Search

The rapidly advancing field of brain-computer (BCI) and brain-to-brain interfaces (BBI) is stimulating interest across various sectors including medicine, entertainment, research, and military. The developers of large-scale brain-computer networks, sometimes dubbed 'Mindplexes' or 'Cloudminds', aim to enhance cognitive functions by distributing them across expansive networks. A key technical challenge is the efficient transmission and storage of information. One proposed solution is employing blockchain technology over Web 3.0 to create decentralised cognitive entities. This paper explores the potential of a decentralised web for coordinating large brain-computer constellations, and its associated benefits, focusing in particular on the conceptual and ethical challenges this innovation may pose pertaining to (1) Identity, (2) Sovereignty (encompassing Autonomy, Authenticity, and Ownership), (3) Responsibility and Accountability, and (4) Privacy, Safety, and Security. We suggest that while a decentralised web can address some concerns and mitigate certain risks, underlying ethical issues persist. Fundamental questions about entity definition within these networks, the distinctions between individuals and collectives, and responsibility distribution within and between networks, demand further exploration., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Boyer proposes that ownership intuitions depend on tracking cues predictive of agents' motivations to compete for resources. However, the account may mis-predict people's intuitions about ownership, and it may also be too cognitively costly to be feasible. Even so, alternative accounts could benefit by taking inspiration from how the account handles thorny issues in the psychology of ownership.

The model of ownership psychology as a cognitive adaptation proposes that people flexibly navigate cognitive systems of cooperation and competition, thus enabling them to justify unethical behavior. We discuss how this model captures previous accounts of unethical behavior and propose that a disengagement heuristic can help us understand recent findings in the interconnection between scarcity psychology and unethical behavior.

Why can't we own people? Boyer proposes that the key consideration concerns inclusion in the moral circle. I propose an alternative, which is that specific mental capacities, especially the capacity for autonomy, play a key role in determining judgments about human and animal ownership. Autonomous beings are viewed as owning themselves, which precludes them from being owned by others.

This study proposes a model in which organizational identification mediates the correlations among state-owned enterprises (SOEs), authentic leadership, Christian religiousness, and unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB). The proposed theoretical framework is based on moral identity theory, social identity theory, and social exchange theory. We tested the hypothesized model using data (N  =  389) from employees of various companies and industries in Poland. Of the respondents, 49.1% worked in SOEs. The reliability and validity of the measures were established. The correlation coefficients among the analyzed variables were obtained using the bootstrap confidence interval method. To thoroughly examine the causal relationships among the variables, covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) was adopted. Path analysis was conducted and used to verify a model in which organizational identification mediated the correlations among state involvement in the ownership of an enterprise, authentic leadership, Christian religiousness, and UPB. State involvement in the ownership of an enterprise, authentic leadership, and Christian religiousness were linked to increased organizational identification, which in turn was linked to the intensification of UPB. With the level of organizational identification controlled, state ownership of an enterprise was linked to lower UPB intensity. Limitations, implications and future research directions are discussed., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

There has been an upsurge in the number of practices owned by non-physicians. With orthopaedic surgery as the next frontier in this market, orthopaedists need to consider the ethical consequences of such acquisitions. The history and trends of practice ownership are reviewed alongside how laws shifted to reflect a changing health-care climate. The 4 tenets of bioethics (beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice) are explored with regard to practice acquisition by non-physician entities. Although non-physician-owned corporations and private equity firms provide liquidity to the health-care sector, there are ethical concerns that may ultimately impact patient care. Orthopaedic surgeons must be cautious when engaging in acquisitions with non-physician-owned entities, as the goals of each party may not align. This may yield situations that infringe on the basic principles of bioethics for both physician and patient.

This report is an ethical analysis based on both facts and values. In in vitro fertilization (IVF), there is an intricate interaction between rapid scientific development and changing societal values. In most countries, the ethical discussion is no longer on whether or not IVF in itself is ethically justifiable. Therefore, in this review, I discuss other ethical aspects that have emerged since IVF was first introduced, such as upper age limits, 'ownership' of gametes and embryos, IVF in single women and same-sex couples, preimplantatory genetic testing, social egg freezing, commercialization, public funding, and prioritization of IVF. Despite secularization, since religion still plays an important role in regulation and practices of IVF in many countries, positions on IVF among the world religions are summarized. Decision-making concerning IVF cannot be based only on clinical and economic considerations; these cannot be disentangled from ethical principles. Many concerns regarding the costs, effects, and safety of IVF subtly transcend into more complex questions about what it means to society to bear and give birth to children.

Background: The progress of electronic health technologies and biobanks holds enormous promise for efficient research. Evidence shows that studies based on sharing and secondary use of data/samples have the potential to significantly advance medical knowledge. However, sharing of such resources for international collaboration is hampered by the lack of clarity about ethical and legal requirements for transfer of data and samples across international borders., Main Text: Here, the International Clinical Trial Center Network (ICN) reports the legal and ethical requirements governing data and sample exchange (DSE) across four continents. The most recurring requirement is ethical approval, whereas only in specific conditions approval of national health authorities is required. Informed consent is not required in all sharing situations. However, waiver of informed consent is only allowed in certain countries/regions and under certain circumstances. The current legal and ethical landscape appears to be very complex and under constant evolution. Regulations differ between countries/regions and are often incomplete, leading to uncertainty., Conclusion: With this work, ICN illuminates the unmet need for a single international collaborative framework to facilitate DSE. Harmonising requirements for global DSE will reduce inefficiency and waste in research. There are many challenges to realising this ambitious vision, including inconsistent terminology and definitions, and heterogeneous and dynamic legal constraints. Here, we identify areas of agreement and significant difference as a necessary first step towards facilitating international collaboration. We propose the establishment of a working group to continue the comparison across jurisdictions, create a standardised glossary and define a set of basic principles and fundamental requirements for DSE.

There is increasing awareness that the methodology and findings of research should be transparent. This includes studies using artificial intelligence to develop predictive algorithms that make individualized diagnostic or prognostic risk predictions. We argue that it is paramount to make the algorithm behind any prediction publicly available. This allows independent external validation, assessment of performance heterogeneity across settings and over time, and algorithm refinement or updating. Online calculators and apps may aid uptake if accompanied with sufficient information. For algorithms based on "black box" machine learning methods, software for algorithm implementation is a must. Hiding algorithms for commercial exploitation is unethical, because there is no possibility to assess whether algorithms work as advertised or to monitor when and how algorithms are updated. Journals and funders should demand maximal transparency for publications on predictive algorithms, and clinical guidelines should only recommend publicly available algorithms., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.)

We have come far from the days when space activities were the monopoly of States. Henceforth, private actors, from the tech world, possess significant financial means which they intend to mobilise in order to exploit the resources of outer space commercially and, eventually, to inhabit outer space. As a result, the principle of non-appropriation of celestial bodies is seen by some as an impediment to the development of the exploitation of space.Is it really possible to envisage a human community inhabiting outer space without claiming exclusive rights on the surface of celestial bodies? Can the resources extracted from celestial bodies be appropriated and if so what legal regime could manage the said resources?This article attempts to answer these questions with a double approach focussing on the ownership of celestial resources and the ownership of celestial bodies.The recognition since the Obama Act that celestial resources can be appropriated imposes a model of management of the said resources in the interests of the whole of mankind.Likewise, without undermining the fundamental principle of non-appropriation, States should establish themselves as the managers and guarantors of the use of celestial bodies in that they constitute the common heritage of Earth's community.

Background: Citizen science is increasingly prevalent in the biomedical sciences, including the field of human genomics. Genomic citizen science initiatives present new opportunities to engage individuals in scientific discovery, but they also are provoking new questions regarding who owns the outputs of the research, including intangible ideas and discoveries and tangible writings, tools, technologies, and products. The legal and ethical claims of participants to research outputs become stronger-and also more likely to conflict with those of institution-based researchers and other stakeholders-as participants become more involved, quantitatively and qualitatively, in the research process. It is not yet known, however, how genomic citizen science initiatives are managing the interests of their participants in accessing and controlling research outputs in practice. To help fill this gap, we conducted an in-depth review of relevant policies and practices of U.S.-based genomic citizen science initiatives., Methods: We queried the peer-reviewed literature and grey literature to identify 22 genomic citizen science initiatives that satisfied six inclusion criteria. A data collection form was used to capture initiative features, policies, and practices relevant to participants' access to and control over research outputs., Results: This analysis revealed that the genomic citizen science landscape is diverse and includes many initiatives that do not have institutional affiliations. Two trends that are in apparent tension were identified: commercialization and operationalization of a philosophy of openness. While most initiatives supported participants' access to research outputs, including datasets and published findings, none supported participants' control over results via intellectual property, licensing, or commercialization rights. However, several initiatives disclaimed their own rights to profit from outputs., Conclusions: There are opportunities for citizen science initiatives to incorporate more features that support participants' access to and control over research outputs, consistent with their specific objectives, operations, and technical capabilities.

Some fundamental biotechnologies hold unprecedented potential to eradicate many incurable diseases. However, in absence of regulations, the power of patent makes the future use of some important biotechnology in few institution's hands. The excessive patents restrict researcher access to the fundamental technologies. It generates concerns and complaints of deteriorating the public health and social welfare. Furthermore, intellectual curiosities, funding, respect among colleagues etc., rather than patents, are the real motivations driving a major ground-breaking discoveries in biotechnology. These phenomena reveal that some biotechnology patents are alienated from the purpose of patent system. Therefore, it is necessary to take some approaches to stop over-patenting these fundamental biotechnology inventions. This article proposes a model regulatory framework for controlling biotechnology patent alienating from the purpose of patent system.

Intellectual property is one of the highly divisive issues in contemporary philosophical and political debates. The main objective of this paper is to explore some sources of tension between the formal rules of intellectual property (particularly copyright and patents) and the emerging informal norms of file sharing and open access in online environments. We look into the file sharing phenomena not only to illustrate the deepening gap between the two sets of norms, but to cast some doubt on the current regime of intellectual property as an adequate frame for the new type of interactions in online environments. Revisiting the classic Arrow-Demsetz debate about intellectual property and the epistemological issues involved in assessing institutions, we suggest that seeking out new institutional arrangements aligned with the norms-in-use seems to be a more promising strategy in the new technological setting than attempting to reinforce the current legal framework. Moreover, such a strategy is less prone to committing the so-called 'Nirvana fallacies'. As a secondary task, we try to cast some doubt on the two most common moral justifications of intellectual property as being able to ground the full extent of the current intellectual property regime.

A series of prominent mass shootings in the United States (US) has prompted renewed interest in revising gun policy. One proposal that has gained political traction is raising the minimum age for purchase and possession of guns to 21. While some commentators have suggested that the public mood may be shifting on gun policy, proposals to raise the minimum age have nevertheless provoked controversy. In this manuscript, we examine the ethical acceptability of raising the minimum age of purchase and possession of guns to 21. First, we examine the nature of the rights claim at issue. Second, we examine liberty-based objections to minimum age laws, and offer counter-arguments to these claims. Then, we examine the nature of the harm to be prevented via minimum age laws. We conclude that gun ownership is an important right, but one that nevertheless is ethical to regulate. We argue that liberty-based objections to minimum age laws are not as strong as critics of these laws claim. While we acknowledge the data limitations on assessing their likely success in reducing gun-related harms, we argue that minimum age laws are an ethically permissible policy strategy. We conclude with several recommendations for further research and policy responses to addressing the toll of gun-related morbidity and mortality., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

One of the practices that has defined the ethos of genomic research to date is a commitment to open and rapid sharing of genomic data and resources. As genomic research evolves into an international enterprise, this commitment is being challenged by the need to respect the interests of those it involves and implicates, from individual scientists and subjects to institutions and nations. In this essay, we first describe the types of claims that different stakeholders are making about the disposition of genomic data and samples. Next, we illustrate the complexities of these multiple claims by applying them to the case of one ongoing international genomics initiative, the H3Africa Consortium. Finally, in the light of these complexities, we conclude by comparing and contrasting four governance models for future international data-sharing policy and practices in genomics.

In France, genetic data are not covered by property laws. They are considered to be equivalent to a part of the human body, to be protected rather than as something of economic value. However, in this highly competitive world, France must find solutions to increase the scientific and economic values of its genetic data. One possibility would be to define genetic data as raw information with no value for use. The choice of such a value of use (clinical, scientific, economic, etc.), following various key analysis and treatment processes will thus transform genetic data into useful information. In this case, and under certain conditions, intellectual property law could consider this information to be an original creation with an economic value, whilst maintaining current levels of protection for genetic data. France thus faces a choice between changing its laws concerning the protection of genetic data, bringing them into line with the North American approach, according to which data are a form of capital that everyone has the right to increase or sell, and making the distinction between genetic data and information clearer., (© 2018 médecine/sciences – Inserm.)

Loi recently proposed a libertarian right to direct to consumer genetic testing (DTCGT)- independent of autonomy or utility-reflecting Cohen's work on self-ownership and Hohfeld's model of jural relations. Cohen's model of libertarianism dealt principally with self-ownership of the physical body. Although Loi adequately accounts for the physical properties of DNA, DNA is also an informational substrate, highly conserved within families. Information about the genome of relatives of the person undergoing testing may be extrapolated without requiring direct engagement with their personal physical copy of the genome, triggering rights and interests of relatives that may differ from the rights and interests of others, that is, individual consumers, testing providers and regulators. Loi argued that regulatory interference with exercise of the right required justification, whereas prima facie exercise of the right did not. Justification of regulatory interference could include 'conflict with other people's rights', 'aggressive' use of the genome and 'harming others'. Harms potentially experienced by relatives as a result of the individual's exercise of a right to test include breach of genetic privacy, violation of their right to determine when, and if, they undertake genetic testing and discrimination. Such harms may justify regulatory intervention, in the event they are recognised; motives driving 'aggressive' use of the genome may also be relevant. Each of the above criteria requires clarification, as potential redundancies and tensions exist between them, with different implications affecting different groups of rights holders., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: This paper examines the ethical aspects of organ transplant surgery in which a donor heart is transplanted from a first recipient, following determination of death by neurologic criteria, to a second recipient. Retransplantation in this sense differs from that in which one recipient undergoes repeat heart transplantation of a newly donated organ, and is thus referred to here as "reuse cardiac organ transplantation.", Methods: Medical, legal, and ethical analysis, with a main focus on ethical analysis., Results: From the medical perspective, it is critical to ensure the quality and safety of reused organs, but we lack sufficient empirical data pertaining to medical risk. From the legal perspective, a comparative examination of laws in the United States and Japan affirms no illegality, but legal scholars disagree on the appropriate analysis of the issues, including whether or not property rights apply to transplanted organs. Ethical arguments supporting the reuse of organs include the analogous nature of donation to gifts, the value of donations as inheritance property, and the public property theory as it pertains to organs. Meanwhile, ethical arguments such as those that address organ recycling and identity issues challenge organ reuse., Conclusion: We conclude that organ reuse is not only ethically permissible, but even ethically desirable. Furthermore, we suggest changes to be implemented in the informed consent process prior to organ transplantation. The organ transplant community worldwide should engage in wider and deeper discussions, in hopes that such efforts will lead to the timely preparation of guidelines to implement reuse cardiac organ transplantation as well as reuse transplantation of other organs such as kidney and liver.

Whereas biological materials were once transferred freely, there has been a marked shift in the formalisation of exchanges involving these materials, primarily through the use of Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs). This paper considers how risk aversion dominates MTA negotiations and the impact it may have on scientific progress. Risk aversion is often based on unwarranted fears of incurring liability through the use of a material or loss of control or missing out on commercialisation opportunities. Evidence to date has suggested that complexity tends to permeate even straightforward transactions despite extensive efforts to implement simple, standard MTAs. We argue that in most cases, MTAs need do little more than establish provenance, and any attempt to extend MTAs beyond this simple function constitutes stifling behaviour. Drawing on available examples of favourable practice, we point to a number of strategies that may usefully be employed to reduce risk-averse tendencies, including the promotion of simplicity, education of those engaged in the MTA process, and achieving a cultural shift in the way in which technology transfer office (TTO) success is measured in institutions employing MTAs., Competing Interests: We have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Joanne Kamens reports receiving salary from Addgene.

There is great power and promise for mobile health (mHealth) technology in the realms of clinical practice and research. By offering the opportunity to reshape the interaction between clinician and patient or researcher and subject, the introduction of this technology allows clinicians and researchers access to larger quantities of more timely and reliable data. The potential developments are significant, and they are ethically relevant. With all technological developments, however, come new sets of ethical risks. In this paper, I assess the ethics of mHealth. I argue that while we have an ethical obligation to advance this work in order to further the quality and scope of care, the use of mHealth technology also presents challenges that must be addressed before and during the use of this technology. After describing the ethical landscape, I offer a pragmatic approach to meeting some of these challenges and minimizing ethical risk by switching from a privacy-centered frame to a consent-centered frame., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

I sketch a libertarian argument for the right to test in the context of 'direct to consumer' (DTC) genetic testing. A libertarian right to genetic tests, as defined here, relies on the idea of a moral right to self-ownership. I show how a libertarian right to test can be inferred from this general libertarian premise, at least as a prima facie right, shifting the burden of justification on regulators. I distinguish this distinctively libertarian position from some arguments based on considerations of utility or autonomy, which are sometimes labelled 'libertarian' because they oppose a tight regulation of the direct to consumer genetic testing sector. If one takes the libertarian right to test as a starting point, the whole discussion concerning autonomy and personal utility may be sidestepped. Finally, I briefly consider some considerations that justify the regulation of the DTC genetic testing market, compatible with the recognition of a prima facie right to test., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Social justice in the context of research using human biological material is an important contemporary legal-ethical issue. A question at the heart of this issue is the following: Is it fair to expect a research participant (a person who participates in such research by, among others, making available biological material from his or her body) to participate on an altruistic basis, while the researchers and the investors in the research can gain commercially from the research? In a recent article, Mahomed, Nöthling-Slabbert and Pepper proposed that research participants should be entitled to share in the profits emanating from such research via a proposed new statutory right to the intellectual property emanating from such research. In order to stimulate debate on this important issue of social justice, this article responds to the position of Mahomed et al. by focusing on two main points: Firstly, I contend that Mahomed et al. fail to make a convincing argument in favour of shifting away from altruism; secondly, I caution against framing the debate in terms of the binary poles of altruism v. profitsharing, and suggest that should healthcare public policy ever move away from altruism, various non-monetary forms of benefit-sharing by research participants should be considered.

Electronic health records, data sharing, big data, data mining, and secondary use are enabling exciting opportunities for improving health and healthcare while also exacerbating privacy concerns. Two court cases about selling prescription data, the Sorrell case in the U.S. and the Source case in the U.K., raise questions of what constitutes "privacy" and "public interest"; they present an opportunity for ethical analysis of data privacy, commodifying data for sale and ownership, combining public and private data, data for research, and transparency and consent. These interwoven issues involve discussion of big data benefits and harms and touch on common dualities of the individual versus the aggregate or the public interest, research (or, more broadly, innovation) versus privacy, individual versus institutional power, identification versus identity and authentication, and virtual versus real individuals and contextualized information. Transparency, flexibility, and accountability are needed for assessing appropriate, judicious, and ethical data uses and users, as some are more compatible with societal norms and values than others.

Background: Concurrent with efforts to establish national and regional biorepositories in Africa is widespread endorsement of ethics committees as stewards of the interests of individual donors and their communities. To date, ethics training programs for IRB members in Botswana have focused on ethical principles and international guidelines rather than on the ethical dimensions of specific medical technologies and research methodologies. Little is known about the knowledge and concerns of current and prospective IRB members in Botswana with respect to export, reuse, storage, and benefit-sharing of biospecimens., Methods: This qualitative study examined perspectives of IRB members in Botswana about the collection and use of biospecimens in research. Forty-one IRB members representing five committees in Botswana participated in discussions groups in March 2013. Transcriptions of audiotapes and field notes were analyzed to identify issues of concern that might be alleviated through education and capacity-building, and areas that required ongoing discussion or additional regulatory guidance., Results: Areas of concern included lack of understanding among patients and providers about the use of biospecimens in clinical care and research; reuse of biospecimens, particularly issues of consent, ownership and decision-making; export of specimens and loss of control over reuse and potential benefits; and felt need for regulatory guidance and IRB-member training. Local belief systems about bodily integrity and strong national identity in the construct of benefits may be at odds with initiatives that involve foreign biorepositories or consider such collections to be global public goods., Conclusion: Education is needed to strengthen IRB-member capacity to review and monitor protocols calling for the collection and use of biospecimens, guided by clear national policy on priority-setting, partnerships, review, and oversight. Engagement with local stakeholders is needed to harmonize fundamentally different ways of understanding the human body and community identity with the aims of contemporary biomedicine.

It is often argued that the fact that intellectual objects-objects like ideas, inventions, concepts, and melodies-can be used by several people simultaneously makes intellectual property rights impossible or particularly difficult to morally justify. In this article, I assess the line of criticism of intellectual ownership in connection with a central category of intellectual property rights, economic rights to intellectual property. I maintain that it is unconvincing.

Two court cases that involve selling prescription data for pharmaceutical marketing affect biomedical informatics, patient and clinician privacy, and regulation. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. et al. in the United States and R v. Department of Health, Ex Parte Source Informatics Ltd. in the United Kingdom concern privacy and health data protection, data de-identification and reidentification, drug detailing (marketing), commercial benefit from the required disclosure of personal information, clinician privacy and the duty of confidentiality, beneficial and unsavory uses of health data, regulating health technologies, and considering data as speech. Individuals should, at the very least, be aware of how data about them are collected and used. Taking account of how those data are used is needed so societal norms and law evolve ethically as new technologies affect health data privacy and protection.

Material transfer agreements exist to facilitate the exchange of materials and associated data between researchers as well as to protect the interests of the researchers and their institutions. But this dual mandate can be a source of frustration for researchers, creating administrative burdens and slowing down collaborations. We argue here that in most cases in pre-competitive research, a simple agreement would suffice; the more complex agreements and mechanisms for their negotiation should be reserved for cases where the risks posed to the institution and the potential commercial value of the research reagents is high.

Property-based models of the ownership of body parts are common. They are inadequate. They fail to deal satisfactorily with many important problems, and even when they do work, they rely on ideas that have to be derived from deeper, usually unacknowledged principles. This article proposes that the parent principle is always human dignity, and that one will get more satisfactory answers if one interrogates the older, wiser parent instead of the younger, callow offspring. But human dignity has a credibility problem. It is often seen as hopelessly amorphous or incurably theological. These accusations are often just. But a more thorough exegesis exculpates dignity and gives it its proper place at the fountainhead of bioethics. Dignity is objective human thriving. Thriving considerations can and should be applied to dead people as well as live ones. To use dignity properly, the unit of bioethical analysis needs to be the whole transaction rather than (for instance) the doctor-patient relationship. The dignity interests of all the stakeholders are assessed in a sort of utilitarianism. Its use in relation to body part ownership is demonstrated. Article 8(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights endorses and mandates this approach.

The rapid advance of life science within the context of increased international concern over the potential misuse of findings has resulted in the lack of agreement on the issues of responsibility, control and collaboration. This progress of knowledge outpaces the efforts of creating moral and legal guidelines for the detection and minimization of the risks in the research process. There is a need to identify and address normative aspects of dual-use research. This paper focuses on the issues of safety and global collaboration in life science research by highlighting the importance of openness, enabling policies and cooperative governance. These safeguards are believed to reduce the risks related to the misuse of science while enabling the important research to move forward. The paper addresses the need for a better definition of dual use concept and, based on the historical precedents, explores the moral concerns and governmental strategies of dual-use research. The three necessary moves in addressing the issue of security in life sciences are suggested: the move from constraining to enabling types of policies, the move from secrecy to openness, and the move from segregation to integration of the public voice.

Two ethical frameworks have dominated the discussion of organ donation for long: that of property rights and that of gift-giving. However, recent years have seen a drastic rise in the number of philosophical analyses of the meaning of giving and generosity, which has been mirrored in ethical debates on organ donation and in critical sociological, anthropological and ethnological work on the gift metaphor in this context. In order to capture the flourishing of this field, this article distinguishes between four frameworks for thinking about bodily exchanges in medicine: those of property rights, heroic gift-giving, sacrifice, and gift-giving as aporia. These frameworks represent four different ways of making sense of donation of organs as well as tissue, gametes and blood, draw on different conceptions of the relations between the self and the other, and bring out different ethical issues as core ones. The article presents these frameworks, argues that all of them run into difficulties when trying to make sense of reciprocity and relational interdependence in donation, and shows how the three gift-giving frameworks (of heroism, sacrifice and aporia) hang together in a critical discussion about what is at stake in organ donation. It also presents and argues in favour of an alternative intercorporeal framework of giving-through-sharing that more thoroughly explicates the gift metaphor in the context of donation, and offers tools for making sense of relational dimensions of live and post mortem donations.

In addressing the shape of appropriate gun policy, this essay assumes for the sake of discussion that there is a legal and moral right to private gun ownership. My thesis is that, against the background of this right, the most defensible policy approach in the United States would feature moderate gun control. The first section summarizes the American gun control status quo and characterizes what I call "moderate gun control." The next section states and rebuts six leading arguments against this general approach to gun policy. The section that follows presents a positive case for moderate gun control that emphasizes safety in the home and society as well as rights whose enforcement entails some limits or qualifications on the right to bear arms. A final section shows how the recommended gun regulations address legitimate purposes, rather than imposing arbitrary restrictions on gun rights, and offers concluding reflections.

Background: The use of biological samples in research raises a number of ethical issues in relation to consent, storage, export, benefit sharing and re-use of samples. Participant perspectives have been explored in North America and Europe, with only a few studies reported in Africa. The amount of research being conducted in Africa is growing exponentially with volumes of biological samples being exported from the African continent. In order to investigate the perspectives of African research participants, we conducted a study at research sites in the Western Cape and Gauteng, South Africa., Methods: Data were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire that captured both quantitative and qualitative information at 6 research sites in South Africa. Interviews were conducted in English and Afrikaans. Data were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively., Results: Our study indicates that while the majority of participants were supportive of providing samples for research, serious concerns were voiced about future use, benefit sharing and export of samples. While researchers view the provision of biosamples as a donation, participants believe that they still have ownership rights and are therefore in favour of benefit sharing. Almost half of the participants expressed a desire to be re-contacted for consent for future use of their samples. Interesting opinions were expressed with respect to export of samples., Conclusions: Eliciting participant perspectives is an important part of community engagement in research involving biological sample collection, export, storage and future use. A tiered consent process appears to be more acceptable to participants in this study. Eliciting opinions of researchers and research ethics committee (REC) members would contribute multiple perspectives. Further research is required to interrogate the concept of ownership and the consent process in research involving biological samples.

This paper contends that the conventional ethical and legal ways of analysing the wrong involved in the misuse of human body parts are inadequate, and should be replaced with an analysis based on human dignity. It examines the various ways in which dignity has been understood, outlines many of the criticisms made of those ways (agreeing with many of the criticisms), and proposes a new way of seeing dignity which is exegetically consonant with the way in which dignity has been historically understood, and yet avoids the pitfalls which have led to dignity being dismissed by many as hopelessly amorphous or incurably theological. The account of dignity proposed is broadly Aristotelian. It defines dignity in terms of human thriving, and presupposes that it is possible, at least in principle, to determine empirically what makes humans thrive. It contends that humans are quintessentially relational animals, and that it is not possible (and certainly not ethically desirable) to define humans as atomistic entities. One important corollary of this is that when using dignity/thriving as a criterion for determining the ethical acceptability of a proposed action or inaction, one should ask not merely how the dignity interests of the patient (for instance) would be affected, but how the dignity interests of all stakeholders would be affected. The business of ethics is then the business of auditing all those interests, and determining the course of action which would maximise the amount of thriving in the world.

This article argues against the case for regarding bodies and parts of bodies to be property. It claims that doing so assumes an individualistic conception of the body.  It fails to acknowledge that our bodies are made up of non-human material; are unbounded; constantly changing and deeply interconnected with other bodies. It also argues that holding that our bodies are property does not recognise the fact that we have different attitudes towards different parts of our removed bodies and the contexts of their removal.  The appropriate legal reform should, therefore, be to produce a statute which can provide a balance between the competing personal, social and interpersonal interests in different body parts.

This paper responds to an invitation by the editors to consider whether the intellectual property (IP) regime suggests an appropriate model for protecting interests in detached human body parts. It begins by outlining the extent of existing IP protection for body parts in Europe, and the relevant strengths and weaknesses of the patent system in that regard. It then considers two further species of IP right of less obvious relevance. The first are the statutory rights of ownership conferred by domestic UK law in respect of employee inventions, and the second are the economic and moral rights recognised by European and international law in respect of authorial works. In the argument made, both of these species of IP right may suggest more appropriate models of sui generis protection for detached human body parts than patent rights because of their capacity better to accommodate the relevant public and private interests in respect of the same.

This article argues that debates over the legal status of bodies reveal a much deeper dispute over the nature of the self. In these discussions lawyers and ethicists have much to learn from a more profound understanding of the biological nature of the body. Far from being a static entity, the body is constantly recreating itself. It contains parts that are organisms in their own right. Bodies are dependent upon other bodies and the external environment for survival. The complex biological picture reflects a philosophical truth that bodies are interdependent and "leaky". We should not, therefore, expect a single legal regime, such as property to capture the biological and ethical values that are at stake in relation to every part of the body. A more complex statutory regime is required to recognise the complexity of the interests in, and nature of, different body parts.

The proliferation of patents on human genes has raised important ethical questions centered on the conflict of patient rights and intellectual property rights. With the Supreme Court's June 2013 decision that altered the patent eligibility of genetic material, it is important to reexamine the ethical implications of gene patents as a concept. Such patents suggest an ownership of genetic material that may hinder access to healthcare and inhibit medical progress. The application of the current patent system to genetic material thus violates patients' rights without fulfilling the system's goal of promoting innovation, suggesting a need for a revised incentives infrastructure.

• Cord blood banking raises ethical and legal issues which highlight the need for careful regulatory approaches to the emerging bioeconomy. • Consent processes for both private and public banking should be inclusive and representative of the different familial interests in the cord blood. • Property law is a potentially useful way of understanding the mechanisms for donation to both public and private banks. • Increasing tensions between public and private models of banking may require the adoption of hybrid forms of banking.

Although laboratory specimens are an important resource for biomedical research, controversy has arisen when research has been conducted without the knowledge or consent of the individuals who were the source of the specimens. This paper summarizes the most important litigation regarding the research use of laboratory specimens and traces the evolution of legal theory from property claims to claims related to genetic privacy interests., (© 2013 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.)

Vector control, including the use of bed nets, is recommended as a possible strategy for eliminating lymphatic filariasis (LF) in post-conflict countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This study examined the geographical factors that influence bed net ownership in DRC in order to identify hard-to-reach communities that need to be better targeted. In particular, urban/rural differences and the influence of population density, proximity to cities and health facilities, plus access to major transport networks were investigated. Demographic and Health Survey geo-referenced cluster level data were used to map bed net coverage (proportion of households with at least one of any type of bed net or at least one insecticide-treated net (ITN)), and ITN density (ITNs per person) for 260 clusters. Bivariate and multiple logistic or Poisson regression analyses were used to determine significant relationships. Overall, bed net (30%) and ITN (9%) coverage were very low with significant differences found between urban and rural clusters. In rural clusters, ITN coverage/density was positively correlated with population density (r = 0.25, 0.27 respectively, p<0.01), and negatively with the distance to the two largest cities, Kinshasa or Lubumbashi (r = -0.28, -0.30 respectively, p<0.0001). Further, ownership was significantly negatively correlated with distance to primary national roads and railways (all three measures), distance to main rivers (any bed net only) and distance to the nearest health facility (ITNs only). Logistic and Poisson regression models fitted to the rural cluster data indicated that, after controlling for measured covariates, ownership levels in the Bas-Congo province close to Kinshasa were much larger than that of other provinces. This was most noticeable when considering ITN coverage (odds ratio: 5.3, 95% CI: 3.67-7.70). This analysis provides key insights into the barriers of bed net ownership, which will help inform both LF and malaria bed net distribution campaigns as part of an integrated vector management strategy.

In 2010 illegal kidney transplants performed in South African hospitals were exposed. Living donors (actually sellers) from Brazil and Romania were flown into South Africa where a kidney was harvested from each and transplanted into Israeli patients. The media reports that followed indicated an outcry against the sale of human kidneys. But by analysing the whole transplantation process from the point of view of each person involved in the transplantation, namely the recipient, the donor, the doctor and the black market in the background the feeling is created that a process of payment for a kidney seems fairer than the current way of procuring organs either legally or illegally.