"Ethics in Science, Ethics and Everyday Life" - a lunch and learn discussion, at GSU
Updated as a PowerPoint:
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Friday, July 12, 2019
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Reply to Christopher Tollefsen on Abortion
Reply to Christopher Tollefsen on Abortion, in Bob Fischer, ed., Ethics, Left and Right: The Moral Issues That Divide Us (Oxford University Press, 2019).
Abstract: Are you the
same thing as your body? Did you
begin at conception? Do you have a rational and free “nature” or “essence”?
Some answer ‘yes’ to all and argue that this means that abortion is wrong:
your "essence" is that of a free and rational being; that essence *makes* it wrong to kill you; you have always existed whenever your body existed; your body began at conception; and so you existed at conception and were wrong to kill; and the same is true for all other human fetuses.This argument is discussed here.
Below is a response to Christopher Tollefsen’s essay on
abortion, which is a perspective from “the Right.” Please see my contribution
from a perspective from “the Left,” “Early
and Later Abortions: Ethics and Law.”
Word count: 999
Friday, April 13, 2018
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
"Evidence-Based Care for the Elderly"
Samuel K. Williams and Joanne M. Braxton and Melissa Gosdin and Nathan Nobis et. al. "Evidence-Based Care for the Elderly: Uses of “the Grandmother Principle”." Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 28, no. 1 (2017): 1-7.
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Surveys about Animal Research
Ari Joffe, MD, has done a number of surveys related to animal research and the arguments given for and against it. I need to do more to share this research but here is a start. Abstracts are also below the fold:
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Animal Experimentation
Here is a 500 word essay on animal research, invited for an online magazine, for a "debate" on "whether animal testing should be banned." This was posted here.
Animal Testing Should Be Banned
“Animal testing” involves experimenting on animals to try to determine whether drugs and medical treatments are safe and effective for humans. It’s wrong and should be banned.
Monday, July 18, 2016
On the "What's Wrong?" Blog: Abortion and Animal Rights - Animal Rights and Abortion
What’s Wrong With Linking Abortion and Animal Rights?
Nathan Nobis, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Morehouse College, kindly contributed the following piece to What’s Wrong? Professor Nobis is the author of many articles and book chapters on topics concerning ethics and animals (e.g., vegetarianism, experimentation) and the ethics of abortion, an unpublished 2003 essay on the relations between these topics, and a review of a recent book on these topics’ intersections, which inspired this essay. What’s Wrong? is grateful to Professor Nobis for permission to publish this original piece here.
Summary:
Should
your views on abortion influence your views on animal rights? Should your views
on the moral status of animals influence your views on the moral status of
human fetuses?
Generally, no. Most arguments against abortion have no implications
for animal rights and those that might seem to be poor arguments against
abortion. And arguments for animal
rights only have implications for rare, later abortions of conscious fetuses,
not the majority of abortions that affect early, pre-conscious fetuses.
On the other sides, though, a common of objection to animal
rights does support a pro-life view and an influential feminist pro-choice
argument does suggest positive implications for animals, though.
Overall, the topic of abortion presents with an inherent
complexity never analogously present in animal rights issues – the perspective
of the pregnant woman whose life and body the fetus depends on – and so the
issues are importantly distinct.
Monday, June 27, 2016
Book Review: Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights
SHERRY F. COLB AND MICHAEL C. DORF
Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights
Sherry F. Colb and Michael C. Dorf, Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights, Columbia University Press, 2016, 252pp., $35.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780231175142.
Reviewed byNathan Nobis, Morehouse College
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Powerpoint on Animal Experimentation
I was recently asked to make an audio-narrated PowerPoint that reviews this article of mine, to be used in a UCSD course on non-animal-based medical research:
It is argued that using animals in research is morally wrong when the research is nontherapeutic and harmful to the animals. This article discusses methods of moral reasoning and discusses how arguments on this and other bioethical issues might be defended and critiqued. A basic method of moral argument analysis is presented and used to show that common objections to the view that "animal research is morally wrong" fail: ie, common arguments for the view that "animal research is morally permissible" are demonstrably unsound or in need of defense. It is argued that the best explanations why harmful, nontherapeutic research on human beings is wrong, ie, what it is about humans that makes such experimentation wrong, apply to many animals as well. Thus, harmful and nontherapeutic animal experimentation is wrong for reasons similar to the reasons that harmful and nontherapeutic human experimentation is wrong.
PMID:
21952174
DOI:
This PowerPoint with audio narration is available for download here.
Information on this course is below the fold.
Am J Med Sci. 2011 Oct;342(4):297-304. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3182299421.
The harmful, nontherapeutic use of animals in research is morally wrong.
Nobis N1.
Abstract
DOI:
This PowerPoint with audio narration is available for download here.
Information on this course is below the fold.
Tuesday, January 05, 2016
800 Words on Ethics and Abortion
800 words on abortion, for The Philosophers' Magazine, Issue 72 on "50 New Thoughts in Philosophy":
ABORTION
Nathan Nobis is an Associate Professor of Philosophy
at Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA USA, and author of many articles on topics in
bioethics, including abortion.
Abortion
involves killing a fetus to end a pregnancy. These fetuses are human, biologically, and are beings. So, abortion involves the
killing of a human being, which is usually wrong. So is abortion wrong?
Monday, November 23, 2015
Review of a book on Race and Pharmaceutical Development
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/xgDU9iEQz639dih5DJaw/full
Book Review
Review of Jonathan Kahn, Race in a Bottle: The Story of BiDil and Racialized Medicine in the Post-Genomic Age1
Wednesday, October 07, 2015
For Presentation
"Eating Animals and the Environment" - DOC link here and text of paper below the fold
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Monday, May 11, 2015
More Experimental Bioethics
"Expectations for methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of health care workers,"
Ari R Joffe, Meredith Bara, Natalie Anton and Nathan Nobis, BMC Medical Ethics 2015, 16:29
"Health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR); therefore, an awareness of the empirical costs and benefits of animal research is an important issue for HCW. We aim to determine what health-care-workers consider should be acceptable standards of AR methodology and translation rate to humans. . . . HCW have high expectations for the methodological quality of, and the translation rate to humans of findings from AR. These expectations are higher than the empirical data show having been achieved. Unless these areas of AR significantly improve, HCW support of AR may be tenuous."
Ari R Joffe, Meredith Bara, Natalie Anton and Nathan Nobis, BMC Medical Ethics 2015, 16:29
"Health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR); therefore, an awareness of the empirical costs and benefits of animal research is an important issue for HCW. We aim to determine what health-care-workers consider should be acceptable standards of AR methodology and translation rate to humans. . . . HCW have high expectations for the methodological quality of, and the translation rate to humans of findings from AR. These expectations are higher than the empirical data show having been achieved. Unless these areas of AR significantly improve, HCW support of AR may be tenuous."
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Experimental Bioethics
The ethics of animal research: a survey of pediatric health care workers
Abstract
Introduction
Pediatric health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR). We aim to determine whether HCW consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of AR convincing.
Pediatric health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR). We aim to determine whether HCW consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of AR convincing.
Design
After development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, support for AR, and common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR. Responses are reported using standard tabulations. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P < .05 considered significant.
After development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, support for AR, and common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR. Responses are reported using standard tabulations. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P < .05 considered significant.
Results
Response rate was 53/115(46%) (pediatricians), and 73/120(61%) (nurses/RTs). Pediatricians and nurses/RTs are supportive of AR. Most considered ‘benefits arguments’ sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same ‘benefits arguments’ do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened ‘benefits arguments’. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘characteristics of non-human-animals arguments’, including that non-human-animals may not be sentient, or are simply property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘human exceptionalism’ arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special ‘kind’, can enter into social contracts, or face a ‘lifeboat situation’. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities [the argument from species overlap], and that the notion of ‘kind’ is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the kind ‘sentient animal’ or ‘subject-of-a-life’]. Pediatrician and nurse/RT responses were similar.
Response rate was 53/115(46%) (pediatricians), and 73/120(61%) (nurses/RTs). Pediatricians and nurses/RTs are supportive of AR. Most considered ‘benefits arguments’ sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same ‘benefits arguments’ do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened ‘benefits arguments’. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘characteristics of non-human-animals arguments’, including that non-human-animals may not be sentient, or are simply property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘human exceptionalism’ arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special ‘kind’, can enter into social contracts, or face a ‘lifeboat situation’. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities [the argument from species overlap], and that the notion of ‘kind’ is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the kind ‘sentient animal’ or ‘subject-of-a-life’]. Pediatrician and nurse/RT responses were similar.
Conclusions
Most respondents were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR when given common arguments and counterarguments from the literature. HCW should seriously consider arguments on both sides of the AR debate.
Most respondents were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR when given common arguments and counterarguments from the literature. HCW should seriously consider arguments on both sides of the AR debate.
Keywords:
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Experimental Bioethics?
Meredith Bara , BSc Candidate 1 , Natalie Anton , MD 1 , Nathan Nobis , PhD 2 , Ari R. Joffe , MD 1 , , 3 ,
Publication Date: 2014
Read More: http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2014.189.1_MeetingAbstracts.A1657
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Georgia Campus Sustainability Network’s Annual Conference
Poster for
“Universities as Models of Sustainability”
Just a few references on these issues:
- United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization: Livestock’s Long Shadow –Environmental Issues and Options
- "Diet, Energy and Global Warming"
- Mark Bittman, NY Times: "Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler"
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Addendum to Tom Regan's "Ethical Perspectives on the Treatment and Status of Animals"
Nobis, Nathan. "I. Ethical Perspectives on the Treatment and Status of Animals [Addendum]." Bioethics. Ed. Bruce Jennings. 4th ed. Vol. 1. Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 2014. 252-254. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 26 June 2014.
This is an addendum to: Regan, Tom. "I. Ethical Perspectives on the Treatment and Status of Animals." Bioethics. Ed. Bruce Jennings. 4th ed. Vol. 1. Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 2014. 240-252. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 26 June 2014.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Bioethics and Cancer Biomarker Research
I currently am working on a chapter on "Bioethics and Cancer Biomarker Research." If you happen to know of any relevant resources on those specific issues, please contact me. Thank you!
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Neuroscience and Ethics
A brief PowerPoint on neuroscience's potential relevance to ethics. Also in PDF. For a seminar (page 5) at the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)