Diversifying stem cell debates: Including Muslim contexts and perspectives.

Greater transcultural and transdisciplinary engagement within Muslim contexts and deliberate inclusion of diverse Muslim voices in the development of international guidelines is required to improve understanding of the state of stem cell science, strengthen thinking about attendant ethical complexities, enhance compliance, deepen public deliberation, increase trust, and strengthen practice standards.

Guiding Ethical Principles in Engineering Biology Research.

Engineering biology is being applied toward solving or mitigating some of the greatest challenges facing society. As with many other rapidly advancing technologies, the development of these powerful tools must be considered in the context of ethical uses for personal, societal, and/or environmental advancement. Researchers have a responsibility to consider the diverse outcomes that may result from the knowledge and innovation they contribute to the field. Together, we developed a Statement of Ethics in Engineering Biology Research to guide researchers as they incorporate the consideration of long-term ethical implications of their work into every phase of the research lifecycle. Herein, we present and contextualize this Statement of Ethics and its six guiding principles. Our goal is to facilitate ongoing reflection and collaboration among technical researchers, social scientists, policy makers, and other stakeholders to support best outcomes in engineering biology innovation and development.

The ethical scientist in a time of uncertainty.

All of science takes place amidst a world shaken by uncertainty, social and political upheaval, and challenges to truthful testimony. Just at the moment in which increasing control over biology has been theorized, our social world has become increasingly contentious and its values more divisive. Using the example of gene drives for malaria control to explore the problem of deep uncertainty in biomedical research, I argue that profound uncertainty is an essential feature. Applying the language and presumptions of the discipline of philosophical ethics, I describe three types of uncertainty that raise ethical challenges in scientific research. Rather than mitigate these challenges with excessive precautions and limits on progress, I suggest that researchers can cultivate classic values of veracity, courage, humility, and fidelity in their research allowing science to proceed ethically under conditions of deep uncertainty.

Erratum: Revisiting the Warnock rule.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4015.

Religious Perspectives on Human Suffering: Implications for Medicine and Bioethics.

The prevention and relief of suffering has long been a core medical concern. But while this is a laudable goal, some question whether medicine can, or should, aim for a world without pain, sadness, anxiety, despair or uncertainty. To explore these issues, we invited experts from six of the world's major faith traditions to address the following question. Is there value in suffering? And is something lost in the prevention and/or relief of suffering? While each of the perspectives provided maintains that suffering should be alleviated and that medicine's proper role is to prevent and relieve suffering by ethical means, it is also apparent that questions regarding the meaning and value of suffering are beyond the realm of medicine. These perspectives suggest that medicine and bioethics have much to gain from respectful consideration of religious discourse surrounding suffering.

Gene therapy: charting a future course--summary of a National Institutes of Health Workshop, April 12, 2013.

Recently, the gene therapy field has begun to experience clinical successes in a number of different diseases using various approaches and vectors. The workshop Gene Therapy: Charting a Future Course, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Biotechnology Activities, brought together early and mid-career researchers to discuss the key scientific challenges and opportunities, ethical and communication issues, and NIH and foundation resources available to facilitate further clinical advances.

Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights.

BACKGROUND: Recent attempts in the USA and Europe to ban the circumcision of male children have been unsuccessful. Of current concern is a report by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute (TLRI) recommending that non-therapeutic circumcision be prohibited, with parents and doctors risking criminal sanctions except where the parents have strong religious and ethnic ties to circumcision. The acceptance of this recommendation would create a precedent for legislation elsewhere in the world, thereby posing a threat to pediatric practice, parental responsibilities and freedoms, and public health. DISCUSSION: The TLRI report ignores the scientific consensus within medical literature about circumcision. It contains legal and ethical arguments that are seriously flawed. Dispassionate ethical arguments and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are consistent with parents being permitted to authorize circumcision for their male child. Uncritical acceptance of the TLRI report's recommendations would strengthen and legitimize efforts to ban childhood male circumcision not just in Australia, but in other countries as well. The medical profession should be concerned about any attempt to criminalize a well-accepted and evidence-based medical procedure. The recommendations are illogical, pose potential dangers and seem unworkable in practice. There is no explanation of how the State could impose criminal charges against doctors and parents, nor of how such a punitive apparatus could be structured, nor how strength of ethnic or religious ties could be determined. The proposal could easily be used inappropriately, and discriminates against parents not tied to the religions specified. With time, religious exemptions could subsequently be overturned. The law, governments and the medical profession should reject the TLRI recommendations, especially since the recent affirmative infant male circumcision policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics attests to the significant individual and public health benefits and low risk of infant male circumcision. SUMMARY: Doctors should be allowed to perform medical procedures based on sound evidence of effectiveness and safety with guaranteed protection. Parents should be free to act in the best interests of the health of their infant son by having him circumcised should they choose.

Pathways toward the future: points to consider for oncofertility oversight.

INTRODUCTION: In September 2007, Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine received a $21.1 million dollar, 5-year grant from the National Institutes of Health to fund the Oncofertility Consortium (OFC). Over the course of the grant, those engaged with the psychological, legal, social, and ethical issues arising from oncofertility provided recommendations to the OFC. The inclusion of serious, real-time consideration of ethical issues as a funded focus of the grant and the work of scholars in law, bioethics, and economics was a key part of the process of research. Now that this grant has ended, this commentary points to some of the issues that came forward during the 5 years of this project. Because of the emerging status of oncofertility, these issues are ones that need continued discussion and clarification, prompting our call for an oversight mechanism to provide guidance for how this technology should proceed. METHODS: An initial draft of this commentary arose from notes taken during a small colloquium held to discuss the oversight of oncofertility following the conclusion of the grant. This colloquium occurred in the fall of 2011. Using these notes as a starting point, the draft was then sent to other researchers who had been involved with the OFC in considering the psychological, legal, social, and ethical issues related to fertility preservation for cancer patients during the course of the grant. Finally, this commentary was further framed by the authors' review of existing published and gray literature regarding issues concerning fertility preservation for cancer patients. RESULTS: We provide several points to consider and then offer two suggestions for an oversight mechanism for research as it continues. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: We assert the need not just for guidelines for the clinical practice of oncofertility, but also for oversight of the scope of this emerging technology because of its profound implications. We recognize that many long to a have a child and form a family and that, for some, cancer interrupts this path. With the conclusion of this grant, we call for the creation of a permanent oversight mechanism to thoughtfully and earnestly consider how to guide oncofertility to allow this emerging technology to be carefully considered as it develops. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The circumstances in which fertility preservation should be discussed and the patients for whom fertility preservation would be most suitable are important guideline issues for people who survive cancer and for their treatment team. Oversight of the field of oncofertility would strengthen the rights of cancer patients and help protect them from abuses as well as alert health care professionals to their correlative duties to these vulnerable patients and families.

Review: a critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision for HIV prevention in developed countries.

A potential impediment to evidence-based policy development on medical male circumcision (MC) for HIV prevention in all countries worldwide is the uncritical acceptance by some of arguments used by opponents of this procedure. Here we evaluate recent opinion-pieces of 13 individuals opposed to MC. We find that these statements misrepresent good studies, selectively cite references, some containing fallacious information, and draw erroneous conclusions. In marked contrast, the scientific evidence shows MC to be a simple, low-risk procedure with very little or no adverse long-term effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sensation during arousal or overall satisfaction. Unscientific arguments have been recently used to drive ballot measures aimed at banning MC of minors in the USA, eliminate insurance coverage for medical MC for low-income families, and threaten large fines and incarceration for health care providers. Medical MC is a preventative health measure akin to immunisation, given its protective effect against HIV infection, genital cancers and various other conditions. Protection afforded by neonatal MC against a diversity of common medical conditions starts in infancy with urinary tract infections and extends throughout life. Besides protection in adulthood against acquiring HIV, MC also reduces morbidity and mortality from multiple other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and genital cancers in men and their female sexual partners. It is estimated that over their lifetime one-third of uncircumcised males will suffer at least one foreskin-related medical condition. The scientific evidence indicates that medical MC is safe and effective. Its favourable risk/benefit ratio and cost/benefit support the advantages of medical MC.

Posthumous reproduction and palliative care.

Posthumous reproduction is an issue fraught with legal, ethical, religious, and moral debate. The involvement of the hospice and palliative care community in this debate may be peripheral due to the fact that other health care professionals would be actually delivering the services. However, the hospice and palliative care community are more likely to treat patients considering posthumous reproduction as they near the end of their lives. This article provides the hospice and palliative care community with a review of the medical, ethical, and legal considerations associated with posthumous reproduction. Having knowledge of these issues, and a list of available resources, will be useful if hospice and palliative care staff find themselves facing a patient or family that is considering posthumous reproduction.

The tragedy of translation: the case of "first use" in human embryonic stem cell research.

Who should go first in phase-I human trials when neither risks nor benefits can be estimated? By assessing concerns raised by Bretzner et al. (2011), we highlight a tragic dimension underlying all such trials. We discuss strategies to avoid the pitfalls of ethical hubris by promoting fidelity and trust.