Editors' statement on the responsible use of generative AI technologies in scholarly journal publishing.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

Learning about Teaching.

There are three broad themes in this issue of the Hastings Center Report. First, a special report published as a supplement to the issue addresses the medical and health policy issues faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender patients. Inside the issue, the two articles take up questions about how caregivers may justify a refusal to provide a medical service that a patient has requested. The issue also contains a set of essays that have emerged from a collaborative effort by The Hastings Center and the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to promote scholarly engagement with the practical problem of teaching caregivers, researchers, scientists, and others to address bioethical problems. What appears here is the first installment of a series that will appear in the pages of the Report well into the 2015 volume.

Neuroscience and Society: Supporting and Unsettling Public Engagement.

Advancing neuroscience is one of many topics that pose a challenge often called "the alignment problem"-the challenge, that is, of assuring that science policy is responsive to and in some sense squares with the public's values. This issue of the Hastings Center Report launches a series of scholarly essays and articles on the ethical and social issues raised by this vast body of medical research and bench science. The series, which will run under the banner "Neuroscience and Society," is supported by the Dana Foundation and seeks to promote deliberative public engagement, broadly understood, about neuroscience. As a social goal, deliberative public engagement is both ubiquitous and elusive-called for everywhere yet difficult to undertake at a national level on a complex scientific topic. To be meaningful, deliberative public engagement must occur in many locations in a society and be carried forward by many actors. Scholarly writing might contribute in several ways.

Trust in Health Care and Science: Toward Common Ground on Key Concepts.

This essay summarizes key insights across the essays in the Hastings Center Report's special report "Time to Rebuild: Essays on Trust in Health Care and Science." These insights concern trust and trustworthiness as distinct concepts, competence as a necessary but not sufficient input to trust, trust as a reciprocal good, trust as an interpersonal as well as structural phenomena, the ethical impermissibility of seeking to win trust without being trustworthy, building and borrowing trust as distinct strategies, and challenges to trustworthiness posed by the contingent nature of science. Together, these insights stand to advance an area of research that we believe has been historically stymied by conceptual confusion and a long-standing insistence on treating trust as a purely instrumental good.

Editors' Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

Editors' Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

A landmark environmental law looks ahead.

In late December 1973, the United States enacted what some would come to call "the pitbull of environmental laws." In the 50 years since, the formidable regulatory teeth of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have been credited with considerable successes, obliging agencies to draw upon the best available science to protect species and habitats. Yet human pressures continue to push the planet toward extinctions on a massive scale. With that prospect looming, and with scientific understanding ever changing, Science invited experts to discuss how the ESA has evolved and what its future might hold. -Brad Wible.

Ethics and Structure.

In the Hastings Center Report's March-April 2022 issue, Diana Anderson, an architect and physician, and her colleagues examine ways in which aspects of the physical design of health care facilities can function as health interventions. The authors identify the kinds of ethical questions such interventions raise, and they offer recommendations for protecting patients and promoting good and fair patient outcomes. A second article focuses on how clinicians who provide patients with implantable medical devices have become dependent on health support workers who are employed by the device manufacturers themselves. The authors argue that this reliance disrupts the epistemic practices on which clinical decision-making depends and can therefore be damaging to patient care. Accompanying the regular part of this issue is a special report on the antiracism work needed in bioethics.

Learning Health Systems, Informed Consent, and Respect for Persons.

Several pieces in the Hastings Center Report's May-June 2022 issue concern research ethics issues that arise in learning health care systems. In the lead article, Stephanie Morain and colleagues propose a new ethical framework for pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), which are trials embedded in clinical care. Their framework consists of eight dimensions of demonstrating respect for patients enrolled in PCTs. In the second article, Robert Steel argues that patients being treated in a learning health care system can be required to participate in a clinical trial even if the risk to them is more than minimal. If they wish to refuse, they must either forgo treatment in the system or seek it elsewhere. Three commentaries explore various dimensions of Steel's argument. A third article in the issue turns in a different direction, to assumptions in bioethics about the quality of lives lived with disability. The authors, Debjani Mukherjee, Preya Tarsney, and Kristi Kirschner, find much that needs to change and offer recommendations for improvements at multiple levels.

Choosing to Die.

Two articles in the September-October 2022 issue of the Hastings Center Report discuss health-related reasons that people might have to actively bring their lives to an end. In one, Brent Kious considers the situation of a person who, because of illness, becomes a burden on loved ones. A person in such a situation might prefer to die, and Kious argues that, while there is no obligation to hasten one's death, the choice to do so could sometimes be reasonable. In a second article, Henri Wijsbek and Thomas Nys discuss a case in the Netherlands in which a woman with severe dementia was euthanized at a point when her advance euthanasia directive did not align with what she said, when asked, about death. Wijsbek and Nys defend the authority of her advance directive against a range of objections. In a third article, Henry Silverman and Patrick Odonkor, physicians at the University of Maryland Medical Center, where the first pig-to-human heart transplantation was performed in early 2022, develop recommendations for clinical trials of porcine heart transplantation. And an essay in the issue criticizes the allocation recommendations developed for Covid-19 vaccines by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

Variations on Consent.

Two articles in the March-April 2021 issue of the Hastings Center Report consider alterations to traditional informed consent. In "The Consent Continuum: A New Model of Consent, Assent, and Nondissent for Primary Care," Marc Tunzi and colleagues argue that, in primary care settings, patient consent should be understood as taking a range of forms depending on the procedure, the patient, and the patient-care context. Traditional informed consent is at the ceremonious end; for many things done in these settings, the authors assert, assent or even nondissent is fine. In the lead article, health policy scholars Stephanie Morain and Emily Largent consider another continuum for informed consent, this one occurring with pragmatic research, at the intersection of clinical care with research.

Ethicists and Activists.

In some sense, argues Christopher Meyers in the lead article in this, the July-August 2021, issue of the Hastings Center Report, to be a good ethicist is to be an activist. The question for the ethicist, and for Meyers, is about how hard and far to push: how much personal risk to shoulder, how much to tick off colleagues, how much institutional disruption to create, how much to look like an angry protester. Meyers argues for aiming at the middle, in two senses. In a time of anger and activism about relentless, pervasive, overwhelming wrongs, the question of balance is increasingly front of mind. A set of commentaries we solicited both welcome Meyers's call for activism and push for more.

Justice, Bioethics, and Covid-19.

Both articles in the November-December 2021 issue of the Hastings Center Report reflect bioethics' growing interest in questions of justice, or more generally, questions of how collective interests constrain individual interests. Hugh Desmond argues that human enhancement should be reconsidered in light of developments in the field of human evolution. Contemporary understandings in this area lead, he argues, to a new way of thinking about the ethics of enhancement-an approach that replaces personal autonomy with group benefit as the primary criterion for deciding what enhancements are acceptable. In the second article, Johannes Kniess considers the many attempts within bioethics to draw on John Rawls's work to discuss health care access and social determinants of health, and he comes across as moderately optimistic that Rawls's theory of justice has ongoing relevance.

Does Gene Editing in the Wild Require Broad Public Deliberation?

How strong is the argument for requiring public deliberation by very large publics-at national or even global levels-before moving forward with efforts to use gene editing on wild populations of plants or animals? Should there be a general moratorium on any such efforts until such broad public deliberation has been successfully carried out? This article works toward recommendations about the need for and general framing of broad public deliberation. It finds that broad public deliberation is highly desirable but not flatly necessary before moving forward with any local cases of gene editing in the wild. It also finds that broad public deliberation would be most helpful in generating very general guidance and is unlikely to be appropriate for specific cases. Broad public deliberation is most helpful for cases that involve higher levels of uncertainty and moral ambiguity, but separating out a distinct class of cases for deliberation is not yet possible.