Search

We develop a conceptual model characterizing two types of individuals: one myopic and the other hyperopic. A myopic individual ignores his private contributions to both a social and private negative externality, as well as the effect that his accumulation of stuff (i.e., the stock of consumption goods) has on his habit parameter. A hyperopic individual internalizes both externalities as well as his habit‐formation effect. We find that the hyperopic individual consumes a greater amount of a clean good and a lesser amount of a dirty good, with the magnitude of the latter difference being greater than the magnitude of the former. Consequently, the hyperopic individual's cumulative consumption of the two goods is lower. The hyperopic individual's lower cumulative consumption also contributes to a less‐persistent consumption habit. Further, we explore the extent to which the allocation of consumption across the clean and dirty goods made by an astigmatic individual (an intermediate type of individual who internalizes the private externality, as well as the habit‐formation effect) diverges from the myopic individual's allocation. We consider the implications of our findings for traditional environmental tax policy as it applies to myopic and astigmatic individuals. Conceptually, we find that Pigovian tax rates in the presence of habit formation diverge from corresponding standard rates that ignore habit formation based on the difference between the magnitudes of the cumulative marginal benefit associated with habit formation and the marginal cost associated with the accumulation of stuff. Results from a simple numerical analysis demonstrate these conceptual results and more. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study addresses a gap in cultural ecosystem service (CES) assessment of prime farmland located in peri-urban areas by presenting results from a choice experiment recently conducted in Utah’s Wasatch Front region. The choice experiment was designed to account for heterogeneous effects associated with a wide array of socio-demographic and attitudinal characteristics on household preferences for farmland preservation, including farmland used for the joint production of solar power and agricultural products. We apply a mixed-logit model to our data that controls for preference heterogeneity among Wasatch Front households along two dimensions – at the individual household level and according to different household types. We find that the typical household is willing to pay a non-trivial annual fee to preserve the region’s existing peri-urban farmland, and to a lesser extent is willing to pay for agrivoltaics on that land. We also find some evidence of preference heterogeneity among different types of households for farmland preservation and agrivoltaics; heterogeneity based upon traditional socio-demographic characteristics such as household income and location, as well as unique attitudinal differences related to how households view themselves in relation to agriculture, farmland preservation, and the extent to which taxation is an appropriate mechanism to fund local public goods. These findings can serve as crucial components of broader land-use studies designed to account for the full range of agri-environmental ecosystem services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article critiques the Pierson survey's representation of the bioethics field, suggesting it provides a limited and possibly skewed view by focusing predominantly on academic circles. Topics discussed include the demographic and ideological composition of bioethics professionals, the exclusion of influential conservative and religious perspectives, and the potential gaps in the survey's lens on the broader bioethics community.

The article discusses a study on normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) conducted by Tamar Schiff and Arthur Caplan, published in the journal. It addresses ethical concerns regarding the use of NRP in organ recovery, particularly in relation to the dead donor rule (DDR) and the need for transparency, informed decision-making, and improvement in organ donation practices.

Strategies to address misinformation and hesitancy about vaccines, including the fear of needles, and to overcome obstacles to access, such as the refrigeration that some vaccines demand, strongly suggest the need to develop new vaccine delivery technologies. But, given widespread distrust surrounding vaccination, these new technologies must be introduced to the public with the utmost transparency, care, and community involvement. Two emerging technologies, one a skin‐patch vaccine and the other a companion dye and detector, provide excellent examples of greatly improved delivery technologies for which such a careful approach should be developed in order to increase vaccine uptake. Defusing fears and conspiracy mongering must be a key part of their rollout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors comment on the 2024 article "Reasons and Reproduction: Gene Editing and Genetic Selection," by J. McMahan and J. Savulescu. Topics include how the arguments in the article are a classic example of the prosecutor's fallacy, the reason why theoretical debates do much more harm than good given the current political climate on the status of embryos in the U.S. and the difference between engineering an embryo to seek a healthier child and throwing out embryos diagnosed with diseases.

An editorial is presented on researchers and doctors trying whole eye transplants (WET). Topics include transplant eyes in salamanders, tadpoles, toads and frogs including across species with mixed success; and shifting the equation about life threatening and debilitating risks for both a candidate and the surgical transplant team.

The World Health Organization's (WHO) Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA), established in 2016, is designed to enhance transparency, impartiality, and conflict-of-interest safeguards by setting rigorous guidelines for WHO's interactions with private entities, particularly those in high-risk industries such as tobacco, alcohol, and arms. This paper briefly reviews the implementation and impact of FENSA, observing that, despite these safeguards, its application in academic contexts poses specific challenges. Universities, often reliant on diverse funding sources, may find the rules restrictive and misaligned with independent funding needs. The creation of the WHO Foundation in 2020 further complicates this landscape by enabling engagements with previously restricted private sector entities through an "arm's length" model. The authors advocate for a reassessment of FENSA to resolve inconsistencies and support essential academic collaborations, while upholding WHO's commitment to ethical standards., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Infertility patients and patient advocates have long argued for classifying infertility as a disease, in the hopes that this recognition would improve coverage for and access to fertility treatment. However, for many fertility patients, including older women, single women and same-sex couples, infertility does not represent a true disease state. Therefore, while calling infertility a 'disease' may seem politically advantageous, it might actually exclude patients with 'social' or 'relational' infertility from treatment. What is needed is a new conceptual framing of infertility that better reflects the profound significance of being infertile for many people and the importance of addressing infertility in order to improve their lives. In this paper, we argue that the capability approach provides this moral underpinning. The capability approach is concerned with what people are able to do , and whether they are able to act in a way that is in keeping with their own values and goals. The ability to procreate and build a family is a fundamental capacity and can be a major part of self-fulfilment, regardless of sexual orientation or family arrangement. Since the capability approach asks us to conceive of equality in terms of equal capabilities, it provides a strong ethical impetus for society to help those who cannot conceive on their own to do so with assisted reproduction., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)