Hiroto Takagi

Introduction National bioethics committees (NBCs) are expected to play a crucial role in addressing bioethical challenges. However, few studies have examined the activities of NBCs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study investigated whether, and to what extent, NBCs were active during this public health emergency. Methods Between June and November 2024, we compiled and analyzed statements, opinions, guidelines, and reports on the COVID-19 pandemic issued by NBCs in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, the Council of Europe, and Singapore. We collected online publications related to COVID-19 from these committees, starting in 2019, and categorized them based on their publication date and themes. As the authors are proficient only in Japanese and English, publications in languages other than English were reviewed with the assistance of ChatGPT. Results The study examined 43 NBCs established in 35 countries and one organization. Among them, 22 committees—based in 21 countries and one organization—published materials on ethical issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. In total, these 22 NBCs issued 108 publications. We categorized the publications into 10 groups, with the three most frequently addressed topics being “vaccination (including vaccine distribution),” “frameworks for COVID-19 policies,” and “medical resource allocation.” Discussion The results indicate that publications were issued promptly in response to the evolving crisis and addressed a broad spectrum of bioethical concerns. This study also identifies three challenges and areas for growth. First, when responding to urgent public health crises, NBCs must account for three key considerations: (1) the transparency of the statement publication process, (2) the incorporation of statements into public policies, and (3) protections for the persons involved in drafting such statements. Second, significant regional disparities exist in NBC activity levels. Finally, the findings underscore the need for a more coordinated and globally inclusive approach to bioethical governance in future public health emergencies.

From “Is Semantics Possible?” (1970) to his seminal work “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’” (1975), Hilary Putnam developed his semantic externalism about the meaning and reference of natural kind terms. His metasemantic position, especially his idea of ‘indexicality’, is typically interpreted as a form of physical externalism. Such a view is committed to both natural kind realism (as a basis for reference determination) and causal-historical chains (as a basis for reference preservation). I contend that this interpretation requires reconsideration. Some scholars have presented textual evidence that Putnam did not presuppose natural kind realism when he developed his metasemantic position during the relevant period. Nonetheless, the question of how Putnam’s semantic externalism should be reformulated remains open. In this paper, I reconstruct his metasemantic position as what I term convergent externalism. On this account, the diachronic identity of reference is both guided by norms inherent to our linguistic practices and retroactively secured. While Putnam revised his general philosophical views throughout his career, my thesis demonstrates that the metasemantic and epistemological foundations of his thought were more unified than is often recognized.