Antoine Boudreau LeBlanc

Research ethics has historically focused on the “laboratory researcher,” neglecting fundamental aspects of academic life, such as knowledge transfer, bibliometric dynamics, and structural inequalities. These issues profoundly influence academic trajectories, particularly in a context where interdisciplinarity and the breaking down of barriers between faculties have become academic and societal imperatives. This text explores a latent force present in academic institutions capable of transcending traditional divisions to promote better integration of skills, knowledge and practices, first within its institution, but also more broadly in society. We introduce the Idoine Collective as an organisational model for studying and experimenting with mechanisms that meet the needs of knowledge transfer, while investigating the institutional structures that hinder interdisciplinarity and the promotion of students’ and researchers’ skills. The Idoine Collective is considered as a subject of study in procedural ethics and governance, allowing us to analyse how alternative organisational frameworks can support science in action, break down barriers between disciplines and strengthen the link between universities and society. By examining these dynamics, this text invites us to rethink the place of students and researchers in the production and dissemination of knowledge, while highlighting the structural tensions that remain in academia.

In the context of the COVID-19 health crisis, the politicization of science was a necessary response to the challenges faced. While this mediation (influenced by political considerations) served as a strategic response, we argue that it remained incomplete from an ethical perspective. A retrospective analysis of the situation has highlighted the need to sustain and expand the advisory role that ethics bodies played in the health network during the pandemic. The complexity arising from a sustained interaction between scientific knowledge, public policies and ethics bodies calls for a deeper and continued reflection on their integration into society, while maintaining a critical perspective on the power dynamics inherent in public health.

La pandémie COVID-19, les migrations climatiques et la perte de biodiversité sont des exemples de crises contemporaines qui, comme le suggère Van Rensselaer Potter, bénéficieraient dun rapprochement entre le Bio et l’Éthique pour en mitiger les dommages. Les futur(e)s bioéthicien(ne)s devront poursuivre cette quête potterienne en ouvrant le champ de la bioéthique vers de nouvelles collaborations interdisciplinaires et thèmes d’étude, dépassant les technologies biomédicales et les sciences de la vie, dont les affaires, les entreprises, la finance, le marché ainsi que la consommation, la production et la démographie humaines… toutes ayant des influences notables sur l’allocation locale des soins et sur l’avenir global des écosystèmes.

Potterian bioethics plays a proactive role, when carried out in collaboration with multidisciplinary teams with a mandate to operationalize public policy, as highlighted in the Canadian Journal of Bioethics in 2022 where several articles on Van Rensselaer Potter’s thinking appeared on the 50th anniversary of the first publication of the term bioethics in the North American literature. This global perspective, which is still insufficiently detailed, critically reflects on the place, the role and the imperative of bioethics as an adaptive management of the environment; and it aims to accompany empirical projects in the operation of their scientific, political and public visions, which are sometimes synergistic, and other times conflicting. In order to specify the operationalization of this global perspective of bioethics, it is pertinent to mobilize theoretical notions from sociology and philosophy of science, in particular the Latourian concept of Hybrid Forum and the Paradigm associated to Thomas Kuhn. To illustrate this, the argument presented here mobilizes the empirical case of a project to design a monitoring of antibiotic use in Quebec, Canada (2018-2022), and expands on the importance of being aware of context (technological, sociological and anthropological) in order to deepen and pose constructive criticism. This article presents an alternative perspective to the act of governing by proposing a proactive process of governance.

This review summarizes the discussions held during the 3rd Bioethics Café in 2019, which focused on the theme: “The citizen as public health actor: challenges and opportunities”. Three panelists – Yan Kestens, Allison Marchildon and Karine Lefeuvre – enriched this meeting with their expertise in public health and ethics. This exchange highlighted the value of citizen participation in public health and the importance of nuancing its understanding and application. It is a priority to consider the relationships between the various stakeholders, the contextual factors that can affect this process and the ethical strategies that can be used to strengthen “good” citizen participation. This meeting was part of a series of Bioethics Cafés held in Montreal and Quebec City on the subject of ethics, health and data.

L’idée d’une gouvernance collaborative gagne en popularité. Cependant, comment être véritablement collaboratif? Les systèmes de prises de décision diversifiés en intervenants doivent composer avec des parties prenantes aux positions, aux rôles, aux intérêts, aux missions, aux observations et aux valeurs différents. Par sa formule facile d’utilisation pour les éthicien·ne·s professionnel·le·s, l’outil de bioéthique co P·R·I·M·O·V (Position, Rôle, Intérêt, Mission, Observation, Valeurs) vise à améliorer la pratique des initiatives technosociales pour un développement durable, collaboratif et démocratique. L’outil reprend la logique d’analyse des conflits d’intérêts (CI) issue des cadres en éthique organisationnelle. Les CI, comme unité analytique en éthique, permettent d’anticiper et de gérer les problèmes pouvant compromettre à court et à long termes les activités d’un programme et sa gouvernance. L’outil a été construit à la suite d’une étude de cas sur la mise en œuvre d’un monitorage de l’utilisation des antibiotiques en santé animale au Québec, Canada. L’usage de cet outil de bioéthique est stratégique et aide à la négociation des positions, puis à la coconstruction d’un référentiel commun entre les parties prenantes en vue de préparer le terrain à une gouvernance collaborative favorisant la coopération.

Ethics as a field should, we argue, pay more attention to the (eco)system. Van Rensselaer Potter, one of the pillars of contemporary bioethics, advocated for a global “bios” ethics that literally and metaphorically bridges the gap between biological knowledge and ethical reflection. However, a Potterian Bio-Ethics faces a major obstacle: its acentric focus. Consequently, Global Bio-Ethics remains opaque for those trained under the anthropocentric biomedical ethics that instrumentalizes the environment. This paper aims to demystify two key concepts—Globality and Complexity—and show how a Potterian Bio-Ethics can effectively bridge the gap between knowledge-building in ecology and policy-making in the context of medical and environmental practices. Drawing on an experience in Québec, Canada, to mitigate the threat of antimicrobial resistance using a biosurveillance system, we show the utility of having ethics as an integral part of ecosystem(ic) approaches to bridge health and environment. We conclude by arguing that bioethics (and bioethicists) should become a locus for cascading communication, collaboration, and translation by co-constructing biosurveillance data governance.

Exploring the complex landscape of bioethics, this article combines the theoretical insights of the Potterian Global Bio-Ethics approach with bioethics research methods, aiming for actionable ethical compromises in governance. The Potterian approach transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries, adopting John Dewey’s pragmatist view, and bringing into convergence philosophical and empirical methods. I advocate for a synergy between micro-scale local-empirical and macro-scale global-rational approaches. Presenting a hands-on case for bioethicists, I emphasize a ‘Global’ bioethics perspective, grounded at the individual scale. Drawing on concepts like ‘boundary-object’ and ‘hybrid community’ from Susan Star and Michel Callon, I propose a reflexive methodology with tools for mapping, framing, and shaping ethical inquiries, to avoid fallacies and embed values in problem-solving. This approach strives to connect meta-ethical reflections with daily bioethical challenges, promoting a coherent, reflexive, and pragmatic methodology.

For Van Rensselaer Potter (1911–2001), Global Bio-Ethics is about building on the legacy of Aldo Leopold (1887–1948), one of the most notable forest managers of the twentieth century who brought to light the importance of pragmatism in the sciences and showed us a new way to proceed with environmental ethics. Following Richard Huxtable and Jonathan Ives's methodological 'Framework for Empirical Bioethics Research Projects' called 'Mapping, framing, shaping,' published in BMC Medicine Ethics (2019)), we propose operationalizing a framework for Global Bio-Ethics by hybridizing approaches in empirical bioethics and ecosystem management. We explain this framework using the metaphor of forest management. This mixed approach is articulated through three phases: (1) mapping the “landscape” to build a working theory, (2) framing the “scene” to prepare the fieldwork, and (3) shaping bioethics “tools” to stimulate cooperation. Applying this methodology, an adaptive management cycle is outlined to help ensure that political processes are sustainable and socially acceptable, still based on strategic and ethical thinking, but also capable of reshaping failing policies.

These are times of crisis. Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic and the resurgence of a form of Cold War raised international concerns about Health & Well-Being, Climate & Biodiversity, and Technology & Economy. Articulating bridges between disciplines, between cultures and between knowledges has never been more urgent to accelerate the translation of values and policies into actions. This comprehensive review argues for a radical ecosystemic approach to bridge the Medical & Environmental fields (studies, sectors, and technics) in an integrated management practice of Care, Production & Biodiversity. As bridging implies solving the epistemological gap, the argument emphasizes the need to raise awareness with theoretical hybridizations, fieldwork hypotheses, and working theories. According to Van Rensselaer Potter, who coined the term ‘bioethics’, awareness means to refocus the Medical & Envir- onmental studies and surveillance processes from a target (e.g., the disease, the pathogen, or the resource) to its context (e.g., adding history, demography and ecology). Thus reframed, concerned researchers, leaders, and citizens should invest their effort in preparing the (contextual) terrain for ever-more organizational resilience. We conclude on the need for actions to shape the Health & Biodiversity determinants, to improve communication systems, data-sharing networks, and responsible innovations, and to foster knowledge translation to envision a better realistic future.

This review summarises the discussion during the 1st Bioethics Café of 2019, which focused on the theme: “Citizens and their connected objects: what happens to their data?” Three expert panelists and an audience of 70 people participated in this event. The discussion clarified the benefits that connected objects can have, such as empowerment and individual responsibility, but also highlighted some risks such as hyper normativity or the issue of obtaining valid consent. Potential solutions and regulations were proposed by the public and experts. This event was part of a series of three Bioethics Cafés held in Montreal and Quebec City on the subject of ethics, health and data.

Surveillance programs supporting the management of One Health issues such as antibiotic resistance are complex systems in themselves. Designing ethical surveillance systems is thus a complex task (retroactive and iterative), yet one that is also complicated to implement and evaluate (e.g., sharing, collaboration, and governance). The governance of health surveillance requires attention to ethical concerns about data and knowledge (e.g., performance, trust, accountability, and transparency) and empowerment ethics, also referred to as a form of responsible self-governance. Ethics in reflexive governance operates as a systematic critical-thinking procedure that aims to define its value: What are the “right” criteria to justify how to govern “good” actions for a “better” future? The objective is to lay the foundations for a methodological framework in empirical bioethics, the rudiments of which have been applied to a case study to building reflexive governance in One Health. This ongoing critical thinking process involves “mapping, framing, and shaping” the dynamics of interests and perspectives that could jeopardize a “better” future. This paper proposes to hybridize methods to combine insights from collective deliberation and expert evaluation through a reflexive governance functioning as a community-based action-ethics methodology. The intention is to empower individuals and associations in a dialogue with society, which operation is carried out using a case study approach on data sharing systems. We based our reasoning on a feasibility study conducted in Québec, Canada (2018–2021), envisioning an antibiotic use surveillance program in animal health for 2023. Using the adaptive cycle and governance techniques and perspectives, we synthesize an alternative governance model rooted in the value of empowerment. The framework, depicted as a new “research and design (R&D)” practice, is linking operation and innovation by bridging the gap between Reflexive, Evaluative, and Deliberative reasonings and by intellectualizing the management of democratizing critical thinking locally (collective ethics) by recognizing its context (social ethics). Drawing on the literature in One Health and sustainable development studies, this article describes how a communitarian and pragmatic approach can broaden the vision of feasibility studies to ease collaboration through public-private-academic partnerships. The result is a process that “reassembles” the One Health paradigm under the perspective of global bioethics to create bridges between the person and the ecosystem through pragmatic ethics.

Van Rensselaer Potter (1911-2001), le biologiste à l’origine du terme « bioéthique » dans les écrits nord-américains, considère que « real bioethics falls in the context of the ideals of […] Aldo Leopold », un forestier, philosophe et poète ayant marqué le XXe siècle. Associer Leopold à Potter a pour effet de placer la bioéthique dans la famille des éthiques de l’environnement, ce qui la différencie du sens conventionnel retenu en médecine et en recherche depuis le Rapport Belmont (1979), une déclaration ayant propulsé l’institutionnalisation de la bioéthique en Amérique du Nord. Cependant, diviser la bioéthique entre le médical et l’environnemental est réducteur. Potter propose au contraire une bioéthique globale s’intéressant aux enjeux situés à leur interface, dont ceux concernant la terre, la vie sauvage, la surpopulation, la consommation, etc. Cet article vise à amorcer un nouveau chantier d’analyse de la pensée de Potter en s’appuyant sur l’héritage de Leopold en biologie. Une synthèse de cette vision potterienne est proposée de manière à considérer son œuvre comme un tout cohérent s’intégrant aux grands débats qui transcendent les XXe et XXIe siècles. Sa vision apparaît comme une sagesse collective et prospective sous la forme d’une science de la survie et d’un code de bioéthique. Dépassant l’éthique de l’environnement, son association avec Leopold offre un modèle de la complexité s’imposant comme cas indissociable du contexte qui l’englobe, en améliorant nos façons d’intervenir en pratique dans un monde en constante transformation, à titre de gouvernance adaptative et de sagesse de la responsabilité.