According to the Daily Mail yesterday scientists have found that giving cows individual names boosts milk yields. This extravagant and utterly unsubstantiated claim has been repeated in numerous places including the BBC and Scientific American (who should know better).
Read More »Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do. Does it matter if I give a name to you?
Professor Savulescu comments:
Professor Julian Savulescu is Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics and Director of the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford, Director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics, and Director of the Program on the Ethics of the New Biosciences. He was also recently awarded a major Arts and Humanities Research Council grant on Cognitive Science and Religious Conflict.
THE FDA has approved for the first time a clinical trial of embryonic stem cells to treat spinal injury patients. The trial will be conducted by Geron. A similar trial by Reneuron has been approved recently in the UK (The Scotsman, and the BBC). The research in the UK to treat stroke patients has already attracted stern criticism from “ethical campaigners.” The first wave predictably objected on the ground that it involved abortion "It involves cannibalising an unborn child.” But no child was aborted for the purposes of providing stem cells. These would have involved abortions that would anyway have occurred for a variety of reasons. Such opponents predictably object to anything involving destruction of embryos and fetuses – abortion, IVF, prenatal testing, contraception – so it is hardly surprising that they would object to this form of medical treatment.
The second wave of ethical campaigners, not clearly distinct from the first, claim now that the treatment is too risky. But is it too risky?
Tuesday was a wonderful, exciting, day. But the job of the philosophical blogger is to look beyond the general euphoria, and seek out discussion points.
A commentator in the ChicagoTribune remarked that President Obama’s inaugural speech was ‘heavy on allusion, short on specifics’. That was probably not intended as a criticism, however, and it would have been unreasonable if it had been. If you are trying to engage everybody in a nation which has, as the President said, a ‘patchwork heritage’ of ‘Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers’ the only possible way to do it is to avoid specifics. Everyone can unite round ‘mutual interest and respect’, having things in their ‘rightful place’ and ‘a future of peace and dignity’, because these are terms that, as philosophers would say, have strong connotations but no particular denotation. We know they imply approval of whatever is being alluded to, but we may not know much about what that is.
A 79 year old euthanasia campaigner in New Zealand has attracted local and international publicity after having the words ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ tattooed across her chest. Although this seems unlikely to be widely emulated her action highlights the problem that at the time when it might be most important to make one’s views known, patients are often unconscious or incompetent.
Read More »Tattoos and taboos: making end of life preferences known when it matters
Despite the protestations of those opposed to the use of animals in research, the fundamental differences between people over the treatment of animals seems to lie with the weight that we are prepared to give to animal suffering and death in the pursuit of human goods and interests. Very few, I would have thought, would give animal suffering no weight and similarly, very few would give animal suffering more weight than human suffering.
The struggle against child porn goes on. An Australian judge has ruled that a cartoon showing a character from The Simpsons engaged in sexual activity is child pornography. Australia is also trying to implement Internet filtering for the whole population, although the project has run into serious opposition. Meanwhile Wikipedia ended up 'censored' in the UK due to a page with the controversial cover of an album.
The most interesting aspect of the Wikipedia debacle is that the decision that led to the censorship was not made by any government authority but an industry-sponsored group, the Internet Watch Foundation. The IWF maintains a blacklist certain ISPs subscribe to, and users trying to reach a site on it will be sent a blank page. Is this censorship, and is this bad?
Last Sunday, 30th of November, Switzerland, by a
narrow majority, approved a constitutional modification doing away with any
statute of limitations for paedophile crimes. The initiative proposing that
modification had been opposed by the government and by most of the country’s
political parties, who supported instead the idea of maintaining the existing
statute of limitations of 15 years but making it start later than had so far
been the case (thus giving more time to the victims to decide whether or not to
take legal action). The surprise acceptance of the initiative in the popular
vote was criticized by much of the Swiss press as marking a triumph of
“emotion” over “reason” (see for instance here and here; in French). But leaving aside the question of what actually led most Swiss voters to
endorse the initiative, does the very idea of opposing a statute of limitations
for paedophile (and other equally serious) crimes necessarily lend itself to
such criticism? I want to suggest that this is not so.
Read More »Statutes of limitations for serious offences: why Europe needs a reform
On April 16 2007 a solitary gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, killed 32 of his fellow students at Virginia Tech, and injured many more http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/index.html . This came to mind again as I was listening to Radio 4’s Any Questions last Friday, when a questioner referring to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai asked whether we could ever put a stop to extremist violence. In the subsequent debate difference of opinion began to appear between the panellists who spoke about the need for security and intelligence gathering and military operation, and Caroline Lucas of the Green Party who insisted that terrorism could never be ended by these means, and said several times that we needed to get to the root cause of the problem. In starting to identify these root causes she mentioned the Palestinian situation, and the widespread feeling among Muslims that the so-called war on terror was really a war of the West against Islam. (You can check the detail by going to the BBC i-player: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ .)
Last Thursday, anti-terrorism police in the UK arrested the opposition minister for immigration, Damian Green (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/29/whitehall-damian-green-civil-servant). He is suspected by the police of ‘conspiracy to commit misconduct in public life’, having published documents leaked to him by a junior civil servant. That official was himself arrested on 19 November, and has been suspended from duty. We should expect that many other such officials are now asking themselves whether, if they come across some document which they believe is a matter of public interest, they should leak it.
In a paper published in the Lancet yesterday, a group of WHO scientists
have suggested that a radical change to HIV testing would be necessary
to combat the epidemic. The authors published details of a mathematical
model of “universal voluntary testing” and early drug treatment of all
those found to have HIV in a country with HIV levels similar to those
present in Southern Africa. They present striking and provocative
evidence that this approach could reduce dramatically the incidence and
mortality from HIV within a fairly short period. The major ethical
question raised in response to their proposal is whether such a
strategy would violate the rights of individuals, and impose harms on
them in order to secure greater benefits for others.
Read More »Universal AIDS testing: should we save the many at the cost of harm to the few?
