DTC基因检测的伦理思考

直接面向消费者提供基因检测服务称为Direct-to-Consumer (DTC)基因检测.随着人类基因组计划测序工作的完成,DTC基因检测服务行业逐渐发展起来,它的出现与人们日益提高的健康需要相适应.但与此同时,一些社会伦理和法律问题也随之产生.对DTC基因检测的现状以及各国对其认可度进行阐述,剖析DTC基因检测存在的伦理问题,如隐私问题,有限的预测价值,检测信息的准确性,检测结果对受试者造成的负面心理影响,以及由此产生的基因歧视和卫生保健资源的浪费等.     

"基因决定论"质疑

基因是生命活动的客观物质基础,但探究基因对于人的生命活动影响的奥秘不能走向极端化、神秘化.对于"基因决定论"需要进行冷静的思考.     

DTC基因检测的伦理思考

直接面向消费者提供基因检测服务称为Direct-to-Consumer(DTC)基因检测。随着人类基因组计划测序工作的完成,DTC基因检测服务行业逐渐发展起来,它的出现与人们日益提高的健康需要相适应。但与此同时,一些社会伦理和法律问题也随之产生。对DTC基因检测的现状以及各国对其认可度进行阐述,剖析DTC基因检测存在的伦理问题,如隐私问题,有限的预测价值,检测信息的准确性,检测结果对受试者造成的负面心理影响,以及由此产生的基因歧视和卫生保健资源的浪费等。     

论"基因编辑"技术的伦理界限

科学研究的目的是"求真"。因此,科学研究不应该有"禁区",人们不应该武断地禁止有关"基因编辑"的科学探索。但是,科学研究的具体过程必须以不侵犯人们的"权利"为限制,对科研成果的应用必须以是否增进人类的"福利"为判断标准。这是科学研究的伦理界限。基于此,"基因编辑"的相关研究应该被允许,但其具体的实验过程和对"基因编辑"技术的应用都必须遵循"不侵犯权利"和"增进人类福利"的伦理限制。     

就业中基因歧视差别性待遇的国际考证

利用基因检测结果来对员工进行差别待遇并不必然构成歧视,只有不合理、不公平的差别待遇才属于歧视,世界各国相关立法均普遍禁止在就业中进行基因歧视,但并未禁止雇主根据受雇人基因特征从事差别待遇.在我国,因就业而导致的基因歧视较为少见,对此研究也比较滞后,各国就业中基因歧视的实践和经验对我国具有积极的借鉴意义.禁止不公正、不合理的差别待遇,进一步防范因基因检测所导致的歧视问题,促进就业中基因歧视合理规制制度的构建.     

“保护基因隐私,防止基因歧视”调查与分析

我国基因检测相关的立法还是空白。通过问卷调查和深入访谈,调查了我国公众对基因检测技术的认知情况以及对基因歧视的态度和看法,发现公众反对基因歧视、保护基因隐私的呼声高涨,迫切需要出台一部专门规范基因检测技术、禁止基因歧视的法律法规。     

五个层面的挑战与三大理论难题——试论基因伦理

基因伦理的挑战在基因-检测、基因-治疗、基因-生殖、基因-克隆、基因-生态等五个层面展开,大致包括保护基因隐私、防止基因歧视,生殖细胞能否基因治疗,辅助生殖是否“扮演上帝”,克隆人,转基因的安全性等内容。同时,提出了基因决定论、实体论和主观论以及基因伦理走向何处等理论难题,需要认真研究和讨论。     

人类基因组伦理：问题与前景

人灰基因组计谋（HGP）试图在分子层次上更深入、更全面的认识人体,为战胜疾病增进健康提供科学依据。从而造福人类。这是人类认识生命、认识自身的自然而又必然的结果。必须反对“基因决定论”,保护基因隐私,防止基因歧视,警惕“优生运动”死灰复燃。HGP与生老病死密切相关,对伦理特别敏感,尤其要强调伦理的规范和引导作用,而不能把科技与伦理对立起来。     

中国临床遗传学检测的伦理问题

遗传伦理问题是生命科学领域最具争议的问题之一.针对基因诊断的"知情权"、"优劣"胎儿的选择、基于人群的基因筛查、发病前及患病风险的基因检查、全基因组筛查以及植入前遗传诊断中所涉及的伦理前沿问题进行讨论.提出基因检测是否应该重申把伦理考虑放在第一位.     

"全球伦理"的可能与现实

"全球伦理"问题是近年全球化讨论中的一个理论热点,是应用伦理学发展的一个亮点.基于"可能性"的讨论是一个必要的理论逻辑起点,但各家的切入点各不相同,体现了不同的方法和视角.但大多数都未能从伦理与道德相区别的意义上加以思考和立论,使之对"可能性"的理解和把握中概念含混,意义不明.本文从伦理与道德的区别入手,认为"全球伦理"与"全球道德"是两个不同的概念,由此提出应从"伦理可能"和"道德可能"的区分上来把握"全球道德/伦理"问题,以期使这一问题获得进一步的思考和讨论.     

"Psychotherapy" versus "treatment"

Presents a comment on "Psychological treatments" by D. H. Barlow. Barlow proposed that we distinguish between the terms "treatment" and "psychotherapy." The author believes that not only is the distinction unnecessary, but that its implications could have negative consequences for the field of clinical psychology. It is the proposed distinguishing feature that treatments are "specifically tailored to the pathological process that is causing the impairment and distress" that is most problematic. Clinical psychology does not need a distinction that further exacerbates the split between researchers and practitioners.     

"Enmeshment" and "Fusion"

The paper examines two related concepts utilized by two different schools of family therapy. Any family seen to be "enmeshed" is also seen as "fused," and vice versa. The difference in the level of focus, on the "system containing the individuals" (structural) or the "individual in the system" (fusion), determines the difference in therapeutic approach of these two schools.     

“对的”与“好的”

什么是“对的”,和对它的证立,是道德哲学中具有争议性的核心问题,也是效用主义和道义论间的主要差异之所在。统合效用主义对于“好的就是对的”这个陈述有一套完整周延的说法。而道义论对这个问题的证立不够周延或没有足够的说服力。     

"本体论"与"伦理学"--形而上学的两个向度

形而上学有两个密切相关的内在向度,就是本体论向度与伦理学向度.在哲学史上,哲学家们之所以在"追求形而上学"的同时,又总是"反形而上学",并非是人们的形上本性出了问题,而是因为人们总是将形而上学视为单纯的"一维性",总是用一个向度来取代或遮蔽另一个向度.而所谓的"后形而上学思想",也并不是消解了形而上学,而是指形而上学从"本体论向度"转向了"伦理学向度".     

"石狮"、"风水"与"吉祥"

谁都知道,在古老的中国,不管是衙门、宫殿、庙宇的门前,还是豪宅、大户人家的门口,人们都能看到摆着一对石狮。据说,这对石狮子在许多中国人的心目中,它不但是一种气派的象征,而且还是一种被人认为是好的“吉祥物”。如今,旧时的衙门没有了,但遗留下来的宫殿、庙宇的门前,其中有些石狮仍有保存。然而,想像不到的是,这号称“吉祥物”的石狮今天却开始“走”进某些党政机关的大门口,它们(石狮)在那里时时都在保护着这些政府要员“平平安安”、“吉祥如意”。这不仅使我联想起一些极端的报道,有些政府官员为升迁,请算命先生定位,用风水术为政府…     

从"管制"到"平衡"--政府与公众理想关系模式的构建及其制度化

论文从行政民主的角度探讨政府与公众之间的理想关系模式及其制度化构建过程 ,将我国在改革之前的政府与公众模式概括为管制模式。论文指出 ,在制度变迁的过程中 ,这一模式日益受到挑战。而在新的制度环境下 ,我国政府与公众的关系模式应该是平衡模式。这一模式的制度化措施包括培育自主的市民社会 ,赋予公众以独立的活动空间 ;促进行政公开 ,建立一个开放负责的政府 ;推进行政法建设 ,抑制行政恣意     

PREFERRING "HOUSEWIVES" TO "FEMINISTS"

Four studies are described outlining the favorability of attitudes toward women. In Study 1, participants indicated their attitudes toward women and men and their construal of the term "women". The results revealed that women were evaluated more favorably than men, but that male right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) who construed women as referring primarily to feminists were least favorable in their attitudes. In Study 2, participants indicated their attitudes toward both "housewives" and "feminists". The results revealed that feminists were evaluated less favorably than housewives, and that the most negative attitudes toward feminists were expressed by authoritarian men. Study 3 revealed that high-RWA males held more negative symbolic beliefs concerning feminists (i.e., beliefs that feminists failed to promote participants'values) and that these beliefs accounted for variation in attitudes among high RWAs and much of the RWA-attitude relation. Finally, Study 4 revealed that high RWAs perceived greater value dissimilarity between them-selves and feminists. The implications of the findings for future research are discussed.     

"Us" and "Them":

Abstract: In the Aristotelian tradition, politics is a matter of public deliberation over questions of justice and injustice. The Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has been uniformly hostile to this notion, and it has instead promoted a jingoistic politics of self‐assertion by an America largely identified with the executive branch of its government. This is doubly disturbing, as the executive branch has sought to free itself from international law, multinational commitments, and domestic judicial regulation, even as it has sought to validate itself by demonizing its enemies. This essay draws out the disturbing echoes here of Carl Schmitt's work of the 1920s, in particular of Schmitt's conception of the sovereign as the ungrounded ground of the law and the political as the site of mortal conflict between friend and enemy. The essay argues that Schmitt's position in the twenties, for all of its evident problems, is superior to that of Bush, Wolfowitz, and Ashcroft in at least two senses: Schmitt condemns the idea of waging war for profit and recognizes that such wars will often be disguised as moral crusades waged against the “inhuman”; and he acknowledges that claiming to fight a war for humanity denies one's enemies their humanity, leaving them open to torture and even extermination.