Works by Sarah Chan
30 found
Order:
1 filter applied
- Moral enhancement and pro-social behaviour.Sarah Chan &John Harris -2011 -Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (3):130-131.Moral enhancement is a topic that has sparked much current interest in the world of bioethics. The possibility of making people ‘better,’ not just in the conventional enhancement sense of improving health and other desirable qualities and capacities, but by making them somehow more moral, more decent, altogether better people, has attracted attention from both advocates 1 2 and sceptics 3 alike. The concept of moral enhancement, however, is fraught with difficult questions, theoretical and practical. What does it actually mean (...) to be ‘more moral’? How would moral enhancement be defined and would it necessarily, as some have claimed, make the world a better or safer place? How would or could such enhancement be achieved safely and without undue constraint on personal liberty and autonomy? On this subject, a recent paper by Crockett et al 4 investigating the effects of the neurotransmitter serotonin on moral decision-making provides an intriguing scientific basis for examining what might or might not constitute moral enhancement. The study involved treatment with citalopram, a drug that increases the action of serotonin in the brain, and subsequent analysis of participants' decision-making behaviour in two different situations involving moral dilemmas: the well-known ‘Trolley Problem’ 5 and the ‘Ultimatum Game’. 6 The researchers found that citalopram promoted what they call ‘prosocial behaviour’, increasing the participants' aversion to causing direct harm to others: in the first scenario, they were less likely to select the option that required killing one in order to save five, and in the second, less likely to reject unfair offers at the expense of others. The Crockett study is fascinating both for its insight into human behaviour and because it appears to demonstrate that, at least on some accounts of moral behaviour, serotonin may in fact be a …. (shrink)
- Public involvement in the governance of population-level biomedical research: unresolved questions and future directions.Sonja Erikainen,Phoebe Friesen,Leah Rand,Karin Jongsma,Michael Dunn,Annie Sorbie,Matthew McCoy,Jessica Bell,Michael Burgess,Haidan Chen,Vicky Chico,Sarah Cunningham-Burley,Julie Darbyshire,Rebecca Dawson,Andrew Evans,Nick Fahy,Teresa Finlay,Lucy Frith,Aaron Goldenberg,Lisa Hinton,Nils Hoppe,Nigel Hughes,Barbara Koenig,Sapfo Lignou,Michelle McGowan,Michael Parker,Barbara Prainsack,Mahsa Shabani,Ciara Staunton,Rachel Thompson,Kinga Varnai,Effy Vayena,Oli Williams,Max Williamson,Sarah Chan &Mark Sheehan -2021 -Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (7):522-525.Population-level biomedical research offers new opportunities to improve population health, but also raises new challenges to traditional systems of research governance and ethical oversight. Partly in response to these challenges, various models of public involvement in research are being introduced. Yet, the ways in which public involvement should meet governance challenges are not well understood. We conducted a qualitative study with 36 experts and stakeholders using the World Café method to identify key governance challenges and explore how public involvement can (...) meet these challenges. This brief report discusses four cross-cutting themes from the study: the need to move beyond individual consent; issues in benefit and data sharing; the challenge of delineating and understanding publics; and the goal of clarifying justifications for public involvement. The report aims to provide a starting point for making sense of the relationship between public involvement and the governance of population-level biomedical research, showing connections, potential solutions and issues arising at their intersection. We suggest that, in population-level biomedical research, there is a pressing need for a shift away from conventional governance frameworks focused on the individual and towards a focus on collectives, as well as to foreground ethical issues around social justice and develop ways to address cultural diversity, value pluralism and competing stakeholder interests. There are many unresolved questions around how this shift could be realised, but these unresolved questions should form the basis for developing justificatory accounts and frameworks for suitable collective models of public involvement in population-level biomedical research governance. (shrink)
- A bioethics for all seasons.Sarah Chan -2015 -Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (1):17-21.
- Free riders and pious sons – why science research remains obligatory.Sarah Chan &John Harris -2008 -Bioethics 23 (3):161-171.John Harris has previously proposed that there is a moral duty to participate in scientific research. This concept has recently been challenged by Iain Brassington, who asserts that the principles cited by Harris in support of the duty to research fail to establish its existence. In this paper we address these criticisms and provide new arguments for the existence of a moral obligation to research participation. This obligation, we argue, arises from two separate but related principles. The principle of fairness (...) obliges us to support the social institutions which sustain us, of which research is one; while the principle of beneficence, or the duty of rescue, imposes upon us a duty to prevent harm to others, including by supporting potentially beneficial, even life-saving research. We argue that both these lines of argument support the duty to research, and explore further aspects of this duty, such as to whom it is owed and how it might be discharged. (shrink)
- In Support of Human Enhancement.Sarah Chan &John Harris -2007 -Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 1 (1).
- Genome Editing Technologies and Human Germline Genetic Modification: The Hinxton Group Consensus Statement.Sarah Chan,Peter J. Donovan,Thomas Douglas,Christopher Gyngell,John Harris,Robin Lovell-Badge,Debra J. H. Mathews,Alan Regenberg &On Behalf of the Hinxton Group -2015 -American Journal of Bioethics 15 (12):42-47.The prospect of using genome technologies to modify the human germline has raised profound moral disagreement but also emphasizes the need for wide-ranging discussion and a well-informed policy response. The Hinxton Group brought together scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and journal editors for an international, interdisciplinary meeting on this subject. This consensus statement formulated by the group calls for support of genome editing research and the development of a scientific roadmap for safety and efficacy; recognizes the ethical challenges involved in clinical reproductive (...) applications of genome editing but, importantly, rejects the idea that human reproductive germline modification is necessarily morally unacceptable; and highlights the importance of meaningful engagement in discussions of genome editing and the development of regulation and oversight mechanisms to govern future uses of such technologies. (shrink)
- Contested futures: envisioning “Personalized,” “Stratified,” and “Precision” medicine.Sonja Erikainen &Sarah Chan -2019 -New Genetics and Society 38 (3):308-330.In recent years, discourses around “personalized,” “stratified,” and “precision” medicine have proliferated. These concepts broadly refer to the translational potential carried by new data-intensive biomedical research modes. Each describes expectations about the future of medicine and healthcare that data-intensive innovation promises to bring forth. The definitions and uses of the concepts are, however, plural, contested and characterized by diverse ideas about the kinds of futures that are desired and desirable. In this paper, we unpack key disputes around the “personalized,” “stratified,” (...) and “precision” terms, and map the epistemic, political and economic contexts that structure them as well as the different roles attributed to patients and citizens in competing future imaginaries. We show the ethical and value baggage embedded within the promises that are manufactured through terminological choices and argue that the context and future-oriented nature of these choices helps to understanding how data-intensive biomedical innovations are made socially meaningful. (shrink)No categories
- Does a Fish Need a Bicycle? Animals and Evolution in the Age of Biotechnology.Sarah Chan &John Harris -2011 -Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (3):484-492.Animals, in the age of biotechnology, are the subjects of a myriad of scientific procedures, interventions, and modifications. They are created, altered, and experimented upon—often with highly beneficial outcomes for humans in terms of knowledge gained and applied, yet not without concern also for the effects upon the experimental subjects themselves: consideration of the use of animals in research remains an intensely debated topic. Concerns for animal welfare in scientific research have, however, been primarily directed at harm to and suffering (...) of animal subjects and their prevention. Little attention has been paid to the benefits research might potentially produce for animals themselves and the interests that some animals may therefore have in the furtherance of particular avenues of science. (shrink)
- Families – Beyond the Nuclear Ideal.Daniela Cutas &Sarah Chan -2012 - Bloomsbury Academic.This book examines, through a multi-disciplinary lens, the possibilities offered by relationships and family forms that challenge the nuclear family ideal, and some of the arguments that recommend or disqualify these as legitimate units in our societies. That children should be conceived naturally, born to and raised by their two young, heterosexual, married to each other, genetic parents; that this relationship between parents is also the ideal relationship between romantic or sexual partners; and that romance and sexual intimacy ought to (...) be at the core of our closest personal relationships - all these elements converge towards the ideal of the nuclear family. The authors consider a range of relationship and family structures that depart from this ideal: polyamory and polygamy, single and polyparenting, parenting by gay and lesbian couples, as well as families created through current and prospective modes of assisted human reproduction such as surrogate motherhood, donor insemination, and reproductive cloning. (shrink)
- How to Rethink the Fourteen‐Day Rule.Sarah Chan -2017 -Hastings Center Report 47 (3):5-6.Recently, attention has been drawn to the basic principles governing the use of human embryos in research: specifically, the so-called fourteen-day rule. This rule stipulates that human embryos should not be allowed to grow in vitro past fourteen days of development. For years, the fourteen-day limit was largely theoretical, since culture techniques were not sufficient to maintain embryos up to this point. Yet in the past year, research has suggested that growing embryos beyond fourteen days might be feasible and scientifically (...) valuable. At the same time, work with pluripotent stem cells, including human PSCs, has shown that under certain conditions, they can form structures that recapitulate developmental features of the postimplantation embryo. This raises the possibility that PSCs could generate embryo-like structures in vitro, even “synthetic embryos,” that might provoke moral concern but would not fall under most current embryo research policies. In countries that permit embryo research, the fourteen-day rule has long been the linchpin of an effective policy compromise between what remain deeply divided moral positions on the human embryo's status. It has also, particularly in the United Kingdom, been influential in establishing a bioethics public-policy process. Any moves to change the rule must consider not just the implications for the use of embryos but also the potential impact of this model of bioethical governance of science. (shrink)
- Commentary on ‘Moral reasons to edit the human genome’: this is not the moral imperative we are looking for.Sarah Chan -2019 -Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (8):528-529.After reading Savulescu and colleagues,1 one ought to be in no doubt that human heritable genome editing is a ‘moral imperative’: to cure disease, reduce inequalities, improve public health and protect future generations. They make this argument repeatedly and in no uncertain terms. Yet are they right to do so? I am certainly not against developing HGE or exploring its possibilities. Instead, I aim to sound a cautionary note in relation to claims about its technological potential and how we frame (...) arguments on this basis. The ‘moral imperative’ argument has been made many times, since well before the advent of genome editing, by the present authors and others. It generally rests on a number of preconditions, implicit or explicit: that HGE will be safe, effective, cost-efficient and equitably available. Now, many bioethicists would take no issue with, indeed have supported,5 the proposition that, once all of these conditions are satisfied, HGE is something we have good moral reasons to pursue. At this pivotal moment for global science, ethics and governance, however, we need equally to be concerned with the technology’s immediate future trajectory: whether and how we can reach the point of satisfying these conditions. In this context, the MIA is something of a distraction; at worst, it may even be corrosive and damaging. Consider first the argument from evolutionary fitness, that HGE is morally required to counteract the supposed ‘genetic deterioration’ produced by medically enabled ‘survival of the weak’, that makes …. (shrink)
- What's in a Name? The Politics of ‘Precision Medicine’.Sarah Chan &Sonja Erikainen -2018 -American Journal of Bioethics 18 (4):50-52.
- Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques, Scientific Tourism, and the Global Politics of Science.Sarah Chan,César Palacios-González &María De Jesús Medina Arellano -2017 -Hastings Center Report 47 (5):7-9.The United Kingdom is the first and so far only country to pass explicit legislation allowing for the licensed use of the new reproductive technology known as mitochondrial replacement therapy. The techniques used in this technology may prevent the transmission of mitochondrial DNA diseases, but they are controversial because they involve the manipulation of oocytes or embryos and the transfer of genetic material. Some commentators have even suggested that MRT constitutes germline genome modification. All eyes were on the United Kingdom (...) as the most likely location for the first MRT birth, so it was a shock when, on September 27, 2016, an announcement went out that the first baby to result from use of the intervention had already been born. In New York City, United States-based scientist John Zhang used maternal spindle transfer to generate five embryos for a woman carrying oocytes with deleterious mutations of the mitochondrial DNA. Zhang then shipped the only euploid embryo to Mexico, where it was transferred to the mother's uterus. Zhang's team's travel across international borders to carry out experimental procedures represents a form of scientific tourism that has not been properly ethically explored; it can, however, have seriously detrimental effects for developing countries. (shrink)
- Playing it Safe? Precaution, Risk, and Responsibility in Human Genome Editing.Sarah Chan -2020 -Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 63 (1):111-125.On November 26, 2018, the world awoke to the news that genome editing had for the first time been used to create genetically modified human beings. He Jiankui, a scientist then employed by Southern University of Science and Technology of China, Shenzhen, announced via social media and the popular press that he had performed genome editing on embryos with the aim of disrupting the CCR5 gene in order to induce immunity to HIV, implanted the embryos, and that twin girls had (...) been born.In the wake of this announcement, arguments, claims, and accusations flew. Most commentators declared He's actions "irresponsible," pointing to various statements by scientific organizations agreeing that human embryo genome editing was... (shrink)
- Hidden Anthropocentrism and the “Benefit of the Doubt”: Problems With the “Origins” Approach to Moral Status.Sarah Chan -2014 -American Journal of Bioethics 14 (2):18-20.
- 1.4 Science and the Social Contract: On the Purposes, Uses and Abuses of Science.Sarah Chan,John Harris &John Sulston -forthcoming -Common Knowledge: The Challenge of Transdisciplinarity.
- Research Translation and Emerging Health Technologies: Synthetic Biology and Beyond.Sarah Chan -2018 -Health Care Analysis 26 (4):310-325.New health technologies are rapidly emerging from various areas of bioscience research, such as gene editing, regenerative medicine and synthetic biology. These technologies raise promising medical possibilities but also a range of ethical considerations. Apart from the issues involved in considering whether novel health technologies can or should become part of mainstream medical treatment once established, the process of research translation to develop such therapies itself entails particular ethical concerns. In this paper I use synthetic biology as an example of (...) a new and largely unexplored area of health technology to consider the ways in which novel health technologies are likely to emerge and the ethical challenges these will present. I argue that such developments require us to rethink conventional attitudes towards clinical research, the roles of doctors/researchers and patients/participants with respect to research, and the relationship between science and society; and that a broader framework is required to address the plurality of stakeholder roles and interests involved in the development of treatments based on novel technologies. (shrink)
- Commentary: What Price Freedom?Sarah Chan -2017 -Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 26 (3):377-383.
- Rethinking the posthuman in bioethics.David Boden &Sarah Chan -2022 - In Danielle Sands,Bioethics and the Posthumanities. New York, NY: Routledge.Export citation
Bookmark - Bioética y bioderecho: reflexiones clásicas y nuevos desafíos.Sarah Chan,Ibarra Palafox,A. Francisco,Medina Arellano &María de Jesús (eds.) -2018 - Ciudad de México, México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas.
- Consequentialism without Consequences: Ethics and Embryo Research.Sarah Chan &John Harris -2010 -Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19 (1):61.The legitimacy of embryo research, use, and destruction is among the most important issues facing contemporary bioethics. In the preceding paper, Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu took up an argument of John Harris and tried to find some new ways of avoiding its dramatic consequences. They noted that: “John Harris has argued that if … it is morally permissible to engage in reproduction … despite knowledge that a large number of embryos will fail to implant and quickly die, then … (...) it is morally permissible to produce embryos for other purposes that involve killing them, for instance, to harvest stem cells” and suggest that this argument fails. (shrink)
- Frozen embryos, genetic information and reproductive rights.Sarah Chan &Muireann Quigley -2007 -Bioethics 21 (8):439–448.Recent ethical and legal challenges have arisen concerning the rights of individuals over their IVF embryos, leading to questions about how, when the wishes of parents regarding their embryos conflict, such situations ought to be resolved. A notion commonly invoked in relation to frozen embryo disputes is that of reproductive rights: a right to have (or not to have) children. This has sometimes been interpreted to mean a right to have, or not to have, one's own genetic children. But can (...) such rights legitimately be asserted to give rise to claims over embryos? We examine the question of property in genetic material as applied to gametes and embryos, and whether rights over genetic information extend to grant control over IVF embryos. In particular we consider the purported right not to have one's own genetically related children from a property-based perspective. We argue that even if we concede that such (property) rights do exist, those rights become limited in scope and application upon engaging in reproduction. We want to show that once an IVF embryo is created for the purpose of reproduction, any right not to have genetically-related children that may be based in property rights over genetic information is ceded. There is thus no right to prevent one's IVF embryos from being brought to birth on the basis of a right to avoid having one's own genetic children. Although there may be reproductive rights over gametes and embryos, these are not grounded in genetic information. (shrink)
- In search of a post-genomic bioethics.Sarah Chan -2018 -History of the Human Sciences 31 (1):116-123.
- Modification and the future of health research regulation.Sarah Chan -2021 - In Graeme T. Laurie,The Cambridge handbook of health research regulation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Export citation Bookmark
- ‘Risky’ research and participants' interests: the ethics of phase 2C clinical trials.Sarah Chan,Ying-Kiat Zee,Gordon Jayson &John Harris -2011 -Clinical Ethics 6 (2):91-96.Biomedical research involving human participants is highly regulated and subject to stringent ethical requirements. Clinical research ethics, regulation and policy have tended to focus almost exclusively on the protection of participants' interests against harms that might result from taking part in research. Less consideration, however, has been given to the interests that patients may themselves have in research participation, even in trials that may be beyond the bounds of current clinical research practice. In this paper, we consider the case of (...) a suggested extension to clinical trial protocols to explore the ethics of participation in ‘risky’ research. We argue that patients may have a strong interest in taking part in research, and that even when greater-than-usual risks may be present, such research can be both ethically and scientifically justified. Finally, we suggest that there might be scope in some cases to assert a right to participate in research, and that the possibility of such a right merits further consideration. (shrink)
- The concise argument.Sarah Chan -2009 -Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (10):589-589.The ethics of psychiatry The ethics of psychiatry is one of the areas of medical ethics where the overlap between medical ethics and philosophy of medicine is largest. This is illustrated by two papers in the current issue of the JME. Charlotte Blease discusses whether it is “… ever right to prescribe placebos to patients in clinical practice?” in the context of prescribing for patients with severe depression . Would such prescriptions for instance amount to morally problematic deception? In an (...) intricate analysis she points out that the answer to the question depends on a range of complex conceptual distinctions that will be familiar to scholars in philosophy of medicine. One very significant issue that is raised is that well-being is not synonymous with a realistic assessment of oneself or one's circumstances. Most of us who are not depressed have positive illusions about ourselves and this may even …. (shrink)
- Editors' introduction.John Coggon,Sarah Chan,Søren Holm &Thomasine Kushner -2015 - In John Coggon, Sarah Chan, Søren Holm, Thomasine Kimbrough Kushner & John Harris,From reason to practice in bioethics: an anthology dedicated to the works of John Harris. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Export citation Bookmark
- From reason to practice in bioethics: an anthology dedicated to the works of John Harris.John Coggon,Sarah Chan,Søren Holm,Thomasine Kimbrough Kushner &John Harris (eds.) -2015 - Manchester: Manchester University Press.From reason to practice in bioethics brings together original contributions from some of the world's leading scholars in the field of bioethics. With a particular focus on, and critical engagement with, the influential work of Professor John Harris, the book provides a detailed exploration of some of the most interesting and challenging philosophical and practical questions raised in bioethics.
- Stem Cells: New Frontiers in Science and Ethics.Muireann Quigley,Sarah Chan &John Harris (eds.) -2012 - World Scientific.Fast-moving and ever-changing, stem cell science and research presents ongoing ethical and legal challenges in many countries. Each development and innovation throws up new challenges. This is the case even where new developments initially seem to solve old dilemmas. Sometimes it becomes evident that new science does not in fact solve old problems and, for that reason, the ethical issues remain. In recognition of this, this book presents innovative and creative analyses of a range of ethical and legal challenges raised (...) by stem cell research and its potential and actual application. The editors of this collection have brought together experts from ethics and law to bring fresh perspectives on the use of and research on stem cells. The chapters in this collection range across a number of different issues in the debate on stem cells, from the ethical dilemmas of conducting stem cell research to those of the clinical application of stem cell technology. Each chapter gives an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of the ethical or legal issues at stake. The early chapters give engaging new expositions on the permissibility of using embryos in stem cell research, in particular challenging our views about how we view and OCyconstructOCO the embryo in debates regarding stem cells. Later chapters move on to actual and potential clinical uses of stem cells and present novel arguments about these. (shrink)No categories
- Beyond the Is/Ought Divide: Studying the Nature of the Bioethical Enterprise. [REVIEW]Sarah Chan &John Coggon -2013 -Health Care Analysis 21 (1):1-5.
Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Create an account to enable off-campus access through your institution's proxy server or OpenAthens.
Monitor this page
Be alerted of all new items appearing on this page. Choose how you want to monitor it:
 Email |  RSS feed |
Editorial team
General Editors:
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Gwen Bradford
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Esa Diaz-Leon
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Ichikawa
Monte Johnson
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Manolo Martínez
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Giuseppe Primiero
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell P. Rowbottom
Aleksandra Samonek
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Aness Kim Webster
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Gwen Bradford
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Esa Diaz-Leon
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Ichikawa
Monte Johnson
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Manolo Martínez
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Giuseppe Primiero
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell P. Rowbottom
Aleksandra Samonek
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Aness Kim Webster
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
Home |New books and articles |Bibliographies |Philosophy journals |About PhilPapers |API |Contact us |Code of conduct
PhilPapers logo byAndrea Andrews andMeghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see ourterms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications).Use of this site is subject toterms & conditions.
All rights reserved byThe PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-54b44b69b7-k24bk uwo