About

Welcome to The Ethics Blog from the Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics (CRB)!

We comment the debate on research ethics and bioethics and discuss our research. We address issues from current debate in the research community and in the press. Some posts are only for your information, others are more reflective, but our goal is always dialogue. A lot of the content deals with our own research. Right now we are focusing on biobanks and health care, but more will come!

Pär Segerdahl is the editor and writes about his own and other’s research. He is a philosopher and in the last couple of years his research has focused on the language of apes, animal welfare and gender. Other researchers from CRB will appear as guest editors from time to time, and you can always contact us at crb@crb.uu.se.

We write for researchers, health care staff, officials, politicians, patient organizations and anyone who is interested in ethics!

We welcome comments on this blog, but please do not post anything containing inappropriate language, personal attacks, confidential personal data or copyright material. Material that violates Swedish law or is off topic will be removed.

Would you like to get in touch with us but not through the blog? Send an e-mail to crb@crb.uu.se or visit our website, www.crb.uu.se.

This blog has been developed with support from BBMRI.se where the Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics are responsible for a work package on ethical and legal issues in biobanking.

 

4 Responses to About

  1. SoundEagle says:

    Hi Prof. Pär Segerdahl,

    Hello! SoundEagle is delighted to stumbled upon your blog and be acquainted with you and your work here. Since your “research has focused on the language of apes, animal welfare and gender”, please allow SoundEagle the liberty for commenting as follows:

    Interspecies interactions and communications are special in that they can and tend to transcend many boundaries and expectations imposed by human customs and belief systems. Perhaps you have heard of or studied such disciplines as zoo-anthropology or anthrozoology?

    What do you think of the writings of David Abram, specifically his book entitled “Becoming Animal”?

    To what degree does your research entail seeing animals outside of the box of human expectations or ideas that humans have about “utility” (not necessarily limited or pertaining to the utilitarian perspective or paradigm)?

    How do you find Frans de Waal’s book “The Ape and the Sushi Master”, which argues that animals are capable of forming and developing cultures and complex societies?

    Would you agree and/or recommend that we could learn a great deal about ourselves and Nature via the notion of “Biophilia” as first proposed by Edward O Wilson?

  2. “We address issues from current debate in the research community and in the press”

    A commentary that i do not know with who to share:

    “I am a little bit fed up that politicians are called to react emotionally ” was part of the response by European Union’s Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini when questioned about the dramatic images of the death of a toddler refugee. Should a scientist agree with such statement when questioned about images, data of animal experiments or general ethical issues that heat up public opinion? Granted the problems are different, but what is at stake here is the questioning of emotions in our way of acting in the world. Federica Mogherini used the word reacting which appear to be more related to a sort of impulse action; a type of immediate response that preclude reasonable, thoughtful decisions. From my perspective Federica Mogherini response is reasonable, although morally reproachable. It is reasonable from the perspective of handling a political situation where no one appears to be willing to act in front of an evident violation of basic principles of humanitarian emergency. In other words, Federica Mogherini just was saving her job position and carried out what is the job of politics, distort and manipulate. In fact to be reasonable for some may appear unreasonable for others because “All reasons are reasons for a particular people, restrained by spatial, temporal, and social conditions.” (Richard Rorty). Placing the issue in a personal perspective can help to clarify my point. It appears to me unreasonable how Europeans reacted to the Paris terrorist attacks in comparison with the most brutal attack carried out in Norway by a far right terrorist in 2011. Indeed both cases were terrorism but when the perpetrator appeared to be a white European, the political and social response is comparatively less evident. The response of Europeans was of shock after the massacre in Norway, but comparatively soft against the extreme right. The western World leaders joined in Paris to condemn and respond to fundamentalist Islamism but barely responded to the growing extreme right parties across Europe. For instance, everything was done to impose the economical policies in Greece while Hungary extreme right carrie out a campaign in clear violation of fundamental international human rights against refugees with total impunity. It seems than that reason are shaped by how we feel about the world. Hence, people with racist bias will feel and consequently elaborate reasons and actions that validate their social values. This bring me back to the problem of ethics in science. Scientists required an ethical guidance but how in a world of cultural powers asymmetries and privileges and racism is possible to recreate ethical practices ? How we can maintain a discourse of ethics in societies were extreme right political movements started to appear in the landscape of European governments. How should scientists respond about ethical guidelines of animal research when people appear to be treated even worst? These question are important because even if we care for ethical practices, the views of public opinion and political structures sooner or later may end up shaping the bureaucracy structures of ethical committees. For instance it appear in The Washington Post that a “New poll finds majority of Americans think torture was justified after 9/11 attacks “, how a phenomenon of social acceptation for torture end up shaping the policy of scientific institutions a long term ? What if tomorrow NIH offer grants for research in neuroscience aimed to improve ” enhanced coercive interrogation technique ” (an euphemism for torture used by US army). Should I be a “little bit fed up that scientist are called to react emotionally if someone showed me images of a scientist collaborative of such projects ? or instead should I assume, as any normal person would, that I should feel sorry, sorrow, shame or anger of what is happening … maybe then, we can start to think about how to act accordingly.

    Best regards

    • Thank you for an important comment. The feelings you mention at the end (sadness, sorrow, shame, anger) are (in the situation you describe) clearly moral responses, I would say. Your comment strikes me as an eloquent moral response. Such responses make us speak and think; it becomes neccessary to think and communicate. I believe you are entirely right, this is where we can start to think about how to act. Emotions are not just “simple, triggered feelings”, but subtle responses to situations which motivate thinking and concern about those situations. The politician’s statement you cited in the beginning, on the other hand, seems to oversimplify the response to prevent further thinking and concern.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: