David Resnik

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

MEDIEVAL AND RENAISSANCE LOGICSIMON OF FAVERSHAM, Quaestiones super Libro Elenchorum. Text in Latin with introduction and notes in English, edited by Sten Ebbesen, Thomas Izbicki, John Longeway, Francesco del Punta, Eileen Serene and Eleonore Stump. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1984. xiv + 270 pp. $3 1.OO.JACOPO ZABARELLA, De methodis libri quatuor; Liber de regressu. Edited by Cesare Vasoli. Bologna: Editrice CLUEB, 1985. xxxviii+ 193 pp. Lire 57,000.EDITIONSG. W. F. HEGEL, Wissenschafl der Logik. Erster Teil. Die objektive Logik, Erster Band. Die Lehre von Sein. Herausgegeben von F. Hogemann und W. Jaeschke. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1985. x + 448 S. DM 140.BERNARD BOLZANO, Wissenschaftslehre, Sects. 1-45. Edited and introduction Jan Berg. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Fromman, 1985. 269 pp. No price stated.MAX H. FISCH, C. J. W. KLOESEL, E. C. MOORE and DON D.ROBERTS, LYNN A. ZIEGLER, Writings of Charles S. Peirce: a chronological edition. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. Vol. I 1857-1866. 1982. xxxv + 698 pp. $32.50. Vo l. I1 1867-1871. 1984. xlviii + 649 pp. with introductory essays by Max H. Fisch, C. F. Delaney and Daniel D. -Merrill. $35.00.ALFRED TARSKI, Logic, semantics, metamathematics. Translated by J. H. Woodger. Second edition, edited and introduced by John Corcoran. Philadelphia: Hackett, 1983, xxx+ 506 pp. $50.00/£37.50 ; $29.50/&27.50.J. MITTELSTRASS, Enzyklopadie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie, Bd.2: H-0. Mannheim, Wien, Zurich: Bibliographisches Institut, 1984. 1105 pp. DM 156.LOGIC AND MATHEMATICSA. GROTE, Anzahl, Zahl und Menge. Die phanomenologische Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Hamburg: Meiner, 1983. vii + 143 pp. DM 36.VICTOR LOWE, Alfred North Whitehead: the man and his work. Volume 1: 1861-1910. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985. xi+ 351 pp. $27.50/£26.40.MURIEL SELTMAN and PETER SELTMAN, Piaget's logic: a critique of genetic epistemology. London, Boston and Sydney: George Allen and Unwin, 1985. ix+ 353 pp. £30.00.MORRIS KLINE, Mathemafics: the loss of certainty. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980. vi + 366 pp. $19.95.RACHEL WALLACE GARDEN, Modern logic and quantum mechanics. Bristol: Adam Hilger, 1983. xii+ 178 pp. £18.00.LOGIC AND LANGUAGEH. LEBLANC, E. MENDELSON and A. ORESTEIN, Logic, language, and mathematics. Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1984, 282 pp. Dfl.90/$34.50.R. M. MARTIN, Mind, modality, meaning and method. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1983. xiv+ 225 pp. $44.50 /$16.95.HERBERT HOCHBERG, Logic, ontology, and language-essays on truth and reality. Miinchen and Wein: Philosophia Verlag, 1984. 448 pp., $74.00.

In a severe influenza pandemic, hospitals will likely experience serious and widespread shortages of patient pulmonary ventilators and of staff qualified to operate them. Deciding who will receive access to mechanical ventilation will often determine who lives and who dies. This prospect raises an important question whether pandemic preparedness plans should include some process by which individuals affected by ventilator rationing would have the opportunity to appeal adverse decisions. However, the issue of appeals processes to ventilator rationing decisions has been largely neglected in state pandemic planning efforts. If we are to devise just and effective plans for coping with a severe influenza pandemic, more attention to the issue of appeals processes for pandemic ventilator rationing decisions is needed. Arguments for and against appeals processes are considered, and some suggestions are offered to help efforts at devising more rational pandemic preparedness plans

Background: In biomedical research, there have been numerous scandals highlighting conflicts of interest (COIs) leading to significant bias in judgment and questionable practices. Academic institutions, journals, and funding agencies have developed and enforced policies to mitigate issues related to COI, especially surrounding financial interests. After a case of editorial COI in a prominent bioethics journal, there is concern that the same level of oversight regarding COIs in the biomedical sciences may not apply to the field of bioethics. In this study, we examined the availability and comprehensiveness of COI policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals. Methods: After developing a codebook, we analyzed the content of online COI policies of 63 bioethics journals, along with policy information provided by journal editors that was not publicly available. Results: Just over half of the bioethics journals had COI policies for authors (57%), and only 25% for peer reviewers and 19% for editors. There was significant variation among policies regarding definitions, the types of COIs described, the management mechanisms, and the consequences for noncompliance. Definitions and descriptions centered on financial COIs, followed by personal and professional relationships. Almost all COI policies required disclosure of interests for authors as the primary management mechanism. Very few journals outlined consequences for noncompliance with COI policies or provided additional resources. Conclusion: Compared to other studies of biomedical journals, a much lower percentage of bioethics journals have COI policies and these vary substantially in content. The bioethics publishing community needs to develop robust policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors and these should be made publicly available to enhance academic and public trust in bioethics scholarship.

In recent years, many philosophers of science have rejected the “value-free ideal” for science, arguing that non-epistemic values have a legitimate role to play in scientific inquiry. However, this philosophical position raises the question of how to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate influences of values in science. In this paper, we argue that those seeking to address this “new” demarcation problem can benefit by drawing lessons from the “old” demarcation problem, in which philosophers tried to find a way of distinguishing between science and non-science. Many of those who worked on this problem ultimately found that efforts to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for defining science failed, and most concluded that the best solution to the problem was to characterize scientific hypotheses, theories, and research programs in terms of some common norms. We suggest that those seeking to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate value influences on science would do well to adopt a similar approach. Rather than attempting to establish necessary and sufficient conditions for identifying appropriate value influences, it will be more fruitful to evaluate scientific activities based on their adherence to a set of epistemic and ethical norms that can be implemented in scientific practice by means of rules, conventions, policies, and procedures.

In the last decade, there has been increased recognition of the importance of disclosing and managing non-financial conflicts of interests to safeguard the objectivity, integrity, and trustworthiness of scientific research. While funding agencies and academic institutions have had policies for addressing non-financial interests in grant peer review and research oversight since the 1990s, scientific journals have been only recently begun to develop such policies. An impediment to the formulation of effective journal policies is that non-financial interests can be difficult to recognize and define. Journals can overcome this problem by providing guidance concerning the types of non-financial interests that should be disclosed, including direct research interests, direct professional interests, expert testimony, involvement in litigation, holding a leadership position in a non-governmental organization, providing technical or scientific advice to a non-governmental organization, and personal or professional relationships. The guidance should apply to authors, editors, and reviewers.

In the last 20 years, there has been a sharp increase in the incidence of retractions of articles published in scientific journals, the majority of which are due to research misconduct. In some cases, researchers have revised and republished articles that were retracted due to misconduct, which raises some novel questions concerning authorship. Suppose that an article is retracted because one of the authors fabricated or falsified some data, but the researchers decide to salvage the useable data, make appropriate revisions, and resubmit the article for publication. If the person who committed misconduct has made a significant contribution to the research reported in the revised paper, should they be named as an author to recognize this contribution or should they be denied authorship because they committed misconduct? This is a challenging issue because it involves the confluence of two research ethics domains that are usually dealt with separately, i.e., resolution of authorship disputes and adjudication of misconduct findings, as well as potential conflicts among norms that underlie authorship practices and misconduct adjudication. In this paper, we (1) describe some actual cases involving articles that were retracted for misconduct and republished; (2) review policies from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics, and top fifteen biomedical journals to determine whether they provide adequate guidance for cases like these; and (3) analyze the ethical and policy issues that may arise in these situations.

This book fills a gap in the literature on the Precautionary Principle by placing the principle within the wider context of precautionary reasoning and uses philosophical arguments and case studies to demonstrate when it does—and does not—apply. The book invites the reader to take a step back from the controversy surrounding the Precautionary Principle and consider the overarching rationales for responding to threats to the environment or public health. It provides practical guidance and probing insight for the intended audience, including scholars, students, journalists, and policymakers.

The Ethics and Regulation of Research with Human Subjects, edited by Professors Carl Coleman of Seton Hall, Jerry Menikoff of the University of Kansas, Jesse Goldner of Saint Louis University, and Nancy Dubler of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, is an up-to-date and authoritative collection of readings on ethical, legal, and policy issues in research with human subjects. The authors have modeled their text on the casebook style commonly used in law schools. At 746 pages, plus front matter and an appendix, this book contains just about everything one needs to know for a thorough grasp on human subjects research, including federal and state regulations governing this research, interpretive guidance from federal agencies, international guidelines and codes, court decisions, historical documents and case studies, and selected readings from scholarly articles and books. The book includes written comments and questions to help students understand and interpret the readings.

This article explores the impact of the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions on our view of human-kind’s place in the universe and locates the current debates about stem cell research within this larger sociohistorical context. The article argues that the past 500 years of science support the idea that the morally significant features of human beings reside in the unique cognitive, emotive, and social traits that are often described as the “soul,” not in any special features of human physiology, anatomy, or genetics.

Authorship is commonly used as the basis for the measurement of research productivity. It influences career progression and rewards, making it a valued commodity in a competitive scientific environment. To better understand authorship practices amongst collaborative teams, this study surveyed authors on collaborative journal articles published between 2011 and 2015. Of the 8364 respondents, 1408 responded to the final open-ended question, which solicited additional comments or remarks regarding the fair distribution of authorship in research teams. This paper presents the analysis of these comments, categorized into four main themes: (1) disagreements, (2) questionable behavior, (3) external influences regarding authorship, and (4) values promoted by researchers. Results suggest that some respondents find ways to effectively manage disagreements in a collegial fashion. Conversely, others explain how distribution of authorship can become a “blood sport” or a “horror story” which can negatively affect researchers’ wellbeing, scientific productivity and integrity. Researchers fear authorship discussions and often try to avoid openly discussing the situation which can strain team interactions. Unethical conduct is more likely to result from deceit, favoritism, and questionable mentorship and may become more egregious when there is constant bullying and discrimination. Although values of collegiality, transparency and fairness were promoted by researchers, rank and need for success often overpowered ethical decision-making. This research provides new insight into contextual specificities related to fair authorship distribution that can be instrumental in developing applicable training tools to identify, prevent, and mitigate authorship disagreement.

Scientific authorship serves to identify and acknowledge individuals who “contribute significantly” to published research. However, specific authorship norms and practices often differ within and across disciplines, labs, and cultures. As a consequence, authorship disagreements are commonplace in team research. This study aims to better understand the prevalence of authorship disagreements, those factors that may lead to disagreements, as well as the extent and nature of resulting misbehavior. Methods include an international online survey of researchers who had published from 2011 to 2015. Of the 6673 who completed the main questions pertaining to authorship disagreement and misbehavior, nearly half reported disagreements regarding authorship naming; and discipline, rank, and gender had significant effects on disagreement rates. Paradoxically, researchers in multidisciplinary teams that typically reflect a range of norms and values, were less likely to have faced disagreements regarding authorship. Respondents reported having witnessed a wide range of misbehavior including: instances of hostility, undermining of a colleague’s work during meetings/talks, cutting corners on research, sabotaging a colleague’s research, or producing fraudulent work to be more competitive. These findings suggest that authorship disputes may contribute to an unhealthy competitive dynamic that can undermine researchers’ wellbeing, team cohesion, and scientific integrity.

The patent system appears to make three ontological assumptions often associated with scientific realism: there is a natural world that is independent of human knowledge and technology; invented products can be unobservable things; and invented products have causal powers. Although a straightforward reading of patent laws implies these ontological commitments, it is not at all clear that what the patent system has to say about the world has any bearing on issues of scientific realism. While realists might embrace the patent system’s apparent ontology as providing additional support for their view, anti-realists could propose an alternative interpretation of patent law that does not involve realist ontological commitments. Thus, questions about the patent system’s ontology depend on whether one takes patent laws at face value or defends an interpretation of patent law motivated by philosophical theory. Philosophers of science should pay attention to the practice of patenting, even if they ultimately reject the patent system’s apparent ontology and offer an alternative interpretation.

The idea that the degree of infringement public health interventions have on individual rights should be proportional to the degree of expected benefits has emerged as an influential principle in public health ethics and policy. While proportionality makes sense in theory, it may be difficult to implement in practice, due to the inherent conflict between individual rights and the common good underlying the principle. To apply the proportionality principle to a decision of policy, one must still find a reasonable way of balancing these competing values in light of the available options and empirical evidence. In this article, I consider how the proportionality principle applies to the regulation of dietary supplements and examine some critiques of the current oversight system. I argue that it may be difficult maintain proportional oversight because the risks of dietary supplements vary considerably. Strengthening the regulations may therefore promote an appropriate level of regulation in some cases but lead to overregulation in others.

In their feature article, ‘Moral uncertainty and the farming of human-pig chimeras,’ Koplin and Wilkinson argue that there is a tension between (1) thinking that creating pig-human chimaeras with partly humanised brains as a source of organs for transplantation as morally problematic because of the uncertainty of their moral status and (2) thinking that the raising normal pigs for food is not morally problematic because of the certainty concerning their moral status.1 Koplin and Wilkson claim that the reasons that we are uncertain about the moral status of human-pig chimaeras with partly humanised brains also apply to normal pigs. Our moral uncertainty derives from (1) philosophical uncertainty concerning the characteristics that convey moral status and (2) epistemological uncertainty concerning the extent to which pigs with partly humanised brains or normal pigs possess such characteristics. If we think it is morally problematic to create pigs with humanised brains for organ transplantation, we should also think it is morally problematic to raise normal pigs for food, given our uncertainty about the moral status of both kinds of animals. Their view implies that it would be inconsistent to have moral qualms about creating pigs with humanised brains for organ transplantation but to no such misgivings about raising pigs for food. While I find Koplin and Wilkson’s arguments …

This book provides a framework for approaching ethical and policy dilemmas in research with human subjects from the perspective of trust. It explains how trust is important not only between investigators and subjects but also between and among other stakeholders involved in the research enterprise, including research staff, sponsors, institutions, communities, oversight committees, government agencies, and the general public. The book argues that trust should be viewed as a distinct ethical principle for research with human subjects that complements other principles, such as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The book applies the principle of trust to numerous issues, including informed consent, confidentiality, risk minimization, risks and benefits, protection of vulnerable subjects, experimental design, research integrity, and research oversight.This work also includes discussions of the history of research involving human subjects, moral theories and principles, contemporary cases, and proposed regulatory reforms. The book is useful for undergraduate and graduate students studying ethical policy issues related to research with human subjects, as well as for scientists and scholars who are interested in thinking about this topic from the perspective of trust.

In an insightful article published in this issue of the Hastings Center Report, Danielle Wenner criticizes what she describes as transactional approaches to the social value requirement in clinical research and defends a “basic structure approach.” Transactional approaches understand social value obligations as arising from transactions (or relationships) between research subjects, investigators, sponsors, and other parties. The basic structure approach, by contrast, understands social value obligations as stemming from the demands of Rawlsian social justice. According to Wenner, “The primary justification for the social value requirement lies not in the ethics of free and fair transactions but rather in the goals of the clinical research enterprise and the nature of its impacts on society. The requirement is justified because it ensures that biomedical progress occurs in a manner constrained by considerations of justice.” In this commentary, I will not critique the basic structure approach per se but will raise some concerns that arise when oversight committees, such as institutional reviews boards, attempt to apply it to proposed studies involving human subjects.