of humanity." One literature review assesses the evidence on seven interventions cited by MBE proponents, saying that none works well enough to be practically feasible. +Furthermore, there is some doubt that any drugs for moral enhancement will soon be introduced to the market. Nick Bostrom highlighted that the way medical research is conducted and drugs approved impedes the development of enhancement drugs. A drug must demonstrably treat a specific disease to be approved, Bostrom said, but the traits or behaviors targeted for MBE arguably cannot be viewed as diseases. Bostrom concludes that any drug that has an enhancing effect "in healthy subjects is a serendipitous unintended benefit". He suggests that the current disease-focused medical model needs to be changed, otherwise enhancement drugs could not be researched well and introduced to the market. Along with this feasibility objection, he notes that public funding for enhancement drugs research projects is currently very limited. +Other authors have suggested that unless MBE is based on an individual's choice, it cannot truly be called "moral" enhancement because personal choice is the basis of ethics. Murray argues that the idea that biological enhancement can make us morally good "undermines our understanding of moral goodness." She argues that MBE allows for "paternalistic interventions" from medical experts to "redirect the individual's behaviour to conform to their or society's 'best interests." +Ram-Tiktin suggests that if MBE is more effective for enhancing people that are already moral, then it could further the gap between moral and immoral people, exacerbating social inequality. Also, if MBE makes some people morally better, it could unfairly raise the moral standards for everyone else. +Fukuyama points out that, while the concept of being able to do away with negative emotions is appealing in theory, if we did not have the emotion of aggression then "we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves". + +== See also == +Key issues in neuroethics +Human enhancement +Cognitive enhancement +Transhumanism + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Core_for_Neuroethics-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Core_for_Neuroethics-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d0e048e8c --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Core_for_Neuroethics-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +--- +title: "National Core for Neuroethics" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Core_for_Neuroethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:49.190927+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The National Core for Neuroethics at the University of British Columbia was established in August 2007, with support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund, the Canada Research Chairs program, the UBC Brain Research Centre and the UBC Institute of Mental Health. Co-founded by Judy Illes and Peter Reiner, the Core studies neuroethics, with particular focus on ethics in neurodegenerative disease and regenerative medicine, international and cross-cultural challenges in brain research, neuroimaging and ethics, the neuroethics of enhancement, and personalized medicine. +The Core's major research projects are focused on the use of drugs and devices for neuroenhancement, ethics in neurodegenerative disease and regenerative medicine research, brain research, neuroimaging in the private sector, and the ethics of personalized medicine, among others. Members of the Core also lead initiatives aside from their research projects. +Considerable attention has been given to the Core by both the scholarly and non-academic media, with the Core featured in The New York Times, the Vancouver Sun, on the Canwest Global Newshour, and in the journal Science, amongst others. As an effort to engage the public in neuroethics discussion, the Core has recently started an online blog. + + +== Mission == +The National Core for Neuroethics strives to "tackle the ethical, legal, policy and social implications of frontier neuroscience through high impact research, education and outreach to ensure the close alignment of innovation and human values". + + +== People == +The Core is led by Judy Illes, PhD, Canada Research Chair in Neuroethics and Professor of Neurology at the University of British Columbia. +Peter Reiner, VMD, PhD, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of British Columbia, is a Senior Faculty Member with the Core. + + +== Funding == + +The Core receives financial support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Canada Foundation for Innovation, the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund, the Canada Research Chairs program, the UBC Brain Research Centre, the UBC Institute of Mental Health, the National Institutes of Health, the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, the British Columbia Rural and Remote Health Research Network, the Harvard NeuroDiscovery Center's Foundation for Ethics and Biotechnology, the North Growth Foundation, the Greenwall Foundation, the Stem Cell Network, the Dana Foundation, the Canadian Dementia Knowledge Translation Network, and Imperial Oil. + + +== Inauguration == +In September 2008, the Core celebrated its first anniversary with an inauguration celebration held at the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts at the University of British Columbia. In attendance were international dignitaries in the field of neuroethics, including Joseph Fins (Chief of the Division of Medical Ethics at Weill Cornell Medical College), Dr. Barbara Sahakian (Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology at the Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine), Eric Racine (Director, Neuroethics Research Unit, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal), and Dr. Rémi Quirion (Scientific Director, Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction (INMHA)). + + +== References == + + +== External links == +Neuroethics Research Centres + +National Core for Neuroethics +Neuroethics Imaging Group, Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics Archived 2012-12-09 at the Wayback Machine +Neuroethics Research Unit +NovelTechEthics +Neuroethics.upenn.edu +The Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania +Neuroethics blogs + +Neuroethics at the Core blog +Neuroethics and Law blog +BrainEthics blog +Neuroethics journals + +Neuroethics +The American Journal of Bioethics +The American Society for Bioethics and Humanities +Virtual Mentor Ethics Journal of the American Medical Association Theme Issue: Ethical Issues in Neuroscience +Neuroethics societies + +Cognitive Neuroscience Society +International Neuroethics Society (Website) +Neuroethics literature databases + +neuroethics.uni-mainz.de Portal for Neuroethics +National Core for Neuroethics at the University of British Columbia Publications Page +Neuroethics resources + +Bioethics Resources from the NIH +Neuroscience for Kids: Neuroethics +The President's Council on Bioethics \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-colonial_science-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-colonial_science-0.md index 9a4a6b690..7b4492db4 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-colonial_science-0.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-colonial_science-0.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/2 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-colonial_science" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:25:09.797369+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:46.813925+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-colonial_science-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-colonial_science-1.md index ad5980dd2..631e7fa18 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-colonial_science-1.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-colonial_science-1.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/2 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-colonial_science" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:25:09.797369+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:46.813925+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..344bed9c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +--- +title: "Neuroethics" +chunk: 1/8 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:50.583791+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +In philosophy and neuroscience, neuroethics is the study of both the ethics of neuroscience and the neuroscience of ethics. The ethics of neuroscience concerns the ethical, legal, and social impact of neuroscience, including the ways in which neurotechnology can be used to predict or alter human behavior and "the implications of our mechanistic understanding of brain function for society... integrating neuroscientific knowledge with ethical and social thought". +Some neuroethics problems are not fundamentally different from those encountered in bioethics. Others are unique to neuroethics because the brain, as the organ of the mind, has implications for broader philosophical problems, such as the nature of free will, moral responsibility, self-deception, and personal identity. Examples of neuroethics topics are given later in this article (see "Key issues in neuroethics" below). +The origin of the term "neuroethics" has occupied some writers. Rees and Rose (as cited in "References" on page 9) claim neuroethics is a neologism that emerged only at the beginning of the 21st century, largely through the oral and written communications of ethicists and philosophers. According to Racine (2010), the term was coined by the Harvard physician Anneliese A. Pontius in 1973 in a paper entitled "Neuro-ethics of 'walking' in the newborn" for the Perceptual and Motor Skills. The author reproposed the term in 1993 in her paper for Psychological Report, often wrongly mentioned as the first title containing the word "neuroethics". Before 1993, the American neurologist Ronald Cranford had used the term (see Cranford 1989). Illes (2003) records uses, from the scientific literature, from 1989 and 1991. Writer William Safire is widely credited with giving the word its current meaning in 2002, defining it as "the examination of what is right and wrong, good and bad about the treatment of, perfection of, or unwelcome invasion of and worrisome manipulation of the human brain". + +== Two categories of problems == +Neuroethics encompasses the myriad ways in which developments in basic and clinical neuroscience intersect with social and ethical issues. The field is so young that any attempt to define its scope and limits now will undoubtedly be proved wrong in the future, as neuroscience develops and its implications continue to be revealed. At present, however, we can discern two general categories of neuroethical issue: those emerging from what we can do and those emerging from what we know. +In the first category are the ethical problems raised by advances in functional neuroimaging, psychopharmacology, brain implants and brain-machine interfaces. In the second category are the ethical problems raised by our growing understanding of the neural bases of behavior, personality, consciousness, and states of spiritual transcendence. + +== Historical background and implications of neuroscience ethics == +Primitive societies for the most part lacked a system of neuroethics to guide them in facing the problems of mental illness and violence as civilization advanced. Trepanation led through a tortuous course to "psychosurgery". Basic neuroscience research and psychosurgery advanced in the first half of the 20th century in tandem, but neuroscience ethics was left behind science and technology. Medical ethics in modern societies even in democratic governments, not to mention in authoritarian ones, has not kept pace with the advances of technology despite the announced social "progress"; and ethics continues to lag behind science in dealing with the problem of mental illness in association with human violence. Unprovoked "pathological" aggression persists, reminding us daily that civilization is a step away from relapsing into barbarism. Neuroscience ethics (neuroethics) must keep up with advances in neuroscience research and remain separate from state-imposed mandates to face this challenge. +A recent writer on the history of psychosurgery as it relates to neuroethics concludes: "The lessons of history sagaciously reveal wherever the government has sought to alter medical ethics and enforce bureaucratic bioethics, the results have frequently vilified medical care and research. In the 20th century in both the communist USSR and Nazi Germany, medicine regressed after these authoritarian systems corrupted the ethics of the medical profession and forced it to descend to unprecedented barbarism. The Soviet psychiatrists' and Nazi doctors' dark descent into barbarism was a product of physicians willingly cooperating with the totalitarian state, purportedly in the name of the "collective good", at the expense of their individual patients." This must be kept in mind when establishing new guidelines in neuroscience research and bioethics. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..55a7b03c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +--- +title: "Neuroethics" +chunk: 2/8 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:50.583791+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +== Important activity since 2002 == +There is no doubt that people were thinking and writing about the ethical implications of neuroscience for many years before the field adopted the label "neuroethics", and some of this work remains of great relevance and value. However, the early 21st century saw a tremendous surge in interest concerning the ethics of neuroscience, as evidenced by numerous meetings, publications, and organizations dedicated to this topic. +In 2002, there were several meetings that drew together neuroscientists and ethicists to discuss neuroethics: the American Association for the Advancement of Science with the journal Neuron, the University of Pennsylvania, the Royal Society, Stanford University, and the Dana Foundation. This last meeting was the largest, and resulted in a book, Neuroethics: Mapping the Field, edited by Steven J. Marcus and published by Dana Press. That same year, the Economist ran a cover story entitled "Open Your Mind: The Ethics of Brain Science", Nature published the article "Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience". Further articles appeared on neuroethics in Nature Neuroscience, Neuron, and Brain and Cognition. +Thereafter, the number of neuroethics meetings, symposia, and publications continued to grow. The over 38,000 members of the Society for Neuroscience recognized the importance of neuroethics by inaugurating an annual "special lecture" on the topic, first given by Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science Magazine. Several overlapping networks of scientists and scholars began to coalesce around neuroethics-related projects and themes. For example, the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities established a Neuroethics Affinity Group, students at the London School of Economics established the Neuroscience and Society Network linking scholars from several different institutions, and a group of scientists and funders from around the world began discussing ways to support international collaboration in neuroethics through what came to be called the International Neuroethics Network. Stanford began publishing the monthly Stanford Neuroethics Newsletter, Penn developed the informational website neuroethics.upenn.edu, and the Neuroethics and Law Blog was launched. +Several relevant books were published during this time as well: Sandra Ackerman's Hard Science, Hard Choices: Facts, Ethics and Policies Guiding Brain Science Today (Dana Press), Michael Gazzaniga's The Ethical Brain (Dana Press), Judy Illes' edited volume, Neuroethics: Defining the Issues in Theory, Practice and Policy (both Oxford University Press), Dai Rees and Steven Rose's edited volume The New Brain Sciences: Perils and Prospects (Cambridge University Press) and Steven Rose's The Future of the Brain (Oxford University Press). +2006 marked the founding of the International Neuroethics Society (INS) (originally the Neuroethics Society), an international group of scholars, scientists, clinicians, and other professionals who share an interest in the social, legal, ethical and policy implications of advances in neuroscience. The mission of the International Neuroethics Society "is to promote the development and responsible application of neuroscience through interdisciplinary and international research, education, outreach and public engagement for the benefit of people of all nations, ethnicities, and cultures". The first president of the INS was Steven Hyman (2006–2014), succeeded by Barbara Sahakian (2014–2016). Judy Illes is the current president, who like Hyman and Sahakian, was also a pioneer in the field of neuroethics and a founder member of the INS. +Over the next several years many centers for neuroethics were established. A 2014 review of the field lists 31 centers and programs around the world; some of the longest-running include the Neuroethics Research Unit at the Institut de recherches cliniques de Montreal (IRCM), the National Core for Neuroethics at the University of British Columbia in 2007, the Center for Neurotechnology Studies of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, the Wellcome Centre for Neuroethics at the University of Oxford; and the Center for Neuroscience & Society at the University of Pennsylvania. +Since 2017, neuroethics working groups across multiple organizations have published a spate of reports and guiding principles. In 2017, the Global Neuroethics Summit Delegates prepared a set of ethical questions to guide research in brain science, published in Neuron. In December 2018, The Neuroethics Working Group of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative proposed incorporating Neuroethics Guiding Principles into the research advanced by the Initiative. In December 2019, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) confirmed a set of neuroethics principles and recommendations; now this interdisciplinary group is developing a toolkit for implementation, moving from the theoretical to the practical. In early 2020, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) developed a neuroethical framework to facilitate the development of guidelines for engineers working on new neurotechnologies. + +== Sources of information == +The books, articles and websites mentioned above are by no means a complete list of good neuroethics information sources. For example, readings and websites that focus on specific aspects of neuroethics, such as brain imaging or enhancement, are not included. Nor are more recent sources, such as Walter Glannon's book Bioethics and the Brain (Oxford University Press) and his reader, entitled Defining Right and Wrong in Brain Science (Dana Press). We should also here mention a book that was in many ways ahead of its time, Robert Blank's Brain Policy (published in 1999 by Georgetown University Press). The scholarly literature on neuroethics has grown so quickly that one cannot easily list all of the worthwhile articles, and several journals are now soliciting neuroethics submissions for publication, including the American Journal of Bioethics – Neuroscience, BioSocieties, the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, and Neuroethics. The web now has many sites, blogs, and portals offering information about neuroethics. A list can be found at the end of this entry. + +== Key issues == +Neuroethics encompasses a wide range of issues, which can only be sampled here. Some have close ties to traditional biomedical ethics, in that different versions of these issues can arise in connection with organ systems other than the brain. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-2.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b357fa32b --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-2.md @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +--- +title: "Neuroethics" +chunk: 3/8 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:50.583791+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Brain interventions === +The ethics of neurocognitive enhancement, that is the use of drugs and other brain interventions to make normal people "better than well", is an example of a neuroethical issue with both familiar and novel aspects. On the one hand, we can be informed by previous bioethical work on physical enhancements such as doping for strength in sports and the use of human growth hormone for normal boys of short stature. On the other hand, there are also some arguably novel ethical issues that arise in connection with brain enhancement, because these enhancements affect how people think and feel, thus raising the relatively new issues of "cognitive liberty". The growing role of psychopharmacology in everyday life raises a number of ethical issues, for example the influence of drug marketing on our conceptions of mental health and normalcy, and the increasingly malleable sense of personal identity that results from what Peter D. Kramer called "cosmetic psychopharmacology". +Transhumanist philosophers such as David Pearce and Mark Alan Walker have argued that advancements in neuroscience could eventually make it feasible to artificially eliminate all physical and psychological suffering and artificially induce states of perpetual bliss. Pearce has stated that: "It is predicted that the world's last unpleasant experience will be a precisely dateable event." Pearce argues that physical pain could be replaced with "gradients of bliss" that provide the same functionality of pain, e.g. avoiding injury, but without the suffering. Walker coined the term "biohappiness" to describe the idea of directly manipulating the biological roots of happiness in order to increase it. However, it is also possible that brain intervention technologies could also increase the possible hedonic range in the opposite direction, and make it feasible to create "hyperpain" or "dolorium" that involves experiencing levels of suffering beyond the human range. +Nonpharmacologic methods of altering brain function are currently enjoying a period of rapid development, with a resurgence of psychosurgery for the treatment of medication refractory mental illnesses and promising new therapies for neurological and psychiatric illnesses based on deep brain stimulation as well as relatively noninvasive transcranial stimulation methods. Research on brain-machine interfaces is primarily in a preclinical phase but promises to enable thought-based control of computers and robots by paralyzed patients. As the tragic history of frontal lobotomy reminds us, permanent alteration of the brain cannot be undertaken lightly. Although nonpharmacologic brain interventions are exclusively aimed at therapeutic goals, the US military sponsors research in this general area (and more specifically in the use of transcranial direct current stimulation) that is presumably aimed at enhancing the capabilities of soldiers. Philosopher and cognitive scientist William D. Casebeer has examined the ethical implications of applying neuroscience in military and security contexts, particularly in relation to neurocognitive enhancement and moral decision-making. + +=== Brain imaging === +In addition to the important issues of safety and incidental findings, mentioned above, some arise from the unprecedented and rapidly developing ability to correlate brain activation with psychological states and traits. One of the most widely discussed new applications of imaging is based on correlations between brain activity and intentional deception. Intentional deception can be thought of in the context of a lie detector. This means that scientists use brain imaging to look at certain parts of the brain during moments when a person is being deceptive. A number of different research groups have identified fMRI correlates of intentional deception in laboratory tasks, and despite the skepticism of many experts, the technique has already been commercialized. A more feasible application of brain imaging is "neuromarketing", whereby people's conscious or unconscious reaction to certain products can purportedly be measured. +Researchers are also finding brain imaging correlates of myriad psychological traits, including personality, intelligence, mental health vulnerabilities, attitudes toward particular ethnic groups, and predilection for violent crime. Unconscious racial attitudes may be manifest in brain activation. These capabilities of brain imaging, actual and potential, raise a number of ethical issues. The most obvious concern involves privacy. For example, employers, marketers, and the government all have a strong interest in knowing the abilities, personality, truthfulness and other mental contents of certain people. This raises the question of whether, when, and how to ensure the privacy of our own minds. Clinical neurology scholarship has emphasized that neural data are heterogeneous and that appropriate safeguards should depend on the source, sensitivity, context, and intended use of the data. +Another ethical problem is that brain scans are often viewed as more accurate and objective than in fact they are. Many layers of signal processing, statistical analysis and interpretation separate imaged brain activity from the psychological traits and states inferred from it. There is a danger that the public (including judges and juries, employers, insurers, etc.) will ignore these complexities and treat brain images as a kind of indisputable truth. +A related misconception is called neuro-realism: In its simplest form, this line of thought says that something is real because it can be measured with electronic equipment. A person who claims to have pain, or low libido, or unpleasant emotions is "really" sick if these symptoms are supported by a brain scan, and healthy or normal if correlates cannot be found in a brain scan. The case of phantom limbs demonstrate the inadequacy of this approach. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-3.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f05d98304 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-3.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +--- +title: "Neuroethics" +chunk: 4/8 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:50.583791+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Memory dampening === +While complete memory erasure is still an element of science-fiction, certain neurological drugs have been proven to dampen the strength and emotional association of a memory. Propranolol, an FDA-approved drug, has been suggested to effectively dull the painful effects of traumatic memories if taken within 6 hours after the event occurs. This has begun the discussion of ethical implications, assuming the technology for memory erasure will only improve. +Originally, propranolol was reserved for hypertension patients. However, doctors are permitted to use the drug for off-label purposes—leading to the question of whether they actually should. There are numerous reasons for skepticism; for one, it may prevent us from coming to terms with traumatic experiences, it may tamper with our identities and lead us to an artificial sense of happiness, demean the genuineness of human life, and/or encourage some to forget memories they are morally obligated to keep. Whether or not it is ethical to fully or partially erase the memory of a patient, it is certainly becoming a more relevant topic as this technology improves in our society. + +=== Ethics of brain organoids === + +==== Sentient organoids ==== + +==== Guidelines and legislation ==== + +==== Humanized animals ==== + +=== Ethics of cognitive wetware === + +=== Cognitive diversity === +The neurodiversity movement challenges traditional views of mental and neurological differences as purely deficits or disorders. Instead, it emphasizes variation in human cognition as part of normal diversity. This shift raises important ethical questions about diagnosis, treatment, research priorities, and societal inclusion. For example, some argue that rather than "treat" conditions like autism or ADHD society should adapt to accommodate different ways of thinking and being. Others maintain that not all cases of autism, ADHD, and other conditions should be treated as mere differences. +Cognitive and moral enhancement technologies intersect with these concerns. Gene editing technologies and cochlear implants might eventually eliminate certain minority groups, such as autistic or deaf people. Or widespread availability of enhancement could increase population-level cognitive diversity, e.g. as different people will choose to enhance different aspects of their cognition. Neuroethics must grapple with these questions to ensure that neuroscience respects individual dignity, avoids pathologizing difference, and promotes justice in healthcare and education. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-4.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-4.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..68530fa56 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-4.md @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +--- +title: "Neuroethics" +chunk: 5/8 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:50.583791+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Stem cell therapy === +Most of the issues concerning the uses of stem cells in the brain are the same as any of the bioethical or purely ethical questions one will find regarding the use and research of stem cells. The field of stem cell research is a very new field that poses many ethical questions concerning the allocation of stem cells as well as their possible uses. Since most stem cell research is still in its preliminary phase, most of the neuroethical issues surrounding stem cells are the same as stem cell ethics in general. +More specifically the way that stem cell research has been involved in neuroscience is through the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases and brain tumors. In these cases scientists are using neural stem cells to regenerate tissue and to be used as carriers for gene therapy. In general, neuroethics revolves around a cost benefit approach to find techniques and technologies that are most beneficial to patients. There has been progress in certain fields that have been shown to be beneficial when using stem cells to treat certain neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease. +A study done in 2011 showed that induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) can be used to aid in Parkinson's research and treatment. The cells can be used to study the progression of Parkinson's as well as used in regenerative treatment. Animal studies have shown that the use of iPSCs can improve motor skills and dopamine release of test subjects with Parkinson's. This study shows a positive outcome in the use of stem cells for neurological purposes. +In another study done in 2011 used stem cells to treat cerebral palsy. This study, however, was not as successful as the Parkinson's treatment. In this case stem cells were used to treat animal models who had been injured in a way that mimicked CP. This brings up a neuroethical issue of animal models used in science. Since most of their "diseases" are inflicted and do not occur naturally, they can not always be reliable examples of how a person with the actual disease would respond to treatment. The stem cells used did survive implantation, but did not show significant nerve regeneration. However, studies are ongoing in this area. +As discussed, stem cells are used to treat degenerative diseases. One form of a degenerative disease that can occur in the brain as well as throughout the body is an autoimmune disease. Autoimmune diseases cause the body to "attack" its own cells and therefore destroys those cells as well as whatever functional purpose those cells have or contribute to. One form of an autoimmune disease that affects the central nervous system is multiple sclerosis. In this disease the body attacks the glial cells that form myelin coats around the axons on neurons. This causes the nervous system to essentially "short circuit" and pass information very slowly. Stem cells therapy has been used to try to cure some of the damage caused by the body in MS. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been used to try and cure MS patients by essentially "reprogramming" their immune system. The main risk encountered with this form of treatment is the possibility of rejection of the stem cells. If the hematopoietic stem cells can be harvested from the individual, risk of rejection is much lower. But, there can be the risk of those cells being programmed to induce MS. However, if the tissue is donated from another individual there is high risk of rejection leading to possibly fatal toxicity in the recipient's body. Considering that there are fairly good treatments for MS, the use of stem cells in this case may have a higher cost than the benefits they produce. However, as research continues perhaps stem cells will truly become a viable treatment for MS as well as other autoimmune diseases. +These are just some examples of neurological diseases in which stem cell treatment has been researched. In general, the future looks promising for stem cell application in the field of neurology. However, possible complications lie in the overall ethics of stem cell use, possible recipient rejection, as well as over-proliferation of the cells causing possible brain tumors. Ongoing research will further contribute in the decision of whether stem cells should be used in the brain and whether their benefits truly outweigh their costs. +The primary ethical dilemma that is brought up in stem cell research is concerning the source of embryonic stem cells (hESCs). As the name states, hESCs come from embryos. To be more specific, they come from the inner cell mass of a blastophere, which is the beginning stage of an embryo. However, that mass of cells could have the potential to give rise to human life, and there in lies the problem. Often, this argument leads back to a similar moral debate held around abortion. The question is: when does a mass of cells gain personhood and autonomy? Some individuals believe that an embryo is in fact a person at the moment of conception and that using an embryo for anything other than creating a baby would essentially be killing a baby. On the other end of the spectrum, people argue that the small ball of cells at that point only has the potential to become a fetus, and that potentiality, even in natural conception, is far from guaranteed. According to a study done by developmental biologists, between 75–80% of embryos created through intercourse are naturally lost before they can become fetuses. This debate is not one that has a right or wrong answer, nor can it be clearly settled. Much of the ethical dilemma surrounding hESCs relies on individual beliefs about life and the potential for scientific advancement versus creating new human life. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-5.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-5.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1ea7230ed --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-5.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +--- +title: "Neuroethics" +chunk: 6/8 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:50.583791+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Disorders of consciousness === +Patients in coma, vegetative, or minimally conscious state pose ethical challenges. The patients are unable to respond, therefore the assessment of their needs can only be approached by adopting a third person perspective. They are unable to communicate their pain levels, quality of life, or end of life preferences. Neuroscience and brain imaging have allowed us to explore the brain activity of these patients more thoroughly. Recent findings from studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging have changed the way we view vegetative patients. The images have shown that aspects of emotional processing, language comprehension, and even conscious awareness might be retained in patients whose behavior suggests a vegetative state. If this is the case, it is unethical to allow a third party to dictate the life and future of the patient. For example, defining death is an issue that comes with patients with severe traumatic brain injuries. The decision to withdraw life-sustaining care from these patients can be based on uncertain assessments about the individual's conscious awareness. Case reports have shown that these patients in a persistent vegetative state can recover unexpectedly. This raises the ethical question about the premature termination of care by physicians. The hope is that one day, neuroimaging technologies can help us to define these different states of consciousness and enable us to communicate with patients in vegetative states in a way that was never before possible. The clinical translation of these advanced technologies is of vital importance for the medical management of these challenging patients. In this situation, neuroscience has both revealed ethical issues and possible solutions. + +=== Pharmacological enhancement === + +Cosmetic neuro-pharmacology, the use of drugs to improve cognition in normal healthy individuals, is highly controversial. Some case reports with the antidepressant Prozac indicated that patients seemed "better than well", and authors hypothesized that this effect might be observed in individuals not afflicted with psychiatric disorders. Following these case reports much controversy arose over the veracity and ethics of the cosmetic use of these antidepressants. Opponents of cosmetic pharmacology believe that such drug usage is unethical and that the concept of cosmetic pharmacology is a manifestation of naive consumerism. Proponents, such as philosopher Arthur Caplan, state that it is an individual's (rather than government's, or physician's) right to determine whether to use a drug for cosmetic purposes. Anjan Chatterjee, a neurologist at the University of Pennsylvania, has argued that western medicine stands on the brink of a neuro-enhancement revolution in which people will be able to improve their memory and attention through pharmacological means. Jacob Appel, a Brown University bioethicist, has raised concerns about the possibility of employers mandating such enhancement for their workers. The ethical concerns regarding pharmacological enhancement are not limited to Europe and North America; indeed, there is increasing attention given to cultural and regulatory contexts for this phenomenon, around the globe. + +=== Neuromarketing === + +==== Political neuromarketing ==== +The politics of neuromarketing is this idea of using advertisements to convince the mind of a voter to vote for a certain party. This has already been happening within the elections throughout the years. In the 2006 reelection of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, he was double digits off in the voting in comparison to his Democratic opponent. However, Schwarzenegger's theme in this campaign was whether or not the voters would want to continue Schwarzenegger's reforms or go back to the days of the recalled governor, Gray Davis. In normal marketing, voters would use "detail, numbers, facts and figures to prove we were better off under the new governor". However, with neuromarketing, voters followed powerful advertisement visuals and used these visuals to convince themselves that Schwarzenegger was the better candidate. Now, with political neuromarketing, there exists a lot of controversy. The ethics behind political neuromarketing are debatable. Some argue that political neuromarketing will cause voters to make rash decisions while others argue that these messages are beneficial because they depict what the politicians can do. However, control over political decisions could make voters not see the reality of things. Voters may not look into the details of the reforms, personality, and morality each person brings to their political campaign and may be swayed by how powerful the advertisements seem to be. However, there are also people that may disagree with this idea. Darryl Howard, "a consultant to two Republican winners on November 2, says he crafted neuromarketing-based messages for TV, direct mail and speeches for Senate, Congressional and Gubernatorial clients in 2010". He says that these advertisements that were presented, show honesty and continues to say how he and other politicians decide which advertisements are the most effective. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-6.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-6.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..66f5120fe --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-6.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +--- +title: "Neuroethics" +chunk: 7/8 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:50.583791+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Neurological treatments === +Neuroscience has led to a deeper understanding of the chemical imbalances present in a disordered brain. In turn, this has resulted in the creation of new treatments and medications to treat these disorders. When these new treatments are first being tested, the experiments prompt ethical questions. First, because the treatment is affecting the brain, the side effects can be unique and sometimes severe. A special kind of side effect that many subjects have claimed to experience in neurological treatment tests is changes in "personal identity". Although this is a difficult ethical dilemma because there are no clear and undisputed definitions of personality, self, and identity, neurological treatments can result in patients losing parts of "themselves" such as memories or moods. Yet another ethical dispute in neurological treatment research is the choice of patients. From a perspective of justice, priority should be given to those who are most seriously impaired and who will benefit most from the intervention. However, in a test group, scientists must select patients to secure a favorable risk-benefit ratio. Setting priority becomes more difficult when a patient's chance to benefit and the seriousness of their impairment do not go together. For example, many times an older patient will be excluded despite the seriousness of their disorder simply because they are not as strong or as likely to benefit from the treatment. The main ethical issue at the heart of neurological treatment research on human subjects is promoting high-quality scientific research in the interest of future patients, while at the same time respecting and guarding the rights and interests of the research subjects. This is particularly difficult in the field of neurology because damage to the brain is often permanent and will change a patient's way of life forever. + +=== Neuroscience and free will === + +Neuroethics also encompasses the ethical issues raised by neuroscience as it affects our understanding of the world and of ourselves in the world. For example, if everything we do is physically caused by our brains, which are in turn a product of our genes and our life experiences, how can we be held responsible for our actions? A crime in the United States requires a "guilty act" and a "guilty mind". As neuropsychiatry evaluations have become more commonly used in the criminal justice system and neuroimaging technologies have given us a more direct way of viewing brain injuries, scholars have cautioned that this could lead to the inability to hold anyone criminally responsible for their actions. In this way, neuroimaging evidence could suggest that there is no free will and each action a person makes is simply the product of past actions and biological impulses that are out of our control. The question of whether and how personal autonomy is compatible with neuroscience ethics and the responsibility of neuroscientists to society and the state is a central one for neuroethics. However, there is some controversy over whether autonomy entails the concept of 'free will' or is a 'moral-political' principle separate from metaphysical quandaries. +In late 2013, U.S. president Barack Obama made recommendations to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues as part of his $100 million Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. This Spring discussion resumed in a recent interview and article sponsored by Agence France-Presse (AFP): "It is absolutely critical... to integrate ethics from the get-go into neuroscience research," and not "for the first time after something has gone wrong", said Amy Gutmann, Bioethics Commission Chair." But no consensus has been reached. Miguel Faria, a professor of neurosurgery and an associate editor in chief of Surgical Neurology International, who was not involved in the commission's work said, "any ethics approach must be based upon respect for the individual, as doctors pledge according to the Hippocratic Oath which includes vows to be humble, respect privacy and doing no harm; and pursuing a path based on population-based ethics is just as dangerous as having no medical ethics at all". Why the danger of population-based bioethics? Faria asserts, "it is centered on utilitarianism, monetary considerations, and the fiscal and political interests of the state, rather than committed to placing the interest of the individual patient or experimental subject above all other considerations". For her part, Gutmann believes the next step is "to examine more deeply the ethical implications of neuroscience research and its effects on society". + +== Academic journals == +Neuroethics +Main Editor: Adrian Carter, Monash University & Katrina Sifferd, Elmhurst University +Neuroethics is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to academic articles on the ethical, legal, political, social and philosophical issues provoked by research in the contemporary sciences of the mind, especially, but not only, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. The journal publishes high-quality reflections on questions raised by the sciences of the mind, and on the ways in which the sciences of the mind illuminate longstanding debates in ethics. + +American Journal of Bioethics–Neuroscience +Main Editor: Veljko Dubljevic, North Carolina State University +AJOB Neuroscience, the official journal of the International Neuroethics Society, is devoted to covering critical topics in the emerging field of neuroethics. The journal is a new avenue in bioethics and strives to present a forum in which to: foster international discourse on topics in neuroethics, provide a platform for debating current issues in neuroethics, and enable the incubation of new emerging priorities in neuroethics. AJOB-Neuroscience launched in 2007 as a section of the American Journal of Bioethics and became an independent journal in 2010, publishing four issues a year. + +== See also == +Bodily integrity +Neurolaw +Neurosecurity +Moral psychology + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-7.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-7.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5fdd0b19f --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics-7.md @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@ +--- +title: "Neuroethics" +chunk: 8/8 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:50.583791+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +== Further reading == +Glannon, Walter (2025). Neuroethics: The Implications of Mapping and Changing the Brain. MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/15173.001.0001. ISBN 9780262384926. +Illes, J (October 2003). "Neuroethics in a new era of neuroimaging". American Journal of Neuroradiology. 24 (9): 1739–1741. PMC 7976301. PMID 14561594. +Glannon, W. (2006).Bioethics and the Brain. Oxford University Press USA +Racine E.; Bar-Ilan O; Illes J. (2005). "fMRI in the public eye". Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 6 (2): 159–64. doi:10.1038/nrn1609. PMC 1524852. PMID 15685221. +Farah Martha J (2005). "Neuroethics: the practical and the philosophical". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 9 (1): 34–40. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.728.9513. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.001. PMID 15639439. S2CID 8635694. +Judy Illes (2002). "Brain and Cognition: Ethical Challenges in Advanced Neuroimaging". Brain and Cognition. 50 (3): 341–344. doi:10.1016/s0278-2626(02)00522-5. PMID 12480481. S2CID 16672004. +Riis P (2003). "Neuroethics". European Journal of Neurology. 10: 218–223. doi:10.1046/j.1468-1331.10.s1.12.x. S2CID 221736074. +"Open your mind". The Economist. 23 May 2002. +Racine E. (2010). Pragmatic Neuroethics. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. +Pontius A. A. (1973). "Neuro-ethics of 'walking' in the newborn". Perceptual and Motor Skills. 37 (1): 235–245. doi:10.2466/pms.1973.37.1.235. PMID 4728008. S2CID 42403122. +Pontius A. A. (1993). "Neuroethics vs neurophysiologically and neuropsychologically uninformed influences in child-rearing, education, emerging hunter-gatherers, and artificial intelligence models of the brain". Psychol Rep. 72 (2): 451–458. doi:10.2466/pr0.1993.72.2.451. PMID 8488227. S2CID 33394084. +Schermer, Maartje (2011). "Ethical issues in deep brain stimulation". Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience. 5: 17. doi:10.3389/fnint.2011.00017. PMC 3096836. PMID 21625629. +Schlindwein-Zanini, Rachel; Junior, Bruno Schlemper (1 May 2013). "Neuroética e neurociência". Contextos Clínicos. 6 (1): 58–61. doi:10.4013/ctc.2013.61.07. +Bruno, Marie-Aurélie; Laureys, Steven; Demertzi, Athena (2013). "Coma and disorders of consciousness". Ethical and Legal Issues in Neurology. Handbook of Clinical Neurology. Vol. 118. pp. 205–213. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53501-6.00017-2. ISBN 978-0-444-53501-6. PMID 24182379. +Cranford RE (1989). "The neurologist as ethics consultant and as a member of the institutional ethics committee". Neurol Clin. 7 (4): 697–713. doi:10.1016/S0733-8619(18)30384-0. PMID 2586395. +Bongso, Ariff; Fong, Chui-Yee; Gauthaman, Kalamegam (15 December 2008). "Taking stem cells to the clinic: Major challenges". Journal of Cellular Biochemistry. 105 (6): 1352–1360. doi:10.1002/jcb.21957. PMID 18980213. S2CID 22774483. +Vaccarino, Flora M.; Stevens, Hanna E.; Kocabas, Arif; Palejev, Dean; Szekely, Anna; Grigorenko, Elena L.; Weissman, Sherman (June 2011). "Induced pluripotent stem cells: A new tool to confront the challenge of neuropsychiatric disorders". Neuropharmacology. 60 (7–8): 1355–1363. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.02.021. PMC 3087494. PMID 21371482. +Bell, Emily; Wallace, Tessa; Chouinard, Isabelle; Shevell, Michael; Racine, Eric (2011). "Responding to requests of families for unproven interventions in neurodevelopmental disorders: Hyperbaric oxygen 'treatment' and stem cell 'therapy' in cerebral palsy". Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 17 (1): 19–26. doi:10.1002/ddrr.134. PMID 22447751. +Chen LW, Kuang F, Wei LC, Ding YX, Yung KK, Chan YS (2011). "Potential application of induced pluripotent stem cells in cell replacement therapy for Parkinson's disease". CNS & Neurological Disorders Drug Targets. 10 (4): 449–458. doi:10.2174/187152711795563994. PMID 21495962. +Silani Vincenzo; Cova Lidia (2008). "Stem cell transplantation in Multiple Sclerosis: Safety and Ethics". Journal of the Neurological Sciences. 265 (1–2): 116–121. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2007.06.010. PMID 17619025. S2CID 2247150. +Aggarwal, Neil Krishan; Ford, Elizabeth (November 2013). "The Neuroethics and Neurolaw of Brain Injury: Neuroethics and neurolaw of brain Injury". Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 31 (6): 789–802. doi:10.1002/bsl.2086. PMID 24123245. +Rodrigue, Catherine; Riopelle, Richard J.; Bernat, James L.; Racine, Eric (April 2013). "Perspectives and Experience of Healthcare Professionals on Diagnosis, Prognosis, and End-of-Life Decision Making in Patients with Disorders of Consciousness". Neuroethics. 6 (1): 25–36. doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9142-4. S2CID 144570968. +Neuroscience, Neuropolitics and Neuroethics: The Complex Case of Crime, Deception and fMRI - Springer, n.d. +Anderson, James A.; Eijkholt, Marleen; Illes, Judy (2013). "Neuroethical issues in clinical neuroscience research". Ethical and Legal Issues in Neurology. Handbook of Clinical Neurology. Vol. 118. pp. 335–343. doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-53501-6.00028-7. ISBN 978-0-444-53501-6. PMC 10460147. PMID 24182390. +Fins, Joseph J. (2011). "Neuroethics, Neuroimaging, and Disorders of Consciousness: Promise or Peril?". Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association. 122: 336–346. PMC 3116331. PMID 21686236. +Daadi, Marcel M; Steinberg, Gary K (March 2009). "Manufacturing neurons from human embryonic stem cells: biological and regulatory aspects to develop a safe cellular product for stroke cell therapy". Regenerative Medicine. 4 (2): 251–263. doi:10.2217/17460751.4.2.251. PMC 4337782. PMID 19317644. +Barker Roger A; de Beaufort Inez (2013). "Scientific and ethical issues related to stem cell research and interventions in neurodegenerative disorders of the brain". Progress in Neurobiology. 110: 63–73. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2013.04.003. PMID 23665410. S2CID 11837129. +Hyun Insoo (2010). "The bioethics of stem cell research and therapy". The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 120 (1): 71–75. doi:10.1172/jci40435. PMC 2798696. PMID 20051638. +Amaya, José Manuel Giménez; Sánchez-Migallón, Sergio (2010). "Anthropological and Ethical Dilemmas in the recent Development of Neuroscience". Imago Hominis. 17 (3): 179–186. + +== External links == +Neuroethics Academic journal, editor: Neil Levy. +Center for Neuroscience & Society - University of Pennsylvania +Public access journal articles on neuroethics from University of Pennsylvania +Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory - UPenn Brain Science Center +Neuroethics & Law Blog +BrainEthics Blog This blog is not active any more, but offers a good bibliography up to 2008. +Capital Consortium for Neuroscience: Ethical, Legal and Social Issues +Neuroscience: Ethical, Legal and Social Issues - Third Annual Conference +Neuroethics Research Unit, website of the Neuroethics Research Unit in Montreal, Canada with further links and relevant publications +National Core for Neuroethics at the University of British Columbia publications page +The American Journal of Bioethics +The American Society for Bioethics and Humanities +Cognitive Neuroscience Society +International Neuroethics Society +Bioethics Resources from the NIH Archived 2008-05-09 at the Wayback Machine +Virtual Mentor Ethics Journal of the American Medical Association Archived 2009-05-22 at the Wayback Machine Theme Issue: Ethical +Issues in Neuroscience + +Neuroscience for Kids: Neuroethics +The President's Council on Bioethics +Johns Hopkins Neuroethics +The Neuroethics Blog +Programs +Wellcome Centre for Neuroethics, University of Oxford +Neuroethics Imaging Group, Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics Archived 2012-12-09 at the Wayback Machine +Neuroethics Research Unit +National Core for Neuroethics at the University of British Columbia +Neuroethics Studies Program at Georgetown University Medical Center +Johns Hopkins PEBS Program +Emory University Neuroethics Program \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics_Research_Unit-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics_Research_Unit-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b676922cf --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics_Research_Unit-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +--- +title: "Neuroethics Research Unit" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics_Research_Unit" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:51.866525+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The Neuroethics Research Unit was created in 2006, at the Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal (IRCM), which is affiliated to the Université de Montréal. The Unit is one of the pioneer units in Canada in this area of research. Neuroethics is a new area of research where bioethics and neuroscience intersect. The focus is on ethical considerations in neuroscience research and the many ethical issues that arise from the transfer of neuroscience to health care. + + +== Research themes == +The Neuroethics research unit pursues research within the fields of public and intercultural, clinical, research, reflexive, or theoretical neuroethics to address a large spectrum of challenges in neurological and psychiatric care such as providing quality patient information, diminishing stigma, and promoting respectful healthcare services. The Unit’s research themes cover subjects as diverse as MRI, end-of-life decision making, cognitive enhancement, ethical policy, etc. + + +== Funding == +Research projects of the Neuroethics Research Unit are funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. + + +== Outreach == +In June 2007, at the annual meeting of the Canadian Bioethics Society (CBS) held in Toronto, over 70 attendees met to discuss the need to learn more about Canadian and international advances in neuroethics including research, funding, and events. A new interest group was launched. One of the group’s strongest recommendations was to create a newsletter, featuring forthcoming events and literature updates. BRAINSTORM was born. +The Unit also created the Montreal Neuroethics Network. Its main goal is to organize neuroethics talks, seminars, workshops and symposia in Montreal to develop neuroethics in Montreal in both Academia and in the community. + + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Nuclear_Futures-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Nuclear_Futures-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..93caeab59 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Nuclear_Futures-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +--- +title: "Non-Nuclear Futures" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Nuclear_Futures" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:54.263110+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Non-Nuclear Futures: The Case for an Ethical Energy Strategy is a 1975 book by Amory B. Lovins and John H. Price. The main theme of the book is that the most important parts of the nuclear power debate are not technical disputes but relate to personal values, and are the legitimate province of every citizen, whether technically trained or not. Lovins and Price suggest that the personal values that make a high-energy society work are all too apparent, and that the values associated with an alternate view relate to thrift, simplicity, diversity, neighbourliness, craftsmanship, and humility. They also argue that large nuclear generators could not be mass-produced. Their centralization requires costly transmission and distribution systems. They are inefficient, not recycling excess thermal energy. The authors believed that nuclear reactors were less reliable (a grossly incorrect prediction) and take longer to build, exposing them to escalated interest costs, mistimed demand forecasts, and wage pressure by unions. +Lovins and Price suggest that these two different sets of personal values and technological attributes lead to two very different policy paths relating to future energy supplies. The first is high-energy nuclear, centralized, electric; the second is lower energy, non-nuclear, decentralized, less electrified, softer technology. +Subsequent publications by other authors which relate to the issue of non-nuclear energy paths are Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy, Plan B 2.0, Reaction Time, State of the World 2008, The Clean Tech Revolution, and the work of Benjamin K. Sovacool. + + +== See also == +Anti-nuclear movement in the United States +Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power +List of books about nuclear issues +Nuclear energy policy +Nuclear or Not? +Nuclear-Free Future Award +Nuclear-free zone +Rocky Mountain Institute +Kristin Shrader-Frechette +Benjamin K. Sovacool. + + +== References == + + +== External links == +Nuclear Power's Global Expansion: Weighing Its Costs and Risks Archived 2015-01-12 at the Wayback Machine +Nuclear-free future award \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_ethics-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_ethics-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..daa9f6cc1 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_ethics-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +--- +title: "Nuclear ethics" +chunk: 1/2 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_ethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:55.422664+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Nuclear ethics is a cross-disciplinary field of academic and policy-relevant study in which the problems associated with nuclear warfare, nuclear deterrence, nuclear arms control, nuclear disarmament, or nuclear energy are examined through one or more ethical or moral theories or frameworks. +Nuclear ethics assumes that the very real possibilities of human extinction, mass human destruction, or mass environmental damage which could result from nuclear warfare are deep ethical or moral problems. Specifically, it assumes that the outcomes of human extinction, mass human destruction, or environmental damage count as moral evils. Another area of inquiry concerns future generations and the burden that nuclear waste and pollution imposes on them. Some scholars have concluded that it is therefore morally wrong to act in ways that produce these outcomes, which means it is morally wrong to engage in nuclear warfare. +Nuclear ethics is interested in examining policies of nuclear deterrence, nuclear arms control and disarmament, and nuclear energy insofar as they are linked to the cause or prevention of nuclear warfare. Ethical justifications of nuclear deterrence, for example, emphasize its role in preventing great power nuclear war since the end of World War II. Indeed, some scholars claim that nuclear deterrence seems to be the morally rational response to a nuclear-armed world. Moral condemnation of nuclear deterrence, in contrast, emphasizes the seemingly inevitable violations of human and democratic rights which arise. In contemporary security studies, the problems of nuclear warfare, deterrence, proliferation, and so forth are often understood strictly in political, strategic, or military terms. In the study of international organizations and law, however, these problems are also understood in legal terms. +Nuclear technology has seen the formation of an anti-nuclear movement since its early development, and grew with the increased impact of it, particularly nuclear weapons testing, caused the deaths of up to 43 thousand people until 2020. + +== Early ethical issues == + +The application of nuclear technology, both as a source of energy and as an instrument of war, has been controversial. +Even before the first nuclear weapons had been developed, scientists involved with the Manhattan Project were divided over the use of the weapon. The role of the two atomic bombings of the country in Japan's surrender and the U.S.'s ethical justification for them has been the subject of scholarly and popular debate for decades. The question of whether nations should have nuclear weapons, or test them, has been continually and nearly universally controversial. +The public became concerned about nuclear weapons testing from about 1954, following extensive nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean. In 1961, at the height of the Cold War, about 50,000 women brought together by Women Strike for Peace marched in 60 cities in the United States to demonstrate against nuclear weapons. In 1963, many countries ratified the Partial Test Ban Treaty which prohibited atmospheric nuclear testing. +Some local opposition to nuclear power emerged in the early 1960s, and in the late 1960s some members of the scientific community began to express their concerns. In the early 1970s, there were large protests about the proposed nuclear power plant Wyhl, located at the Rhine in south west Germany. The project was cancelled in 1975 and anti-nuclear success at Wyhl inspired opposition to nuclear power in other parts of Europe and North America. Nuclear power became an issue of major public protest in the 1970s. + +== Uranium mining and milling == + +Between 1949 and 1989, over 4,000 uranium mines in the Four Corner region of the American Southwest produced more than 225,000,000 tons of uranium ore. This activity affected a large number of Native American nations, including the Laguna, Navajo, Zuni, Southern Ute, Ute Mountain, Hopi, Acoma and other Pueblo cultures. Many of these peoples worked in the mines, mills and processing plants in New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado. These workers were not only poorly paid, they were seldom informed of dangers nor were they given appropriate protective gear. The government, mine owners, scientific, and health communities were all well aware of the hazards of working with radioactive materials at this time. Due to the Cold War demand for increasingly destructive and powerful nuclear weapons, these laborers were both exposed to and brought home large amounts of radiation in the form of dust on their clothing and skin. Epidemiologic studies of the families of these workers have shown increased incidents of radiation-induced cancers, miscarriages, cleft palates and other birth defects. The extent of these genetic effects on indigenous populations and the extent of DNA damage remains to be resolved. Uranium mining on the Navajo reservation continues to be a disputed issue as former Navajo mine workers and their families continue to suffer from health problems. + +== Notable nuclear weapons accidents == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_ethics-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_ethics-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8e54f37de --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_ethics-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +--- +title: "Nuclear ethics" +chunk: 2/2 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_ethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:55.422664+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +13 February 1950: a Convair B-36B crashed in northern British Columbia after jettisoning a Mark IV atomic bomb. This was the first such nuclear weapon loss in history. +22 May 1957: a 42,000-pound Mark-17 hydrogen bomb accidentally fell from a bomber near Albuquerque, New Mexico. The detonation of the device's conventional explosives destroyed it on impact and formed a crater 25-feet in diameter on land owned by the University of New Mexico. According to a researcher at the Natural Resources Defense Council, it was one of the most powerful bombs made to date. +7 June 1960: the 1960 Fort Dix IM-99 accident destroyed a Boeing CIM-10 Bomarc nuclear missile and shelter and contaminated the BOMARC Missile Accident Site in New Jersey. +24 January 1961: the 1961 Goldsboro B-52 crash occurred near Goldsboro, North Carolina. A B-52 Stratofortress carrying two Mark 39 nuclear bombs broke up in mid-air, dropping its nuclear payload in the process. +1965 Philippine Sea A-4 crash, where a Skyhawk attack aircraft with a nuclear weapon fell into the sea. The pilot, the aircraft, and the B43 nuclear bomb were never recovered. It was not until the 1980s that the Pentagon revealed the loss of the one-megaton bomb. +17 January 1966: the 1966 Palomares B-52 crash occurred when a B-52G bomber of the USAF collided with a KC-135 tanker during mid-air refuelling off the coast of Spain. The KC-135 was completely destroyed when its fuel load ignited, killing all four crew members. The B-52G broke apart, killing three of the seven crew members aboard. Of the four Mk28 type hydrogen bombs the B-52G carried, three were found on land near Almería, Spain. The non-nuclear explosives in two of the weapons detonated upon impact with the ground, resulting in the contamination of a 2-square-kilometer (490-acre) (0.78 square mile) area by radioactive plutonium. The fourth, which fell into the Mediterranean Sea, was recovered intact after a 2½-month-long search. +21 January 1968: the 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash involved a United States Air Force (USAF) B-52 bomber. The aircraft was carrying four hydrogen bombs when a cabin fire forced the crew to abandon the aircraft. Six crew members ejected safely, but one who did not have an ejection seat was killed while trying to bail out. The bomber crashed onto sea ice in Greenland, causing the nuclear payload to rupture and disperse, which resulted in widespread radioactive contamination. +18–19 September 1980: the Damascus Accident, occurred in Damascus, Arkansas, where a Titan missile equipped with a nuclear warhead exploded. The accident was caused by a maintenance man who dropped a socket from a socket wrench down an 80-foot shaft, puncturing a fuel tank on the rocket. Leaking fuel resulted in a hypergolic fuel explosion, jettisoning the W-53 warhead beyond the launch site. + +== Nuclear fallout == + +Over 500 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests were conducted at various sites around the world from 1945 to 1980. Radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons testing was first drawn to public attention in 1954 when the Castle Bravo hydrogen bomb test at the Pacific Proving Grounds contaminated the crew and catch of the Japanese fishing boat Lucky Dragon. One of the fishermen died in Japan seven months later, and the fear of contaminated tuna led to a temporary boycotting of the popular staple in Japan. The incident caused widespread concern around the world, especially regarding the effects of nuclear fallout and atmospheric nuclear testing, and "provided a decisive impetus for the emergence of the anti-nuclear weapons movement in many countries". +As public awareness and concern mounted over the possible health hazards associated with exposure to the nuclear fallout, various studies were done to assess the extent of the hazard. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/ National Cancer Institute study claims that fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests would lead to perhaps 11,000 excess deaths amongst people alive during atmospheric testing in the United States from all forms of cancer, including leukemia, from 1951 to well into the 21st century. +As of March 2009, the U.S. is the only nation that compensates nuclear test victims. Since the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990, more than $1.38 billion in compensation has been approved. The money is going to people who took part in the tests, notably at the Nevada Test Site, and to others exposed to the radiation. + +== Nuclear labor issues == + +Nuclear labor issues exist within the nuclear power industry and the nuclear weapons production sector that impact upon the lives and health of laborers, itinerant workers and their families. This subculture of frequently undocumented workers (e.g., Radium Girls, the Fukushima 50, Liquidators, and Nuclear Samurai) do the dirty, difficult, and potentially dangerous work shunned by regular employees. When they exceed their allowable radiation exposure limit at a specific facility, they often migrate to a different nuclear facility. The industry implicitly accepts this conduct as it can not operate without these practices. +Existent labor laws protecting worker's health rights are not properly enforced. Records are required to be kept, but frequently they are not. Some personnel were not properly trained resulting in their own exposure to toxic amounts of radiation. At several facilities there are ongoing failures to perform required radiological screenings or to implement corrective actions. +Many questions regarding these nuclear worker conditions go unanswered, and with the exception of a few whistleblowers, the vast majority of laborers – unseen, underpaid, overworked and exploited, have few incentives to share their stories. The median annual wage for hazardous radioactive materials removal workers, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is $37,590 in the U.S – $18 per hour. A 15-country collaborative cohort study of cancer risks due to exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation, involving 407,391 nuclear industry workers, showed significant increase in cancer mortality. The study evaluated 31 types of cancers, primary and secondary. + +== Civil liberties == +Nuclear power is a potential target for terrorists, such as ISIL, and also increases the chances of nuclear weapons proliferation. Circumventing those problems involves reducing civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and of assembly, and so social scientist Brian Martin says that "nuclear power is not a suitable power source for a free society". + +== Human radiation experiments == + +The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE) was formed on 15 January 1994, by President Bill Clinton. Hazel O'Leary, the Secretary of Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy called for a policy of "new openness", initiating the release of over 1.6 million pages of classified documents. These records revealed that since the 1940s, the Atomic Energy Commission was conducting widespread testing on human beings without their consent. Children, pregnant women, as well as male prisoners were injected with or orally consumed radioactive materials. + +== See also == +Democratic peace theory +Nuclear power debate + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuffield_Council_on_Bioethics-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuffield_Council_on_Bioethics-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..62f90ca91 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuffield_Council_on_Bioethics-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,87 @@ +--- +title: "Nuffield Council on Bioethics" +chunk: 1/2 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuffield_Council_on_Bioethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:56.610689+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is a UK-based independent charitable body, which examines and reports on bioethical issues raised by new advances in biological and medical research. Established in 1991, the Council is funded by the Nuffield Foundation, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust. The Council has been described by the media as a 'leading ethics watchdog', which 'never shrinks from the unthinkable'. + +== Purpose == +The Nuffield Council on Bioethics was set up in response to concerns about the lack of a national organization responsible for evaluating the ethical implications of developments in biomedicine and biotechnology. Its terms of reference are: + +To identify and define ethical questions raised by recent developments in biological and medical research that concern, or are likely to concern, the public interest; +To make arrangements for the independent examination of such questions with appropriate involvement of relevant participants; +To inform and engage in policy and media debates about ethical questions and provide informed comment on emerging issues related to or derived from the Council’s published or ongoing work; and +To make policy recommendations to Government or other relevant bodies and to disseminate its work through published reports, briefings and other appropriate outputs. + +== How the Council works == +The Council selects topics to examine through a horizon scanning programme, which aims to identify developments relevant to biological and medical research. Members of the Council meet quarterly to discuss and contribute to ongoing work, review recent advances in medical and biological research that raise ethical questions and choose topics for further exploration. The Council is well known for its in-depth inquiries which usually take 18–24 months and are overseen by an expert working group, informed by extensive consultation and research. + +== Membership and governance == +The Chair of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics is appointed by the Nuffield Foundation in consultation with the other funders. Chairs are appointed for five years. Council members are drawn from relevant fields of expertise including science, medicine, sociology, philosophy and law, for an initial period of three years, with the possibility of an additional three-year term. When vacancies arise, the council advertises widely. The council's membership advisory group considers and makes recommendations to the council on future members selected from the respondents to advertisements. + +=== Governing board === +The governing board was established by the funders of the council in 2017 and holds the principal responsibility for the governance of the NCOB, overseeing its operations and providing assurance that it is working within the terms of its grant. The chair (distinct from the chair of the council) is Professor Jane Macnaughton (Durham University) with other members Dr Sarion Bowers (University of Cambridge), Professor Adam Hedgecoe (Cardiff University), Dr Katherine Littler (World Health Organisation) and three representatives of the funders. + +=== Chair === +Professor Sarah Cunningham-Burley (2024–present) +Professor David Archard (2017–2024) +Professor Jonathan Montgomery (2012–2017) +Professor Albert Weale FBA (2008–2012) +Professor Sir Bob Hepple QC FBA (2003–2007) +Professor Sir Ian Kennedy FBA (1998–2002) +Baroness Onora O'Neill CBE, FBA (1996–1998) +Sir Patrick Nairne GCB, MC (1991–1996) + +=== Director === +Danielle Hamm was appointed in June 2021 +Former Directors: + +Hugh Whittall +Professor Sandy Thomas +David Shapiro + +=== Members === +Current + +Victoria Butler-Cole +Carol Brayne +Melanie Challenger +Clare Chambers +John Coggon +Frances Flinter +Elaine Gadd +Anne Kerr +Michael Reiss +Mehrunisha Suleman +Susan Tansey +Previous members + +Simon Burrall +Simon Caney +Tara Clancy(2015-21) +John Dupré +Robin Weiss +Adam Wishart +Tom Shakespeare +Mona Siddiqui +Michael Banner (2014–16) +Kenneth Calman (2000–08) +John Gurdon (1991–95) +Soren Holm (2006–12) +John Krebs (2006–07) +Ottoline Leyser (2009–15) +Tim Lewens (2009–15) +Anne McLaren (1991-00) +Shaun Pattinson, former Deputy Chair (2015-21) +Raymond Plant (2004–07) +Pauline Perry (2003–05) +Nick Ross (1999-05) +Marilyn Strathern (2000–06) +David Williams (1991–94) +Margaret Turner-Warwick (1991-00) +Christine Watson \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuffield_Council_on_Bioethics-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuffield_Council_on_Bioethics-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..59cfd4ff1 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuffield_Council_on_Bioethics-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +--- +title: "Nuffield Council on Bioethics" +chunk: 2/2 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuffield_Council_on_Bioethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:56.610689+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +== Publications == +Climate change and health: embedding ethics into policy and decision making (Jan 2025) +Stem cell-based embryo models (November 2024) +Predicting: The future of health (Sept 2024) +Disagreements in the care of critically ill children (Sept 2023) +The future of ageing: Ethical Considerations for research and innovation (April 2023) +Genome editing and human reproduction: social and ethical issues (July 2018) +Human embryo culture: Discussions concerning the statutory time limit for maintaining human embryos in culture in the light of some recent scientific developments (August 2017) +Cosmetic procedures: ethical issues (June 2017) +Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues (March 2017) +Genome editing: an ethical review (September 2016) +(un)natural: Ideas about naturalness in public and political debates about science, technology and medicine (December 2015) +Children and clinical research: ethical issues (May 2015) +The collection, linking and use of data in biomedical research and healthcare: ethical issues (February 2015) +The findings of a series of engagement activities exploring the culture of scientific research in the UK (December 2014) +Novel neurotechnologies: intervening in the brain (June 2013) +Donor conception: ethical aspects of information sharing (April 2013) +Emerging biotechnologies: technology, choice and the public good (December 2012) +Novel techniques for the prevention of mitochondrial DNA disorders: an ethical review (2012) +Human bodies: donation for medicine and research (2011) +Biofuels: ethical issues (2011) +Medical profiling and online medicine: the ethics of 'personalised healthcare' in a consumer age (2010) +Dementia: ethical issues (2009) +Public health: ethical issues (2007) +The forensic use of bioinformation: ethical issues (2007) +Critical care decisions in fetal and neonatal medicine: ethical issues (2006) +Genetic Screening: a Supplement to the 1993 Report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2006) +The ethics of research involving animals (2005) +The ethics of research related to healthcare in developing countries: a follow-up Discussion Paper (2005) +The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries: a follow-up Discussion Paper (2003) +Pharmacogenetics: ethical issues (2003) +Genetics and human behaviour: the ethical context (2002) +The ethics of patenting DNA: a discussion paper (2002) +The ethics of research related to healthcare in developing countries (2002) +Stem cell therapy: the ethical issues – a discussion paper (2000) +The ethics of clinical research in developing countries: a discussion paper (1999) +Genetically modified crops: the ethical and social issues (1999) +Mental disorders and genetics: the ethical context (1998) +Animal-to-human transplants: the ethics of Xenotransplantation (1996) +Human tissue: ethical and legal issues (1995) +Genetic screening: ethical issues (1993) + +== Influence == +The Council's recommendations to policy makers have often been described as 'influential'. + +== Funding == +The Council was entirely funded by the Nuffield Foundation from 1991 to 1994. Since 1994, the Council has been jointly funded by the Nuffield Foundation, the Medical Research Council and The Wellcome Trust on a five-year rolling system. Towards the end of each five-year period, a process of external review is a condition of continued support. Funding has been confirmed until 2022 following the satisfactory completion of the latest funding bid. + +== Ethical approach == +The Council takes the view that its terms of reference do not require it to adopt the same ethical framework or set of principles in all reports. The Council is therefore not bound by the values of particular schools of philosophy (for example, utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics) or approaches in bioethics, such as the 'four principles of bioethics' (autonomy, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence), or the Barcelona Principles (autonomy, dignity, integrity, vulnerability). +In 2006-7, John Harris, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Manchester, and Dr Sarah Chan carried out an external review of the way ethical frameworks, principles, norms and guiding concepts feature in the Council's publications. The authors found that the ethical frameworks used in the Council's publications had become increasingly explicit and transparent. + +== References == + +== External links == +Nuffield Council on Bioethics +Nuffield Foundation +Medical Research Council +Wellcome Trust \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_technoethics-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_technoethics-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..877fe3ef1 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_technoethics-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +--- +title: "Organizational technoethics" +chunk: 1/3 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_technoethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:57.765531+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Organizational technoethics (OT) is a branch stemming from technoethics. Advances in technology and their ability to transmit vast amounts of information in a short amount of time have changed the way information is being shared amongst co-workers and managers throughout organizations across the globe. Starting in the 1980s with information and communications technologies (ICTs), organizations have seen an increase in the amount of technology that they rely on to communicate within and outside of the workplace. However, these implementations of technology in the workplace create various ethical concerns and in turn a need for further analysis of technology in organizations. As a result of this growing trend, a subsection of technoethics known as organizational technoethics has emerged to address these issues. + +== Changes to organizational structure == +Organizational technoethics "focuses on how technological advances are redefining organizations and how they operate within an evolving knowledge economy". This new focus on knowledge and information within organizations has changed the way they function on a daily basis and has made it apparent that "as knowledge-intensive work gradually becomes the cornerstone of this economy, understanding its control practices is consequential to organizational effectiveness, worker satisfaction and ethical conditions of organizational governance". With this "knowledge intensive work" at the forefront of most organizations, the efficient transmission of this knowledge and information now becomes a major priority to be carried out in the workplace. The introduction of the Internet in the workplace allowed employees to transmit information electronically not only to others in their own office but those in other countries as well. Technology began to facilitate the rapid exchange of information for these organizations and thus contributed to a structural change in how they operate. These changes prompted researchers to delve deeper into the issues surrounding organizational technoethics in how technology was shaping the workplace, whether positively or negatively, and the ethical issues that may arise. +The use of ICTs within organizations have given way to a new kind of office setting where physically being in the office is not mandatory to get the job done. This recent trend coined by many as the virtual workplace involves several workplaces that are connected through technology and are not hindered by physical restraints. Remote work, hot desking, and virtual teams are the three major types of virtual workplaces that have been made possible through the use of technology and have changed the way many organizations communicate and transmit information. + +== New ethical challenges == +The increasing use of ICTs in the workplace has presented organizations with new ethical challenges. It has been argued that ICT use in organizational settings can contribute to counterproductive behaviour and deviancy as the line between personal and professional lives becomes blurred. Usually this behaviour consists of non-sanctioned use of ICTs during work hours, such as updating personal blogs, playing games, doing personal banking online, and using email for non-work related activities. +In response to these popular misuses of technology in the workplace, some organizations have implemented workplace surveillance technologies and content-control software to monitor and restrict employees' activities online. +ICT use in medical organizations has also given rise to new ethical dilemmas, such as the use of electronic medical records. These have created privacy concerns relating to potential breaches of doctor-patient confidentiality as well as concerns with information storage. + +=== Organizational restrictions on social networking === +One area of technoethics that is growing increasingly popular is organizational ethics and technology. The introduction of technology into organizations has fueled many different questions. Among these many questions is whether or not the technology being used is ethical. Many different case studies have been conducted in organizations around the world. In these case studies, new technology that has been introduced to an organization is examined. During the examination, one ethical question that seems to be a main focus for researchers is whether or not the new technology maintains users' privacy. +The advent of technology has also opened up new avenues and opportunities for individuals to misbehave; for example, cyberloafing, the act of employees using their companies' Internet access for personal purposes during work hours. While access to the internet may not result in an increase in production deviance with more people engaging in loafing per se, the temptation to do so is certainly higher since the Internet makes it so much easier and convenient to loaf in this manner. It is suggested by Lim when organizations are distributively, procedurally and interactionally unjust in their treatment of their employees (i.e., organizations have not given expected rewards or fair treatment in exchange for fair work), these employees are more likely to invoke the neutralization technique to legitimize their subsequent engagement in the act of cyberloafing. (Lim 2002) +One technology that has grown in popularity in recent years is social networking sites, as many people use sites such as Facebook for personal and professional reasons. Organizations all over the world, including those in the Canadian province of Ontario, have begun to block access to Facebook and have led to criticism of Facebook. For example, in May 2007, Ontario government employees, Federal public servants, MPPs and cabinet ministers were blocked from access to Facebook on government computers. Employees trying to access Facebook received a warning message that read "The Internet website that you have requested has been deemed unacceptable for use for government business purposes". The use of social networking sites led to a fear that government offices would become more vulnerable to computer viruses and hackers. However, with the government denying the use of these websites in their offices, many ethical questions arise about whether or not denying employees access to something that is readily available to everyone else is an infringement on the employees' rights and freedoms as Canadian citizens. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_technoethics-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_technoethics-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8619e144f --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_technoethics-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +--- +title: "Organizational technoethics" +chunk: 2/3 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_technoethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:57.765531+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Technoethical challenges in medical organizations === +Another area of organizational technoethics that has been becoming increasingly popular is in the field of medicine. Medical ethics are based on values and judgments in a practical clinical placement where six values are portrayed the most: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, dignity, truthfulness and honesty. Many of the issues in medical ethics are due to a lack of communication between the patients, family members, and health care team. An asset to medical ethics that has brought attention to its advantages and disadvantages are electronic medical records. This is a new way to update, organize and store patients' medical records in a database that can be accessible to other doctors by using the network. +An issue in organizational technoethics in the medical field that is an increasing matter is the privacy issue with electronic medical records. To start, some advantages of EMRs are that they can minimize errors, keep records safe in the database, it is cost efficient, translates into a better treatment for the patients and can even give some control over health records to the patients. On the other hand, EMRs have brought upon some disadvantages mainly around privacy issues. First, it threatens a patient's privacy. Having a patient's medical history recorded in the database loses the confidentiality between the doctor and patient since anyone who has access to the system is able to retrieve these files. +Moreover, some do not feel their medical records are safe in the database since others are able to get into personal files and potentially change medical records or misuse the information. A group of researchers conducted a study on the privacy issues raised by the use of EMRs. They concluded that all electronic systems around us have this one-to-many exchange such as the internet and email just like the EMR system. However, more clarity needs to be provided around patient consent and patient restrictions as well as confidentiality issues. With the issue of privacy at hand, many ethical questions have surfaced on whether this electronic system is safe or a hazard to patients due to the easy access and misuse of a patient's information. + +=== Technoethics and surveillance === +Organizational surveillance is becoming a reoccurring issue in the modern day workforce. Today's organizations are facing the ethical dilemma of privacy rights and meeting the societal demands of efficient productivity performances from employees. Organizations have restrictions on employees Web pages and have also implemented surveillance over workers email, Web browsing, and even video surveillance at the workplace. Surveillance has become a technoethical challenge because the rapid development of surveillance technologies. Surveillance is a prominent technoethical challenge because it threatens democracy, privacy, power, as well as brings various types of rights together. Surveillance is a technoethical challenge because it encompasses many ethical dilemmas made by new technology. Surveillance is a technoethical challenges because it threatens personal liberties. Surveillance is said to corrode interpersonal trust, which is essential for democratic governance. Citizens with access to new technologies are becoming more aware of the pervasiveness of these technologies. Surveillances has evolved from people called informers to technology. Citizens are now seen as consumers, and their preferences are monitored in order to feed citizens their preferences rather than serve them with broad perspective. This poses the question: Is it ethical to implement informational narrowcasting (only feeding citizens their preferences)? Surveillance also falls under many other categories and raises other ethical dilemmas. Another ethical dilemma would be: Should citizens be involved in the design process of technological policy on surveillance? +Surveillance can be ethical if states use it to protect national security and do not monitor citizens in the privacy of their bedroom and public washrooms. In 1998 " New surveillance" introduced by technological advances added to the degree of complexity and mobility, that society had not seen before. Surveillance has captured many areas of ethics and technology which translates into Technoethics. Surveillance has looked at power relationships in society, trust and autonomy, privacy, causes, authority as well as necessity, means, distance and social sorting. Technoethics refers to the systems approach taken to look at all of these issues surrounding dilemmas such as surveillance. +The branch of utilitarian ethical theories are "based on the assumption of the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people". Under this perspective of ethical theories, organizational surveillance for the workers does not bring happiness; "Workplace surveillance has consequences for employees, affecting employee well-being, work culture, productivity, creativity and motivation". According to this report, the results show that surveillance produces the exact opposite results in which surveillance was implemented for, to increase workplace productivity. With organizational surveillance creating a workplace environment where employees feel unmotivated and as a result productivity will decrease. If the productivity of employees lack than the organization may not experience the rate of growth and success as wanted by management and ultimately, will lead to an overall unhappiness for both parties, employees and the organization. +Another branch of ethical theories which can be applied is duty ethics. Duty ethics is "concerned with the obligations one has to others in society". Under this perspective, organizations have the obligation to provide services and goods to society. In order to produce services and goods for society, organizations must be efficient in productivity. As result of this need, organizations have implemented surveillance on employees in order to meet this obligation. Also, employees have the obligation to meet their own performance goals at the workplace, which align with the overall goals of the organization. + +=== Organizational restrictions on Internet publishing === \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_technoethics-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_technoethics-2.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6c301f7c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_technoethics-2.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +--- +title: "Organizational technoethics" +chunk: 3/3 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_technoethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:57.765531+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The Internet has become a popular medium of expression and accessing information and data. As the Internet community expands, there has been great debate on whether or not the internet should be censored, and if so, by whom. In Canada, there are many public and private organisations with the authority to censor, including many self-censoring associations and service providers. Canadian internet censorship is not specifically regulated; however local laws do apply to websites hosted in Canada as well as to residents who host sites on servers in other jurisdictions. Canada has seen many cases regarding websites including defamatory material and material promoting hatred or contempt. +Important Canadian cases that raise the question of control of the flow of content on the Internet include: + +The Karla Homolka case. In 1993, the judge presiding over the trial of Karla Homolka placed a Canadian publication ban on the proceedings. Through the use of the internet, internationally published materials were then made available in Canada, undermining the court order. McGill University, followed by a number of other universities, immediately took responsibility of the university law under law to control the reception of content within its own constituency because of its liability as an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to restrict Bernardo-Holmolka material to its internet users, and later extended these restrictions by removing access to various Usenet newsgroups which the administrators felt might be violating the Canadian laws regarding obscenity and hate literature. +The Ernst Zündel case. Ernst Christof Friedrich Zundel, a German Holocaust denier living in Ontario, Canada and author of various works such as Did Six Million Really Die? and The Hitler We Loved and Why was charged by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for violation of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, for promoting "hatred or contempt" against Jews through the American-based and operated Zundelsite.org Internet website. He was deported to Germany in 2005, after being declared a threat to Canada's national security in 2003. +Many cases were ruled through Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, such as the Marc Lemire case, which featured a "white nationalist" website hosted out of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. However, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) found that Section 13 was unconstitutional and refused to apply the provisions against the individual for reasons of freedom of speech. All other Section 13 cases in Canada have been postponed pending on final decision of the applicability of Section 13. + +== Future == +Organizational ethics and technology is a hot-bed for discussion. Whether it is about the maintenance of worker's privacy or the censoring of social network sites, organizations are striving to find a way to balance both their worker's agency and their productivity. It seems the fluid nature of the Internet is forcing the hand of companies to allow their workers some benefits to access the sites they normally would outside of the office, while at the same time maintaining a strict policy to not abuse any privileges meted out. The medical field has brought on a new technology that hopes to effectively and systematically ease the process of updating, storing, and organizing patient's records in a manner that suits both the patients and the doctors that treat them. +With the advent of electronic medical records (EMR), the field of medical ethics has also seen an influx in ethical discourse. While the technology is different from social media per se, the efforts to protect the worker's (or patient's) privacy is similar and equally paramount to their survival. Patients will look to online databases to ensure that their information is both correct and secure, while trying to maintain the pseudo-ageless "doctor-patient confidentiality", even with full knowledge that their information is accessible worldwide with the click of a button. +Looking ahead to how EMR advances, and whether or not organizations will always feel the need to block social network sites all depends on how they continue to be used as people become more complacent with the technology. There will always be instances of ethical debates concerning technology within an organizational context, as the only things that seem to change are the technologies surrounding them. + +== See also == +Applied ethics +Computer ethics +Cyberethics +Digital rights +Information ethics +Organizational communication +Technoethics + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Atlantis_(journal)-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Atlantis_(journal)-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b92d5b198 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Atlantis_(journal)-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +--- +title: "The New Atlantis (journal)" +chunk: 1/2 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Atlantis_(journal)" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:53.073712+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The New Atlantis is a journal founded by the social conservative advocacy group the Ethics and Public Policy Center, now published by the Center for the Study of Technology and Society. It covers topics about the social, ethical, political, and policy dimensions of modern science and technology. The journal is editorially reviewed but is not peer-reviewed on scientific topics. It is edited by Ari Schulman, having previously been edited by co-founders Eric Cohen and Adam Keiper. +The journal's name is taken from Francis Bacon's utopian novella New Atlantis, which the journal's editors describe as a "fable of a society living with the benefits and challenges of advanced science and technology". An editorial in the inaugural issue states that the aim of the journal is "to help us avoid the extremes of euphoria and despair that new technologies too often arouse; and to help us judge when mobilizing our technological prowess is sensible or necessary, and when the preservation of things that count requires limiting the kinds of technological power that would lessen, cheapen, or ultimately destroy us." Writing in National Review, the journal's editor Adam Keiper described The New Atlantis as being written from a "particularly American and conservative way of thinking about both the blessings and the burdens of modern science and technology". New Atlantis authors and bioethicists publishing in other journals have also similarly referred to The New Atlantis as being written from a social conservative stance that utilizes religion. + +== Subjects == + +The New Atlantis tends to publish views in favor of technological innovation but wary of certain avenues of development. For example, the journal has generally advocated nuclear energy; space exploration and development through public–private partnerships, including crewed missions to Mars; biofuels; and genetically modified foods. It has expressed ambivalent or critical views about developments in synthetic biology, as well as military technologies like drones, chemical weapons, and cyberwarfare. Articles often explore policy questions on these and other issues, sometimes advocating particular policy outcomes, especially on health care, environmental management, and energy. +The journal has published widely on bioethics, including issues such as stem cell research, assisted reproduction, cloning, assisted suicide, organ and tissue donation, the purported link between vaccines and autism, and informed consent. Articles on these issues often highlight the potential for dangerous or degrading developments, including concerns over human dignity, with many articles examining human enhancement, and life extension, and historical precedents for abuse in eugenics and population control. +The journal also features broader philosophical reflections on science and technology, and tends to be skeptical of what its authors consider to be speculative overreach common in popular discussions. Examples include articles that have defended the existence of free will in light of developments in neuroscience, questioned the wisdom of using brain scans in courtrooms, and described how growing knowledge of epigenetics has undermined common claims about genetic determinism. While the journal has sometimes aired libertarian views about human enhancement and transhumanism, its contributors generally tend to question whether technologies like artificial intelligence, friendly artificial intelligence, and genetic enhancement are possible or desirable. +The journal has also published widely on the interpersonal effects of the Internet and digital technology. It has featured articles on subjects like Facebook, cell phones, multitasking, e-readers, GPS and navigation, virtual reality, and health influencers. A 2006 article by Matthew B. Crawford, who advocated the intellectual and economic virtues of the manual trades, was noted as a best-of-the-year essay by The New York Times columnist David Brooks, and was subsequently expanded into the bestselling book Shop Class as Soulcraft. The journal also frequently publishes essays on philosophical and literary questions relating to science and technology. + +== Criticism == + +=== Sexuality and Gender Special Report === +In August 2016, Paul R. McHugh, at the time a retired professor, co-authored a 143-page review of the scientific literature on gender and sexuality in The New Atlantis. In September 2016, Johns Hopkins University faculty members Chris Beyrer, Robert W. Blum, and Tonia C. Poteat wrote a Baltimore Sun op-ed, to which six other Johns Hopkins faculty members also contributed, in which they indicated concerns about McHugh's co-authored report, which they said mischaracterized the current state of science on gender and sexuality. More than 600 alumni, faculty members, and students at the medical school also signed a petition calling on the university and hospital to disavow the paper. Chris Beyrer, a professor at the public health school and part of the faculty group that denounced McHugh's stance, said, "These are dated, now-discredited theories." Brynn Tannehill, a board member of the Transgender United Fund wrote that "this isn't a study, it's a very long Opinion-Editorial piece." \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Atlantis_(journal)-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Atlantis_(journal)-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..44931252f --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Atlantis_(journal)-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +--- +title: "The New Atlantis (journal)" +chunk: 2/2 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Atlantis_(journal)" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:53.073712+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +== Other reception == +Writing for the National Review in a 2003 column, the conservative author Stanley Kurtz described The New Atlantis as influential on thinking about science and technology. Richard John Neuhaus, former editor of the conservative journal First Things, wrote that The New Atlantis is "as good a publication as there is for the intelligent exploration of questions in bioethics and projections—promising, ominous, and fantastical—about the human future," and a writer in The American Conservative described the journal as a source "of fresh ideas on the Right." National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg described The New Atlantis as "a new and interesting magazine" that "seems to be trying to carve out the space for the government to stop the more offensive aspects of biotechnology." +Conversely, the liberal bioethicist Jonathan D. Moreno said that the journal offers "a very dark vision" about science and technology but that it "makes an important point about the need to worry about the ends as well as means in science", and that its "writers were young, smart, and had a good understanding of the political process and the making of public policy." Bioethicist Ruth Macklin criticized The New Atlantis as representative of a conservative movement in bioethics that is "mean-spirited, mystical, and emotional" and that "claims insight into ultimate truth yet disavows reason". +The journal has particularly gained a reputation among the transhumanist movement for its criticism of human enhancement. James Hughes, a techno-progressivist and at times director of organizations such as the World Transhumanist Association and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, observes that the journal "has published influential attacks on artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, biotechnology, reproductive technology, and life extension". The artist and designer Natasha Vita-More, wife of British transhumanist philosopher, cryonicist, and author Max More, has described it as a "journal known as a ring of bioconservatives bent on opposing the cyberculture". Meanwhile, the organization founded by her husband, the Extropy Institute, has called it "a high-powered rallying point for the neo-Luddites". + +== Book series == +The New Atlantis publishes a book series, New Atlantis Books, an imprint of Encounter Books. As of December 2012, six books have been released: + +In the Shadow of Progress: Being Human in the Age of Technology ISBN 9781594032080 (2008), by Eric Cohen +Imagining the Future: Science and American Democracy ISBN 9781594032097 (2008), by Yuval Levin +Neither Beast nor God: The Dignity of the Human Person ISBN 9781594032578 (2009), by Gilbert Meilaender +Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism ISBN 9781594034763 (2012), by Robert Zubrin +Why Place Matters: Geography, Identity, and Civic Life in Modern America ISBN 9781594037160 (2014), edited by Wilfred M. McClay and Ted. V. McAllister +Eclipse of Man: Human Extinction and the Meaning of Progress ISBN 9781594037368 (2014), by Charles T. Rubin + +== References == + +== External links == +Official website \ No newline at end of file