A research blog from the Centre for Resarch Ethics & Bioethics (CRB)

Tag: moral concerns

Do you dare to be fearless?

Fear can easily play tricks on us thinking beings. When we are afraid of something, we often think that we should worry about it – so as not to lose control of it. So, to be on the safe side, we lie awake half the night thinking. We dare not let go of our thoughts, because they seem to watch over us as our personal guardian angels: as our private security service.

Another trick that fearful thoughts play on us is that they identify the cause of the fear with external factors that seem to make it reasonable to be afraid. It is difficult to be afraid of a simple stove if you do not constantly think about all the burns you would get if you put your hand on a red-hot stove. Through thoughts, fear creates its own claims to knowledge and its own worldview. Thoughts make fear appear realistic. People who do not share our fear are perceived as deceived and must be considered dangerous, because they risk leaving stoves on. Thus, fearful thoughts also motivate realistic safety measures: we do not visit strange kitchens without asbestos gloves. How fortunate that fear watches over us.

Another trick that fearful thoughts play on us is that they make us believe that we are safer if as many people as possible share our fear. Therefore, we try in every conceivable way to influence each other through the channels available to us. If necessary, we organize our own news channels, perhaps even our own security services, to protect us from all the evils that our trusted channels warn us about.

Daily contact with fearful thoughts makes it easy to identify with dramatic tales of a great struggle between guardian angels and dangers: between the forces of light and darkness. In the world of fairy tales, we identify with the guardian angels, or with the defenseless good people who must be defended by strong guardian angels. Since fear creates its own claims to knowledge and its own worldview, identification with the world of fairy tales can also encourage very dramatic safety measures against what we perceive as real threats. How wonderful to be able to stage the fight we read about in the fairy tales, where good-hearted fear triumphs over all the evils it is frightened by!

But does fear really know what we should be afraid of? Do we live in the frightening world that our guardian angels inform us about? Do we become safer by sharing our fear with as many people as possible? Or would the world be safer if we did not expose it to the tricks of our fear?

Here we can get a little worried, because surely, we should be afraid of something? Surely it must be reasonable to be afraid of what is truly dangerous? How can we realistically make the world safer if we do not get more people to share our well-founded fear? Is it not naive to believe that the deceived will voluntarily give up their distorted worldview? Therefore, well-founded information must be spread through trusted channels so that more people get involved in the fight against what is truly dangerous!

How can justified fear sound so similar to unjustified fear? Perhaps because in both cases the fear is framed by thoughts that tell us how justified it is. Feeling fear is natural and correcting false claims is important, but the tricks that fear plays on us thinking beings are artful and difficult to see through. For how can we examine our own security apparatus without engaging it again and letting it inform us about whether it constitutes a serious threat to our security?

Incidentally, there are other ways to read fairy tales, quieter reading experiences that make us familiar with how fear takes shape within ourselves.

Pär Segerdahl

Written by…

Pär Segerdahl, Associate Professor at the Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics and editor of the Ethics Blog.

This post in Swedish

Thinking about thinking

Using surplus embryos to treat Parkinson’s disease: perceptions among the Swedish public

The use of human embryos in stem cell research can create moral unease, as embryos are usually destroyed when researchers extract stem cells from them. If one considers the embryo as a potential life, this can be perceived as a human life opportunity being extinguished.

At the same time, stem cell research aims to support human life through the development of treatments for diseases that today lack effective treatment. Moreover, not everyone sees the embryo as a potential life. When stem cell research is regulated, policymakers can therefore benefit from current knowledge about the public’s attitudes to this research.

Åsa Grauman and Jennifer Drevin recently published an interview study of perceptions among the Swedish public about the use of donated embryos for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. The focus in the interviews on a specific disease is interesting, as it emphasizes the human horizon of stem cell research. This can nuance the issues and invite more diverse reasoning.

The interviewees were generally positive about using donated surplus embryos from IVF treatment to develop stem cell treatment for Parkinson’s disease. This also applied to participants who saw the embryo as a potential life. However, this positive attitude presupposed a number of conditions. The participants emphasized, among other things, that informed consent must be obtained from both partners in the couple, and that the researchers must show respect and sensitivity in their work with embryos. The latter requirement was also made by participants who did not see the embryo as a potential life. They emphasized that people have different values and that researchers and the pharmaceutical industry should take note of this.

Many participants also considered that the use of embryos in research on Parkinson’s disease is justified because the surplus embryos would otherwise be discarded without benefit. Several also expressed a priority order, where surplus embryos should primarily be donated to other couples, secondarily to drug development, and lastly discarded.

If you want to see more results, read the study: Perceptions on using surplus embryos for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease among the Swedish population: a qualitative study.

I would like to mention that the complexity of the questions was also expressed in such a way that one and the same person could express different perceptions in different parts of the interview, and switch back and forth between different perspectives. This is not a defect, I would say, but a form of wisdom that is essential when difficult ethical issues are discussed.

Pär Segerdahl

Written by…

Pär Segerdahl, Associate Professor at the Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics and editor of the Ethics Blog.

Grauman, Å., Drevin, J. Perceptions on using surplus embryos for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease among the Swedish population: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics 23, 15 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00759-y

This post in Swedish

Ethics needs empirical input