In a recent Target Article Naomi Scheinerman (2023a) has offered an important and compelling call to institutionalize popular participation for heritable genome engineering through the inclusion of...

Char et al. question the extent and degree to which machine learning applications should be treated as exceptional by ethicists. It is clear that of the suite of ethical issues raised by mac...

ABSTRACT:A wide range of research uses patterns of genetic variation to infer genetic similarity between individuals, typically referred to as genetic ancestry. This research includes inference of human demographic history, understanding the genetic architecture of traits, and predicting disease risk. Researchers are not just structuring an intellectual inquiry when using genetic ancestry, they are also creating analytical frameworks with broader societal ramifications. This essay presents an ethics framework in the spirit of virtue ethics for these researchers: rather than focus on (...) rule following, the framework is designed to build researchers’ capacities to react to the ethical dimensions of their work. The authors identify one overarching principle of intellectual freedom and responsibility, noting that freedom in all its guises comes with responsibility, and they identify and define four principles that collectively uphold researchers’ intellectual responsibility: truthfulness, justice and fairness, anti-racism, and public beneficence. Researchers should bring their practices into alignment with these principles, and to aid this, the authors name three common ways research practices infringe these principles, suggest a step-by-step process for aligning research choices with the principles, provide rules of thumb for achieving alignment, and give a worked case. The essay concludes by identifying support needed by researchers to act in accord with the proposed framework. (shrink)

Children with special educational needs form a substantial minority of the school population. The mechanisms and associated resources in the 1981 Education Act were oriented towards children with statements of special educational needs and neglected children with special needs but without statements. This paper examines the recent shift in policy emphasis away from the former, and towards the latter, group. The precursors to this position, notably the unmanageable rise in numbers of children with statements and the broadening of the basis (...) on which children were given statements, are examined. Both the 1994 Code of Practice concerning children with special needs and the proposed changes to the National Curriculum can be seen in part as, by redefining non statemented special needs provision, mechanisms to tackle the inexorable increase in statements. Four major repercussions of this shift are discussed. Finally some longer term implications are examined. (shrink)