Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Half-title Page -- Title Page -- Copyright -- Contents -- Act One -- Scene 1 -- Scene 2 -- Scene 3 -- Scene 4 -- Scene 5 -- Scene 6 -- Scene 7 -- Scene 8 -- Scene 9 -- Scene 10 -- Scene 11 -- Act Two -- Scene 1 -- Scene 2 -- Scene 3 -- Scene 4 -- Scene 5 -- Scene 6 -- Scene 7 -- Scene 8 -- Scene 9

AbstractMany nongovernmental forms of business regulation aim at reducing ethical violations in commerce. We argue that such nongovernmental ethics standards, while often laudable, raise their own ethical challenges. In particular, when such standards place burdens upon vulnerable market participants (often, though not always, SMEs), they do so without the backing of traditional legitimate political authority. We argue that this constitutes a structural analogy to wars of humanitarian intervention. Moreover, we show that, while some harms imposed by such standards are desirable, others are best thought of as a form of collateral damage. We thus look at the well‐developed literature on just war theory for inspiration and find that the principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello contain many insights that can be fruitfully adapted to the case of nongovernmental standard‐setting. Consequently, we propose the Ius ad Normam—a set of principles that should guide would‐be standard‐setters in assessing whether imposing those burdens is ethically justifiable in particular cases. We also discuss how powerful multinational businesses often act simultaneously as standard‐takers and standard‐setters and explore the normative implications of this dual role.

Article ; La recherche en nanotechnologie commence à recevoir une attention croissante dans les médias et la littérature de vulgarisation scientifique, mais les discussions sur les espoirs et les craintes concernant les nanotechnologies sont déjà polarisées par des visions utopiques et dystopiques. Par ailleurs, certaines discussions plus modérées se concentrent sur les applications à court terme des nanotechnologies, ainsi que sur leurs avantages et désavantages potentiels. Cependant, en explorant les implications sociales et éthiques des nanotechnologies (ou la nanomédecine, le but du présent document), d'importantes leçons devraient être tirées des expériences dans d'autres domaines. En particulier, les études sur les enjeux éthiques, légaux et sociaux (ELSI) de la recherche en génétique ont réussi à cartographier un grand nombre des questions (et des réponses sociales et politiques) qui se posent lorsque de nouvelles technologies sont déployées. Nous soutenons que, pour la plupart, les questions éthiques et sociales qui se posent dans la nanomédecine ne sont pas tout à fait nouvelles et ne nécessitent donc pas de nouveaux principes ou cadres éthiques, ni un investissement massif dans la recherche « NELSI ». Au lieu de cela, nous avons besoin d'un soutien pour le développement d'une culture de l'éthique parmi les scientifiques et les cliniciens, des connaisances de base en science et médicine pour les bioéthiciens et une compétence sociale pour les citoyens pour qu'ils peut participer activement aux débats sur les répercussions des nouvelles technologies en général. ; Nanotechnology research is beginning to see widespread coverage in the media and popular science literatures, but discussions of hopes and fears about nanotechnology have already become polarised into utopian and dystopian visions. More moderate discussions focus on the near-term applications of nanotechnologies, and on potential benefits and harms. However, in exploring the social and ethical implications of nanotechnology (or nanomedicine, the focus of this paper), important lessons should be learned from experiences in other fields. In particular, studies of the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) of genetics research have successfully mapped out many of the issues (and social and political responses) that arise when new technologies are deployed. It is our contention that, for the most part, the ethical and social issues arising in nanomedicine are not altogether new, and thus do not require novel ethical principles or frameworks, nor a massive investment in 'NELSI' research. Instead, what is needed is support for the development of a culture of ethics amongst scientists and clinicians, basic scientific and medical knowledge for bioethicists, and a social competency for citizens to participate actively in debates about the implications of new technologies in general.

International government guidance recommends patient and public involvement (PPI) to improve the relevance and quality of research. PPI is defined as research being carried out 'with' or 'by' patients and members of the public rather than 'to', 'about' or 'for' them (http://www.invo.org.uk/). Patient involvement is different from collecting data from patients as participants. Ethical considerations also differ. PPI is about patients actively contributing through discussion to decisions about research design, acceptability, relevance, conduct and governance from study conception to dissemination. Occasionally patients lead or do research. The research methods of PPI range from informal discussions to partnership research approaches such as action research, co-production and co-learning. This article discusses how researchers can involve patients when they are applying for research funding and considers some opportunities and pitfalls. It reviews research funder requirements, draws on the literature and our collective experiences as clinicians, patients, academics and members of UK funding panels.

International government guidance recommends patient and public involvement (PPI) to improve the relevance and quality of research. PPI is defined as research being carried out 'with' or 'by' patients and members of the public rather than 'to', 'about' or 'for' them (http://www.invo.org.uk/). Patient involvement is different from collecting data from patients as participants. Ethical considerations also differ. PPI is about patients actively contributing through discussion to decisions about research design, acceptability, relevance, conduct and governance from study conception to dissemination. Occasionally patients lead or do research. The research methods of PPI range from informal discussions to partnership research approaches such as action research, co-production and co-learning. This article discusses how researchers can involve patients when they are applying for research funding and considers some opportunities and pitfalls. It reviews research funder requirements, draws on the literature and our collective experiences as clinicians, patients, academics and members of UK funding panels.