Four… three… two… one… I am now authorized to use physical force!

by Anders Sandberg
August 6, 2009

Noel Sharkey, Professor of Artificial
Intelligence and Robotics at the University of Sheffield, warns that we are well on our way to get military killer robots that have great autonomy in applying deadly force. Current military "robots" such as UAVs have limited autonomy. They are
remotely controlled by humans, but increasingly given ability to
patrol, find targets and attack on their own. It would be a natural
progression to give them increasingly free reign, with the humans
merely granting permission – but in an active situation human reactions
might be too slow. Will the current convention that a properly trained
military human operator has to make the final decision still hold true
in the future?

Is it wrong to raise money for charity?

by Neil Levy
August 5, 2009

The Guardian yesterday reports on the struggles of independent secondhand bookshops to compete with what one of its interviewees describes as “the Tesco of the second-hand book world”: Oxfam. It may come as a surprise to you to learn that Oxfam is now the biggest secondhand book retailer in Europe (though perhaps it shouldn't given that this is not a market with many large players). Apparently many small second-hand bookstores are complaining about what they see as Oxfam's unfair competition.

R. v Dudley & Stephens

by Practical Ethics
August 4, 2009

By David Edmonds

We at the Uehiro Centre keep a careful watch on the latest developments and pride ourselves on being bang up to date with the news. So I’m pleased to be able to bring you the story of an episode that occurred on the night of July 25th.

Well, July 25th 1884. 125 years ago.

A change of heart

by Dominic Wilkinson
July 30, 2009

Earlier this week fourteen-year old Hannah Jones received a heart transplant. This is eight months after Hannah hit the news for her refusal to have the surgery. There was much debate in the media (including this blog) at the time about whether or not teenagers should be allowed to refuse life-saving treatment, though overall there was a lot of support for Hannah’s decision.

But in the last week Hannah has apparently changed her mind, and elected to have the surgical procedure. What is the significance of this for the decision to go along with her earlier choice? Hannah might well have died in the last 8 months, in which case she would never have had a chance to rethink her position on transplants. Does the fact that she has now changed her mind give us more reason, in future, to overrule similar patients who are declining live-saving treatment?

What’s special about selling gametes?

by Tom Douglas
July 28, 2009

Dominic Wilkinson posted yesterday on the issue of whether payment for egg and sperm donation should be legalised. This question attracted significant media attention yesterday after Lisa Jardine, of the HFEA, called for debate on the existing UK ban on payment for donors. Today's Guardian contains a piece highlighting several ways in which people can already sell their bodily parts or products, ranging from livers to breast milk, and from blood to hair. Sale of many of these bodily parts/products is regarded is ethically problematic, and is, in many cases, illegal. But not in all cases. For example, few would have a problem with the sale of hair for use in wigs.

Feetility – should we pay egg and sperm donors?

by Dominic Wilkinson
July 27, 2009

Lisa Jardine, the head of the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, has called for public debate about paying egg or sperm donors. Currently donors are given a maximum of £250 in reimbursement for expenses. But donation rates have fallen in recent years, at least in part related to changes in rules in 2005 preventing donor anonymity. As a consequence a significant number of patients seeking donor egg or sperm for in-vitro fertilisation have been forced to travel overseas. In essence Jardine suggests that a regulated local market in donor eggs and sperm may be better than unregulated fertility tourism.

A tiny step forward

by Anders Sandberg
July 25, 2009

Researchers have managed to produce live-born mice (original article) descended from induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS cells), cells taken from adult animals and treated to become stem cells. That individuals could be produced from embryonic stem cells was already known, but this proves that the IPS cells can produce all kinds of cells in an adult body. Good news for people uneasy about the need for embryonic stem cells… or is it?

If one argues that it is wrong to use embryonic stem cells because embryos carry moral rights, then the question is whether the creation of IPS cells produce something that also has moral rights.

In a world of low risk obstetrics, is home birth unethical

by Lachlan de Crespigny
July 25, 2009

It is reported that women who give birth at home with an independent midwife are nearly three times more likely to have a stillbirth than those who give birth in hospital; many other outcomes were “significantly better”.

Perinatal deaths following home birth were associated with an underestimation of the dangers of high risk pregnancies such as preterm birth, twins, vaginal breech births and fetal distress (Bastian H et al. BMJ. 1998; 317: 384–388). Even some IVF pregnancies were managed at home.

Midwives are trained in carrying out normal deliveries, not complex high risk manipulative deliveries such as breech deliveries; these should not be performed by unskilled operators. In addition, caesarean section is advocated for most women with a breech presentation or twins.

Home birth in high risk patients is inadvisable and experimental (Bastian) and is opposed by professional colleges and here and here. Women with an increased risk of complications should be delivered in hospital where obstetricians can spot those complications. Women should be told this – in the recent study there is no suggestion that UK midwives told them.

Revisiting the Moon

by Russell Powell
July 23, 2009

40 years ago marked the pinnacle of human space exploration. 500 million people around the world watched or listened as the first human to walk on the moon, Neil Armstrong, stepped out onto the dusty lunar surface, proclaiming “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Over the next three years, 11 other astronauts walked on the moon. At the time, most people viewed the Apollo Missions as merely the beginning of a bold new era of interplanetary exploration. Yet to this date we have never returned to the moon, nor have we attempted to set sail for more ambitious celestial destinations. NASA’s fraction of the U.S. GNP declined from 4% at the height of the cold war to its current low of .5%. Indeed, the cold war and the space race seemed to ascend, crescendo, and fizzle out in unison, leading one to believe that the moon missions were driven more by ephemeral political brinkmanship rather than any firm scientific or humanistic commitment to space exploration. Nowadays, the costs and risks associated with manned missions to the moon and beyond are viewed by both policymakers and the public at large as prohibitive, especially in this time of acute financial and environmental crises. Although former U.S. President G.W. Bush had declared his intention of putting humans back on the moon by 2020 and sending them on to Mars shortly thereafter (the cost of which has been estimated at over 150 billion dollars), the proposal is currently being reviewed and likely to be scrapped by the Obama administration in light of the latter’s ambitious and resource-draining domestic agenda.

The Poverty of Philosophy at Melbourne

by Steve Clarke
July 23, 2009

A war of words has broken out in the pages of The Australian between friends of the
University of Melbourne School of Philosophy and the Dean of Arts at the
University of Melbourne, Mark Considine. See: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25816073-12332,00.html and

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25759103-12332,00.html.
At the end of 2007 six of the school’s thirteen permanent faculty members took
voluntary redundancy packages. Despite the large number of philosophers lost, the school has
only been promised one replacement position. The friends of the school, who
include international figures in philosophy such as Frank Jackson and Peter
Singer, make the obvious point that a school of only seven will be unable to
provide specialist teaching in all the major areas of philosophy as well as the
equally obvious point that a school that is reduced in size by almost a half is
going to suffer a corresponding loss of reputation. They back up this latter
claim by pointing to a drop in the international rating of Melbourne in the
most recent edition of Brian Leiter’s ‘Philosophy Gourmet Report’ (see http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/).

« Previous
1
…
231
232
233
234
235
…
267
Next »