Search

Tissue Engineering (TE) is a branch of Regenerative Medicine (RM) that combines stem cells and biomaterial scaffolds to create living tissue constructs to restore patients' organs after injury or disease. Over the last decade, emerging technologies such as 3D bioprinting, biofabrication, supramolecular materials, induced pluripotent stem cells, and organoids have entered the field. While this rapidly evolving field is expected to have great therapeutic potential, its development from bench to bedside presents several ethical and societal challenges. To make sure TE will reach its ultimate goal of improving patient welfare, these challenges should be mapped out and evaluated. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of the ethical implications of the development and application of TE for regenerative purposes, as mentioned in the academic literature. A search query in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and PhilPapers yielded 2451 unique articles. After systematic screening, 237 relevant ethical and biomedical articles published between 2008 and 2021 were included in our review. We identified a broad range of ethical implications that could be categorized under 10 themes. Seven themes trace the development from bench to bedside: (1) animal experimentation, (2) handling human tissue, (3) informed consent, (4) therapeutic potential, (5) risk and safety, (6) clinical translation, and (7) societal impact. Three themes represent ethical safeguards relevant to all developmental phases: (8) scientific integrity, (9) regulation, and (10) patient and public involvement. This review reveals that since 2008 a significant body of literature has emerged on how to design clinical trials for TE in a responsible manner. However, several topics remain in need of more attention. These include the acceptability of alternative translational pathways outside clinical trials, soft impacts on society and questions of ownership over engineered tissues. Overall, this overview of the ethical and societal implications of the field will help promote responsible development of new interventions in TE and RM. It can also serve as a valuable resource and educational tool for scientists, engineers, and clinicians in the field by providing an overview of the ethical considerations relevant to their work. Impact statement To our knowledge, this is the first time that the ethical implications of Tissue Engineering (TE) have been reviewed systematically. By gathering existing scholarly work and identifying knowledge gaps, this review facilitates further research into the ethical and societal implications of TE and Regenerative Medicine (RM) and other emerging biomedical technologies. Moreover, it will serve as a valuable resource and educational tool for scientists, engineers, and clinicians in the field by providing an overview of the ethical considerations relevant to their work. As such, our review may promote successful and responsible development of new strategies in TE and RM.

Despite widespread and worldwide efforts to eradicate vector-borne diseases such as malaria, these diseases continue to have an enormous negative impact on public health. For this reason, scientists are working on novel control strategies, such as gene drive technologies (GDTs). As GDT research advances, researchers are contemplating the potential next step of conducting field trials. An important point of discussion regarding these field trials relates to who should be informed, consulted, and involved in decision-making about their design and launch. It is generally argued that community members have a particularly strong claim to be engaged, and yet, disagreement and lack of clarity exist about how this “community” should be defined and delineated. In this paper, we shed light on this “boundary problem”: the problem of determining how boundaries of inclusion and exclusion in (GDT) community engagement should be drawn. As our analysis demonstrates, the process of defining and delineating a community is itself normative. First, we explicate why it is important to define and delineate the community. Second, we demonstrate that different definitions of community are used and intermingled in the debate on GDTs, and argue in favor of distinguishing geographical, affected, cultural, and political communities. Finally, we propose initial guidance for deciding who should (not) be engaged in decision-making about GDT field trials, by arguing that the definition and delineation of the community should depend on the rationale for engagement and that the characteristics of the community itself can guide the effective design of community engagement strategies.

In recent years, exposome research has been put forward as the next frontier for the study of human health and disease. Exposome research entails the analysis of the totality of environmental exposures and their corresponding biological responses within the human body. Increasingly, this is operationalized by big-data approaches to map the effects of internal as well as external exposures using smart sensors and multiomics technologies. However, the ethical implications of exposome research are still only rarely discussed in the literature. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the academic literature regarding both the exposome and underlying research fields and approaches, to map the ethical aspects that are relevant to exposome research. We identify five ethical themes that are prominent in ethics discussions: the goals of exposome research, its standards, its tools, how it relates to study participants, and the consequences of its products. Furthermore, we provide a number of general principles for how future ethics research can best make use of our comprehensive overview of the ethical aspects of exposome research. Lastly, we highlight three aspects of exposome research that are most in need of ethical reflection: the actionability of its findings, the epidemiological or clinical norms applicable to exposome research, and the meaning and action–implications of bias.

Background Digital health technologies are believed to change the patient-physician relationship. Such changes are still speculative, as there are no studies in which both patients and health care professionals are asked for their experiences and perspectives on how digital health affects the patient-physician relationship. Methods We performed a qualitative interview study (n = 25) to identify relevant aspects of the patient-physician relationship as perceived by both health care professionals (n = 14) and patients (n = 11) of a digital monitoring platform for hypertensive disorders related to pregnancy. We focus on roles, responsibilities and medical decision-making. Results Digital monitoring helps patients to better understand their own condition and contributes to shared decision-making in terms of information exchange. Yet for clinical decision-making both patients and health care professionals argue that health care professionals should stay in the lead. The collected data is by some health care professionals considered hard data that allows objective and more standardized decision-making, while others believe digital monitoring requires further interpretation in order to personalize the clinical care to the patient. Conclusion Digital technologies have subtle, yet double-edged, effects on the patient-physician relationship in terms of roles and responsibilities and the value addressed to the digital data. These insights let to 6 ethical recommendations for the implementation of digital health technologies to replace and support clinical care.

Lay abstract Organoids are living tissues that can be grown in a lab out of stem cells, which can replicate some features of actual organs in the body. They can be used to study diseases or develop drugs, but also to test the effectiveness of therapy for a specific patient (which is called precision medicine). Organoid technology is promising for the treatment of cystic fibrosis. At the same, storing and using organoids raises ethical and practical challenges. In order to ensure that the interests of those who provide the cells are respected, we interviewed people with cystic fibrosis. Their motivation to participate in organoid research was high, but at the same time they wanted to know how their organoids are used. In addition, while they did not feel the need to be directly involved in decisions about how their tissue is used, they valued ongoing communication from biobanks about its activities.

Precision medicine research involving human biological material is becoming an increasingly central component of healthcare, and its potential is quickly growing due to rapid technological progress...

Background Involving the end-users of scientific research (patients, carers and clinicians) in setting research priorities is important to formulate research questions that truly make a difference and are in tune with the needs of patients. We therefore aimed to generate a national research agenda for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) together with patients, their caregivers and healthcare professionals through conducting a nationwide survey among these stakeholders. Methods The James Lind Alliance method was used, tailored with additional focus groups held to involve younger patients. First, research questions were gathered through an online and hardcopy survey. The received questions that were in scope were summarised and a literature search was performed to verify that questions were unanswered. Questions were ranked in the interim survey, and the final top 10 was chosen during a prioritisation workshop. Results Two hundred and seventy-eight respondents submitted 604 questions, of which 519 were in scope. Of these 604 questions, 81 were generated in the focus groups with younger children. The questions were summarised into 53 summary questions. An evidence checking process verified that all questions were unanswered. A total of 303 respondents prioritised the questions in the interim survey. Focus groups with children generated a top 5 of their most important questions. Combining this top 5 with the top 10s of patients, carers, and clinicians led to a top 21. Out of these, the top 10 research priorities were chosen during a final workshop. Research into pain and fatigue, personalised treatment strategies and aetiology were ranked high in the Top 10. Conclusions Through this study, the top 10 research priorities for JIA of patients, their caregivers and clinicians were identified to inform researchers and research funders of the research topics that matter most to them. The top priority involves the treatment and mechanisms behind persisting pain and fatigue when the disease is in remission.

Background Gene drive technologies (GDTs) promote the rapid spread of a particular genetic element within a population of non-human organisms. Potential applications of GDTs include the control of insect vectors, invasive species and agricultural pests. Whether, and if so, under what conditions, GDTs should be deployed is hotly debated. Although broad stances in this debate have been described, the convictions that inform the moral views of the experts shaping these technologies and related policies have not been examined in depth in the academic literature. Methods In this qualitative study, we interviewed GDT experts (n = 33) from different disciplines to identify and better understand their moral views regarding these technologies. The pseudonymized transcripts were analyzed thematically. Results The respondents’ moral views were principally influenced by their attitudes towards (1) the uncertainty related to GDTs; (2) the alternatives to which they should be compared; and (3) the role humans should have in nature. Respondents agreed there is epistemic uncertainty related to GDTs, identified similar knowledge gaps, and stressed the importance of realistic expectations in discussions on GDTs. They disagreed about whether uncertainty provides a rationale to refrain from field trials (‘risks of intervention’ stance) or to proceed with phased testing to obtain more knowledge given the harms of the status quo (‘risks of non-intervention’ stance). With regards to alternatives to tackle vector-borne diseases, invasive species and agricultural pests, respondents disagreed about which alternatives should be considered (un)feasible and (in)sufficiently explored: conventional strategies (‘downstream solutions’ stance) or systematic changes to health care, political and agricultural systems (‘upstream solutions’ stance). Finally, respondents held different views on nature and whether the use of GDTs is compatible with humans’ role in nature (‘interference’ stance) or not (‘non-interference stance’). Conclusions This interview study helps to disentangle the debate on GDTs by providing a better understanding of the moral views of GDT experts. The obtained insights provide valuable stepping-stones for a constructive debate about underlying value conflicts and call attention to topics that deserve further (normative) reflection. Further evaluation of these issues can facilitate the debate on and responsible development of GDTs.

Aim: To explore the perspectives of patients and laymen with regard to the development, use and storage of cerebral organoids, in order to contribute to the ethical debate about this technology. Materials & methods: In depth semi-structured interviews with 28 patients and laymen were conducted. A qualitative thematic analysis was undertaken using a constant comparative method. Results: Three interrelated themes emerged from the empirical material: moral value; willingness to donate; and elements of good governance. Conclusion: Patients and laymen are most concerned about cerebral organoids potentially developing consciousness and potential misuse. They support the use of cerebral organoids under the conditions that donors are adequately informed and that there will be good governance. Perspectives of patients and laymen are helpful to enable responsible development and use of cerebral organoids in practice.Lay abstractIn this study, we asked patients and laymen for their perspectives and opinions on the development, use and storage of so-called 'brain organoids'. Brain organoids are 3D cell structures that resemble parts of the human brain. These can be used as a model to study the development of the human brain and brain diseases. It is a promising technology that also raises ethical questions. For example, what kind of entity is a brain organoid and what should (and should not) be done with it? Our interview-study shows that patients and laymen are concerned that brain organoids might develop consciousness. They are also concerned about potential misuse of brain organoids. Overall, patients and laymen support the development of brain organoids if donors are well-informed and if responsible use is guaranteed by good governance. For them, good governance involves safety measures, well-defined boundaries to research and ethical oversight. The perspectives of these patients and laymen contribute to further development of brain organoids in a morally justifiable and socially acceptable way.

BackgroundThe James Lind Alliance (JLA) offers a method for research priority setting with patients, clinicians and carers. The method is increasingly used but publications primarily discuss the outcome of such projects, rather than reflecting on the JLA method itself. Scrutiny of the method is crucial in order to understand and correctly interpret its outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative interview study with people involved in a JLA project into Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) (n = 30) to better understand the mechanisms, procedures and decisional processes during such a project and to formulate recommendations for those who consider starting a JLA project in the future.ResultsFour main themes were identified: 1) motivations, goals and expectations 2) inclusivity, roles and representation 3) procedures and decision-making 4) outcomes and future steps.ConclusionWhile the top 10 of ‘evidence uncertainties’ seems to take the centre stage in JLA projects, the ways in which these priorities are determined may be influenced by ‘process uncertainties’. We have formulated ten specific recommendations for future JLA projects. Reflection on and reporting of these process uncertainties would contribute to the improvement of JLA projects and increase the validity of the outcome of such projects.

Background: Gene drive technologies (GDTs) bias the inheritance of a genetic element within a population of non-human organisms, promoting its progressive spread across this population. If successful, GDTs may be used to counter intractable problems such as vector-borne diseases. A key issue in the debate on GDTs relates to what governance is appropriate for these technologies. While governance mechanisms for GDTs are to a significant extent proposed and shaped by professional experts, the perspectives of these experts have not been explored in depth.Methods: A total of 33 GDT experts from different professional disciplines were interviewed to identify, better understand, and juxtapose their perspectives on GDT governance. The pseudonymized transcripts were analyzed thematically.Results: Three main themes were identified: (1) engagement of communities, stakeholders, and publics; (2) power dynamics, and (3) decision-making. There was broad consensus amongst respondents that it is important to engage communities, stakeholders, and publics. Nonetheless, respondents had diverging views on the reasons for doing so and the timing and design of engagement. Respondents also outlined complexities and challenges related to engagement. Moreover, they brought up the power dynamics that are present in GDT research. Respondents stressed the importance of preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and reflected on dilemmas regarding whether and to what extent (foreign) researchers can legitimately make demands regarding local governance. Finally, respondents had diverging views on whether decisions about GDTs should be made in the same way as decisions about other environmental interventions, and on the decision-making model that should be used to decide about GDT deployment.Conclusions: The insights obtained in this interview study give rise to recommendations for the design and evaluation of GDT governance. Moreover, these insights point to unresolved normative questions that need to be addressed to move from general commitments to concrete obligations.

People with dementia may express wishes that do not align with earlier preferences. This raises the question whether, and if so how, the wishes of incompetent, but conscious persons should be balan...

With the increasing attention paid to patient participation in both health care policy-making and health care research, McCoy and colleagues (2020) point to a key ethical issue, namely the quest fo...

"Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have been praised for overcoming some of the ethical challenges of embryonic stem cell research, including oocyte donation for research and the destruction of human embryos. However, iPSC-research and iPSC-based interventions are not morally neutral alternatives and have their own ethical implications that are not fully understood yet. While there is some understanding of ethical issues surrounding the derivation, storage and use of human tissue, there is less understanding of how iPSC-research affects our society and morality. Consequentially, it is difficult to fully anticipate those implications. The notion of hard and soft impacts could benefit the understanding and anticipation of ethical implications of iPSC-research and interventions. Hard impacts are those direct physical and financial effects of iPSCs that are quantifiable and measurable. So-called soft impacts have a different focus. They consider how a technology or intervention affects our psychology, societal structures, morality and our behavior, hereby influencing the uptake, effects and evaluation of technology. So far, academic literature and researchers focus primarily on hard impacts of iPSC-research. Soft impacts are similarly important and therefore require more academic and regulatory attention. This talk focuses upon these understudied aspects of iPSC-research and technology. The goal is to show that for researchers and ethicists it is important to become aware of the soft impacts of iPSC-research and technology. This awareness could contribute to a broader understanding of the social value of stem cell research, anticipating ethical challenges of iPSC-research and in formulating new virtues for stem cell researchers. "

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., By 2030, more than 80% of Europe’s population will live in an urban environment. The urban exposome, consisting of factors such as where we live and work, where and what we eat, our social network, and what chemical and physical hazards we are exposed to, provides important targets to improve population health. The EXPANSE (EXposome Powered tools for healthy living in urbAN SEttings) project will study the impact of the urban exposome on the major contributors to Europe’s burden of disease: Cardio-Metabolic and Pulmonary Disease. EXPANSE will address one of the most pertinent questions for urban planners, policy makers, and European citizens: “How to maximize one’s health in a modern urban environment?” EXPANSE will take the next step in exposome research by (1) bringing together exposome and health data of more than 55 million adult Europeans and OMICS information for more than 2 million Europeans; (2) perform personalized exposome assessment for 5,000 individuals in five urban regions; (3) applying ultra-high-resolution mass-spectrometry to screen for chemicals in 10,000 blood samples; (4) evaluating the evolution of the exposome and health through the life course; and (5) evaluating the impact of changes in the urban exposome on the burden of cardiometabolic and pulmonary disease. EXPANSE will translate its insights and innovations into research and dissemination tools that will be openly accessible via the EXPANSE toolbox. By applying innovative ethics-by-design throughout the project, the social and ethical acceptability of these tools will be safeguarded. EXPANSE is part of the European Human Exposome Network.

We would like to thank the authors of the commentaries for their critical appraisal of our feature article, Who is afraid of black box algorithms?1 Their comments, suggestions and concerns are various, and we are glad that our article contributes to the academic debate about the ethical and epistemic conditions for medical Explanatory AI (XAI). We would like to bring to attention a few issues that are common worries across reviewers. Most prominently are the merits of computational reliabilism (CR)—in particular, when promoted as an alternative to transparency—and CR as necessary but not sufficient for delivering trust. We finalise our response by addressing concerns about the place and role of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical decision-making and the physician’s responsibilities. We understand the concerns and reservations that some of the reviewers express regarding the epistemic merits of CR. We believe that, in part, this is due to a practice too deeply rooted in transparency. But on …

Background Organoid technology is emerging rapidly as a valuable tool for precision medicine, particularly in the field of Cystic Fibrosis (CF). However, biobank storage and use of patient-derived organoids raises specific ethical and practical challenges that demand sound governance. We examined the perspectives of professionals affiliated with CF or organoids on the ethical aspects of organoid biobanking for CF precision medicine. By conducting this study parallel to the process of innovation and development of organoid biobanking, its findings are valuable for the design of responsible governance frameworks. Methods To identify relevant themes and attitudes we conducted 21 semi-structured qualitative interviews with professionals in the field of organoid technology, biobanking, or CF research and care. Results We identified three key challenges, as well as the suggestions of professionals on how to address them: (1) The challenges associated with commercial involvement, trust, and ownership, (2) Navigating the blurring boundary between research and clinical care, (3) Appropriate approaches to the informed consent procedure. Conclusion Sound governance of organoid biobanks aimed at precision medicine requires coming to terms with the fact that its stakeholders no longer belong to separate domains. Responsible governance should be aimed at finding a sound, context-sensitive balance between integration of ongoing co-operation and mutual consideration of interests, and maintaining a feasible and sustainable research climate.

This commentary outlines challenges with identifying and implementing ethical, legal and societal considerations when initiating large-scale scientific programs and suggests best practices to ensure responsible research. ispartof: EMBO JOURNAL vol:39 issue:19 ispartof: location:England status: published

BackgroundOur human societies and certainly also (bio) medicine are more and more permeated with technology. There seems to be an increasing awareness among bioethicists that an effective and comprehensive approach to ethically guide these emerging biomedical innovations into society is needed. Such an approach has not been spelled out yet for bioethics, while there are frequent calls for ethical guidance of biomedical innovation, also by biomedical researchers themselves. New and emerging biotechnologies require anticipation of possible effects and implications, meaning the scope is not evaluative after a technology has been fully developed or about hypothetical technologies, but real-time for a real biotechnology.Main textIn this paper we aim to substantiate and discuss six ingredients that we increasingly see adopted by ethicists and that together constitute “ethics parallel research”. This approach allows to fulfil two aims: guiding the development process of technologies in biomedicine and providing input for the normative evaluation of such technologies. The six ingredients of ethics parallel research are: (1) disentangling wicked problems, (2) upstream or midstream ethical analysis, (3) ethics from within, (4) inclusion of empirical research, (5) public participation and (6) mapping societal impacts, including hard and soft impacts. We will draw on gene editing, organoid technology and artificial intelligence as examples to illustrate these six ingredients.ConclusionEthics parallel research brings together these ingredients to ethically analyse and proactively or parallel guide technological development. It widens the roles and judgements from the ethicist to a more anticipatory and constructively guiding role. Ethics parallel research is characterised by a constructive, rather than a purely critical perspective, it focusses on developing best-practices rather than outlining worst practice, and draws on insights from social sciences and philosophy of technology.

Population-level biomedical research offers new opportunities to improve population health, but also raises new challenges to traditional systems of research governance and ethical oversight. Partly in response to these challenges, various models of public involvement in research are being introduced. Yet, the ways in which public involvement should meet governance challenges are not well understood. We conducted a qualitative study with 36 experts and stakeholders using the World Café method to identify key governance challenges and explore how public involvement can meet these challenges. This brief report discusses four cross-cutting themes from the study: the need to move beyond individual consent; issues in benefit and data sharing; the challenge of delineating and understanding publics; and the goal of clarifying justifications for public involvement. The report aims to provide a starting point for making sense of the relationship between public involvement and the governance of population-level biomedical research, showing connections, potential solutions and issues arising at their intersection. We suggest that, in population-level biomedical research, there is a pressing need for a shift away from conventional governance frameworks focused on the individual and towards a focus on collectives, as well as to foreground ethical issues around social justice and develop ways to address cultural diversity, value pluralism and competing stakeholder interests. There are many unresolved questions around how this shift could be realised, but these unresolved questions should form the basis for developing justificatory accounts and frameworks for suitable collective models of public involvement in population-level biomedical research governance. [Abstract copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.]

Contains fulltext : 229350.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Scientific discoveries are often to some degree influenced by luck. Whether luck’s influence is at odds with common-sense intuitions about responsibility, is the central concern of the philosophical debate about moral luck. Do scientists acknowledge that luck plays a role in their work and–if so–do they consider it morally problematic? The present article discusses the results of four focus groups with scientists, who were asked about their views on luck in their fields and its moral implications. The participants underscored circumstantial luck as a key dimension of luck in science. Nevertheless, most participants insisted that there are ways of executing ‘control’ in science: They believe that virtues and skills can increase one’s chances for success. The cultivation of these skills and virtues was considered a reasonable ground for pride. Prizes and rewards were rarely tied to personal desert, but instead to their societal function.

Organoids are three-dimensional multicellular structures grown in vitro from stem cells and which recapitulate some organ function. They are derivatives of living tissue that can be stored in biobanks for a multitude of research purposes. Biobank research on organoids derived from patients is highly promising for precision medicine, which aims to target treatment to individual patients. The dominant approach for protecting the interests of biobank participants emphasizes broad consent in combination with privacy protection and ex ante (predictive) ethics review. In this paradigm, participants are positioned as passive donors; however, organoid biobanking for precision medicine purposes raises challenges that we believe cannot be adequately addressed without more ongoing involvement of patient-participants. In this Spotlight, we argue why a shift from passive donation towards more active involvement is particularly crucial for biobank research on organoids aimed at precision medicine, and suggest some approaches appropriate to this context.

Background Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are a primary cause of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes worldwide. For women at risk of hypertensive complications, guidelines recommend frequent surveillance of blood pressure and signs of preeclampsia. Clinic visits range from every 2 weeks to several times a week. Given the wide ubiquity of smartphones and computers in most countries and a growing attention for self-management, digital technologies, including mobile health (mHealth), constitute a promising component of monitoring (self-measured) blood pressure during pregnancy. Currently, little is known about the experiences of women using such platforms and how mHealth can be aligned with their needs and preferences. Objective The objectives were twofold: (1) to explore the experiences of Dutch women who had an increased risk of HDP with a blended care approach (mHealth combined with face-to-face care) for remote self-monitoring of blood pressure and preeclampsia symptoms and (2) to formulate recommendations for the use and integration of mHealth in clinical care. Methods Alongside a prospective blended care study (SAFE@home study) that monitors pregnant women at increased risk of HPD with mHealth technology, a mixed methods study was conducted, including questionnaires (n=52) and interviews (n=11). Results were analyzed thematically. Results Of the 4 themes, 2 themes were related to the technologies themselves (expectations, usability), and 2 themes were related to the interaction and use of mHealth (autonomy and responsibilities of patients, responsibilities of health care professionals). First, the digital platform met the expectations of patients, which contributed to user satisfaction. Second, the platform was considered user-friendly, and patients favored different moments and frequencies for measuring their blood pressure. Third, patient autonomy was mentioned in terms of increased insight about their own condition and being able to influence clinical decision making. Fourth, clinical expertise of health care professionals was considered essential to interpret the data, which translates to subsequent responsibilities for clinical management. Data from the questionnaires and interviews corresponded. Conclusions Blended care using an mHealth tool to monitor blood pressure in pregnancy was positively evaluated by its users. Insights from participants led to 7 recommendations for designing and implementing similar interventions and to enhance future, morally sound use of digital technologies in clinical care.

This paper analyses self-declared aims and representation of dementia patient organizations and advocacy groups (POs) in relation to two recent upheavals: the critique of social stigmatization and biomedical research focusing on prediction. Based on twenty-six semi-structured interviews conducted in 2016-2017 with members, service recipients, and board representatives of POs in Germany and Israel, a comparative analysis was conducted, based on a grounded theory approach, to detect emerging topics within and across the POs and across national contexts. We identified a heterogeneous landscape, with the only Israeli PO focusing strongly on caretakers, whereas in Germany several POs claim to represent this patient collective. Shared aims of all POs were fighting social stigma, balancing the loss of patients' individual autonomy, and the well-being of caretakers. By highlighting the emergence of new groups of dementia self-advocacy against the more traditional advocacy by others, this study highlights how advocacy and representation in the context of AD are embedded in the discursive context of stigmatization and revised disease conception. Future developments in early diagnosis and prediction of dementia, with more affected people likely to conduct dementia self-advocacy, might challenge existing representation structures even more.

Unsere Sicht der Demenz ist von kulturellen Metaphern gepragt. Sie ziehen Analogien zu vertrauten Erfahrungsbereichen und eroffnen so ein Verstandnis von einem ansonsten schwer fassbaren und letzten Endes unergrundlichen Geschehen. In zeitgenossischen Diskursen uber die Demenz spielen insbesondere zwei biographische Metaphern eine masgebliche Rolle: die der ,Ruckkehr in die Kindheit‘ und die des ,Todes bei lebendigem Leib‘. Der Beitrag unterzieht beide Vorstellungen einer kritischen Reflexion. Er erlautert zunachst die kulturgeschichtliche Herkunft und Bedeutung der Kindheits- und Todesmetapher. Im Anschluss geht er ihren Implikationen fur das Verstandnis von Demenz und die Einstellungen und Verhaltensweisen gegenuber den Betroffenen nach. Dabei kommt eine Lebensverlaufsperspektive zum Tragen, die die Bedeutung der zeitlichen Erstreckung und Verlaufsstruktur des menschlichen Lebens fur die ethische Theoriebildung systematisch zu berucksichtigen sucht. Auf diese Weise lasst sich verdeutlichen, dass beide Metaphern die Altersdemenz letztlich einem anderen Punkt des menschlichen Lebens angleichen und sie damit in je unterschiedlicher Weise als eine Art biographischer Normabweichung auffassen. Die Auseinandersetzung erlaubt Schlussfolgerungen mit Blick auf medizin- und pflegeethische Debatten um Selbstbestimmung, Stellvertreterentscheidungen und Vorausverfugungen im Kontext der Altersdemenz. Auf einer theoretisch-konzeptionellen Ebene verdeutlicht sie daruber hinaus auch die Bedeutung einer biographie- und kultursensiblen Perspektive fur die ethische Theoriebildung im Allgemeinen.

Mobile health (mHealth) is rapidly being implemented and changing our ways of doing, understanding and organising healthcare. mHealth includes wearable devices as well as apps that track fitness, offer wellness programmes or provide tools to manage chronic conditions. According to industry and policy makers, these systems offer efficient and cost-effective solutions for disease prevention and self-management. While this development raises many ethically relevant questions, so far mHealth has received only little attention in medical ethics. This paper provides an overview of bioethical issues raised by mHealth and aims to draw scholarly attention to the ethical significance of its promises and challenges. We show that the overly positive promises of mHealth need to be nuanced and their desirability critically assessed. Finally, we offer suggestions to bioethicists to engage with this emerging trend in healthcare to develop mHealth to its best potential in a morally sound way.

Wiggins and Wilbanks’s (2019) article draws attention to the rise of citizen science in the medical domain, part of a larger participatory turn in which citizens and patients are increasingly invol...

The low level of understanding by biobank participants of the information provided during the consent procedure is a well-known challenge in responsible biobanking research (Eisenhauer et al. 2019;...

In their article “Patenting Foundational Technologies: Lessons From CRISPR and Other Core Biotechnologies,” Feeney and colleagues (2018) provide a critical analysis of Farrelly’s (2016) take on pat...

"Over the years, numerous ethical implications in stem cell research have been identified. Consequentially, there is a need to anticipate, prevent and/or mitigate these implications. In literature and in the guidelines of the International Society for Stem Cell Research some of these implications have been reframed into (moral) responsibilities. What exactly is meant by responsibility and which notions of responsibility are important often remains unclear. As a consequence, this encumbers the possibility to deal with these responsibilities in a systematic way. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to discuss how the concept of responsibility in stem cell research could best be understood. This paper addresses which notions of responsibility are relevant for the field of stem cell research. This will be done by first distinguishing between backward-looking and forward-looking notions of responsibilities, where backward-looking responsibilities are about reactive attitudes and forward-looking responsibilities are about what could be expected from someone to prevent ethical implications. Subsequently, ethical implications of and wrongdoings in stem cell research will be categorized in these notions of responsibility. Taking one step back and looking at the different notions of responsibility could help to identify gaps in responsibilities as well as to distinguish obligatory and supererogatory responsibilities. Consequentially, this informs how to prioritize, distribute and delegate responsibilities over the different stakeholders in stem cell research. This paper concludes by discussing the distribution of responsibilities and different strategies to promote responsibility in stem cell research. "

"Today, a person can receive a hip implant to replace a deformed, swollen hip joint or a pacemaker to sustain the beating rhythm of their heart. Thanks to Regenerative Medicine, soon, it may become possible not just to replace, but to re-grow healthy tissues after injury or disease. To this end, tissue engineers are designing ‘smart’, ‘life-like’ biomaterial implants to activate the inherent regenerative capacity of the human body. Such a smart life-like biomaterial may for example stimulate re-growth of a fresh, living heart valve after implantation in a patient’s heart. However, the meaning of the smartness and lifelikeness of these synthetic biomaterials is conceptually unclear. Therefore, in this paper, we first aim to unravel the meaning of the terms ‘smart’ and ‘life-like’, and next, analyse what ethical and societal implications are associated with this new generation of biomaterial implants as a result. Our conceptual analysis reveals that the biomaterials are considered ‘smart’ because they can communicate with human tissues and ‘life-like’ because they are structurally similar to these tissues. Moreover, the biomaterial artifacts are designed to integrate to a high degree with the living tissue of the human body. While these characteristics provide the biomaterials with their therapeutic potential, we argue that it complicates a) the irreversibility of the implantation process, b) questions of ownership regarding the biomaterial implant, and c) the sense of embodiment of the receiver of the implant. Overall, timely anticipation and consideration of these ethical challenges will promote responsible development of biomaterials in Regenerative Medicine. "

"Gene drive technologies (GDT) promote the rapid, progressive spread of gene alterations within a population or a species of wild organisms. If GDT are successfully developed and implemented, they could help to resolve intractable problems in the realm of vector-borne disease, invasive species and pest control, but these technologies have also raised concerns regarding the moral permissibility of interfering in nature in this way. In particular, it has been argued that perspectives on humans’ relationship to nature and their impact on and manipulation of ecosystems play a crucial role in determining the moral permissibility of GDT. Nonetheless, these perspectives have thus far remained underexplored in the emerging ethical debate on GDT. In this presentation, I identify these perspectives and concerns and analyse them normatively. Four issues are demonstrated to be of central importance in deciding whether (a particular) use of GDT is in accordance with the relationship humans should have to nature: (1) the moral status of and direct duties towards different organisms; (2) the prioritisation of duties towards different organisms in case of conflicting claims; (3) the moral (ir)relevance of ‘wildness’; and (4) the moral status of holistic entities such as species and ecosystems. The normative positions that can be taken on these issues are presented and critically assessed to determine the moral permissibility of particular applications of GDT. Doing so elucidates the central trade-offs and points of contention in the ethical debate on interfering in nature in this way. "

Dementia is highly prevalent and up until now, still incurable. If we may believe the narrative that is currently dominant in dementia research, in the future we will not have to suffer from dementia anymore, as there will be a simple techno-fix solution. It is just a matter of time before we can solve the growing public health problem of dementia. In this paper we take a critical stance towards overly positive narratives of techno-fixes by placing our empirical analysis of dementia research protocols and political statements in a framework of technology assessment. From this perspective, it becomes obvious that a techno-fix is just one of many ways to approach societal problems and more importantly that technologies are way less perfect than they are presented. We will argue that this narrow scope, which focusses on the usual suspects for solving illnesses, reduces dementia to organismic aspects, and may be counterproductive in finding a cure for dementia. We conclude with outlining how the narrow scope can be balanced with other narratives and why we should have a reasonable scepticism towards the usual suspects.