Scientific interest in genomics in Africa is on the rise with a number of funding initiatives aimed specifically at supporting research in this area. Genomics research on material of African origin raises a number of important ethical issues. A prominent concern relates to sample export, which is increasingly seen by researchers and ethics committees across the continent as being problematic. The concept of genomic sovereignty proposes that unique patterns of genomic variation can be found in human populations, and that these (...) are commercially, scientifically or symbolically valuable and in need of protection against exploitation. Although it is appealing as a response to increasing concerns regarding sample export, there are a number of important conceptual problems relating to the term. It is not clear, for instance, whether it is appropriate that ownership over human genomic samples should rest with national governments. Furthermore, ethnic groups in Africa are frequently spread across multiple nation states, and protection offered in one state may not prevent researchers from accessing the same group elsewhere. Lastly, scientific evidence suggests that the assumption that genomic data is unique for population groups is false. Although the frequency with which particular variants are found can differ between groups, such genes or variants per se are not unique to any population group. In this paper, the authors describe these concerns in detail and argue that the concept of genomic sovereignty alone may not be adequate to protect the genetic resources of people of African descent. (shrink)

This empirical study explores aspects of how companies that are positively recognized by their workforce as “Best Companies to Work For” convey the underlying principles of their “trustworthy” culture. The study examines the normative ethical frameworks and affective language utilized in the ethics statements. Although multiple studies have considered normative ethical frameworks in individual ethical decision making, few have considered normative ethical frameworks in organization ethics statements. In addition, this study expands the analysis to include the ethic of care. Of (...) the “Best Companies to Work for” in this study, 93 had accessible online ethics statements. Findings indicated 70 % of the ethics statements utilized combinations of three types of normative ethics studied, while 30 % used a single framework. In statements with combined frameworks, the deontological framework had the highest frequency, while the ethic of care was present in 33 % of statements and the teleological framework had the lowest frequency. In ethics statements with a singular framework, the framework rankings were consistent with findings for combined frameworks. Using the Dictionary of Affect in Language, there were statistically significant differences on pleasantness between statements that mentioned ethic of care and those that did not. This study sheds light on how these trustworthy companies communicate by publishing their ethics statements and by using a multidimensional approach in their ethics statements that has greater pleasantness when an ethic of care is utilized. (shrink)

In the Spring of 2012, fans of the Gonzaga University basketball team used hate speech on social media site Twitter to express their frustration at losing a game to the Brigham Young University team. In response, the students in the Hate Studies in Business course started a student-led movement to “Take the Hate Out of Hoops.” The students applied their lessons in virtue ethics and leveraged the experiential structure of the course to create a positive response to a negative event. (...) It was through the unique study of hate, the recognition that membership in a community implies responsibility for harms perpetuated by that community, and the action-oriented nature of this class that students were moved to respond to this instance of injustice. This paper describes the course, the incident of hate speech, the students’ response, and the lessons learned by the four instructors of the course. (shrink)