Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Can reproductive genetic manipulation save lives?G. Owen Schaefer - 2020 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy (3):381-386.
    It has recently been argued that reproductive genetic manipulation technologies like mitochondrial replacement and germline CRISPR modifications cannot be said to save anyone’s life because, counterfactually, no one would suffer more or die sooner absent the intervention. The present article argues that, on the contrary, reproductive genetic manipulations may be life-saving (and, from this, have therapeutic value) under an appropriate population health perspective. As such, popular reports of reproductive genetic manipulations potentially saving lives or preventing disease are not necessarily mistaken, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • The Chinese approach to artificial intelligence: an analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation.Huw Roberts, Josh Cowls, Jessica Morley, Mariarosaria Taddeo, Vincent Wang & Luciano Floridi - 2021 - AI and Society 36 (1):59–⁠77.
    In July 2017, China’s State Council released the country’s strategy for developing artificial intelligence, entitled ‘New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan’. This strategy outlined China’s aims to become the world leader in AI by 2030, to monetise AI into a trillion-yuan industry, and to emerge as the driving force in defining ethical norms and standards for AI. Several reports have analysed specific aspects of China’s AI policies or have assessed the country’s technical capabilities. Instead, in this article, we focus on (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  • Can agroecology and CRISPR mix? The politics of complementarity and moving toward technology sovereignty.Maywa Montenegro de Wit - 2022 - Agriculture and Human Values 39 (2):733-755.
    Can gene editing and agroecology be complementary? Various formulations of this question now animate debates over the future of food systems, including in the UN Committee on World Food Security and at the UN Food Systems Summit. Previous analyses have discussed the risks of gene editing for agroecosystems, smallholders, and the concentration of wealth by and for agro-industry. This paper takes a different approach, unpacking the epistemic, socioeconomic, and ontological politics inherent in complementarity. I ask: How is complementarity understood? Who (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations