Regulierung ist ein Kennzeichen für Rationalität bei dem Versuch, Verhaltensweisen im Lichte von Normen zu leiten. Ihre Funktion ist es, sowohl das Verhalten der Individuen in einem bestimmten Bereich ihres Handelns zu koordinieren als auch dieses Verhalten auf wünschenswerte Ziele hin auszurichten. Nach Regulierung wird insbesondere auf neuartigen Feldern sozialen Verhaltens gerufen, so vor allem im Hinblick auf gentechnische Forschung und Praxis. Aber die Genetik ist deshalb ein schwieriger Fall, weil sie Ziele und Werte betrifft, die in hohem Maße kontrovers (...) sind. Darüberhinaus ist schon die Frage, ob und, wenn ja, in welchem Maße der Bereich der Genetik einer Regulierung unterworfen werden sollte, diskussionswürdig. Als ein wissenschaftliches Projekt verlangt die Genetik nach maximaler Freiheit; als eine potentiell gefährliche Praxis erfordert sie gesellschaftliche Eingrenzung. Im vorliegenden Artikel werden die vier Ebenen einer möglichen Regulierung von Genetik diskutiert: die institutionelle, die gouvernementale, die legislative und die internationale. Dabei wird Israel als Testfall für die komplexe Beziehung zwischen diesen Ebenen der Regulierung herangezogen. Aus einer philosophischen Perspektive wird die inhärente Spannung untersucht, die einerseits zwischen der Kraft der theoretischen Argumentation, die oftmals den Gedanken der Freiheit unterstützt, und andererseits dem Druck der praktischen und gesellschaftlichen Überlegungen besteht, die regelmäßig nach einer begrenzenden Regulierung rufen. Diese Spannung wird typischerweise in den verschiedensten Formen von nicht prinzipiengeleiteten Kompromissen aufgelöst, die aus teilweisen Regulierungen, ministeriellen Entscheidungen, zeitweiligen Richtlinien, institutionellen Selbstbeschränkungen und der Unterscheidung zwischen legitimer und illegitimer gentechnischer Praxis bestehen. Damit wird die Regulierung der gentechnischen Praxis zugleich zu einem erhellenden Beispiel für die prekäre Lage der "Angewandten Ethik" zwischen Theorie und gesellschaftlicher Praxis.Regulation is a hallmark of rationality in the attempt to guide behavior in the light of norms. Its function is both to coordinate individuals' behavior in a particular field of action and to subject it to desirable goals. Regulation is called for especially in new realms of social conduct, such as genetic research and practice. Yet genetics is a difficult case since it involves goals and values that are highly controversial. Furthermore, the question whether and to what extent the sphere of genetics should be at all regulated is debatable. As a scientific project it calls for maximal freedom; as a potentially harmful practice it calls for social restraint. The paper discusses the four levels of genetic regulation: the institutional, the governmental, the legislative, and the international. It takes Israel as a test case for the complex inter-relation between these regulative levels. On the philosophical level it demonstrates the inherent tension between the force of theoretical arguments and the pressure of practical and social considerations . This tension is typically resolved in various forms of unprincipled compromise, consisting of partial regulation, ministerial discretion, temporary guidelines, institutional self-restraint and distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate genetic practices. Thus, regulation of genetic practice is an illuminating case of the precarious position of "applied ethics" between philosophical theory and social practice. (shrink)

This article presents results from the national survey conducted in 2018 for the project Research Integrity in Norway. A total of 31,206 questionnaires were sent out to Norwegian researchers by e-mail, and 7291 responses were obtained. In this paper, we analyse the survey data to determine attitudes towards and the prevalence of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism and contrast this with attitudes towards and the prevalence of the more questionable research practices surveyed. Our results show a relatively low percentage of self-reported (...) FFPs, while the number of researchers who report having committed one of the QRPs during the last three years reached a troublesome 40%. The article also presents a ranking of the perceived severity of FFP and QRPs among Norwegian researchers. Overall, there is a widespread normative consensus, where FFP is considered more troublesome than QRPs. (shrink)

David Heyd's study will stimulate philosophers to recognise the importance of the rather neglected topic of the distinctiveness of supererogation and the ...

This paper explores the pragmatic foundations of unreliable narration (UN), a narrative technique highly popular in western literary texts. It sets out by giving a critique of the competing theoretic frameworks of UN, namely the seminal Boothian concept and more recent constructivist approaches. It is argued that both frameworks neglect a pragmatic perspective as the most viable way for identifying and analysing UN. Such a pragmatic model is then developed on the basis of theories of cooperation, such as the Gricean (...) maxims, relevance theory, and politeness. The emerging definition of UN treats a narrator as unreliable if he or she violates the cooperative principle without intending an implicature. This model is tested against three prototypical UNs: Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day, and Poe's The Tell-Tale Heart. These sample analyses yield a typology of UN: while pragmatic deviation is shown to be the intrinsic feature of the phenomenon, unreliable narrators vary according to their degree of intentionality. Finally, two recurring issues in the UN debate are briefly discussed: the existence of textual clues of UN, and the role of the reader in constructing unreliability. (shrink)

Actions that go 'beyond the call of duty' are a common though not commonplace part of everyday life - in heroism, self-sacrifice, mercy, volunteering, or simply in small deeds of generosity and consideration. Almost universally they enjoy a high and often unique esteem and significance, and are regarded as, somehow, peculiarly good. Yet it is not easy to explain how - for if duty exhausts the moral life there is no scope to praise supererogatory acts, and if the consequentialist is (...) right there are no grounds for awarding them a special status. However, despite the distinctiveness of supererogation and the difficulty of accounting for it, philosophers have paid surprisingly little attention to the concept, and until now no thorough and systematic treatment of it has been proposed. This is what David Heyd offers in this book. His study will stimulate philosophers to recognise the importance of this rather neglected topic, and to take a fresh critical look at their theories in the light of its singular importance. (shrink)