Search results for 'Genetic engineering Philosophy' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Candace Cummins Gauthier (2002). Michael Boylan, Ph. D., is Professor of Philosophy at Marymount University. He is the Author or Editor of ten Books in Philosophy, Including Genetic Engineering: Science and Ethics on the New Frontier. Additionally, He has Pub-Lished More Than 60 Articles on the Philosophy of Science, Ancient Philosophy, Ethics, and Literary Theory. [REVIEW] Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 11:214-215.score: 435.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Massimo Pigliucci (2013). Getting a Rise Out of Genetic Engineering. In John Huss (ed.), Planet of the Apes and Philosophy: Great Apes Think Alike. Open Court.score: 390.0
    What makes humans different from other animals, what humans are entitled to do to other species, whether time travel is possible, what limits should be placed on science and technology, the morality and practicality of genetic engineering—these are just some of the philosophical problems raised by Planet of the Apes. Planet of the Apes and Philosophy looks at all the deeper issues involved in the Planet of the Apes stories. It covers the entire franchise, from Pierre Boulle’s (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Liebe F. Cavalieri (1981/1985). The Double-Edged Helix: Genetic Engineering in the Real World. Praeger.score: 384.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Scott Eastham (2003). Biotech Time-Bomb: How Genetic Engineering Could Irreversibly Change Our World. Rsvp Pub..score: 384.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Martin Gunderson (2007). Seeking Perfection: A Kantian Look at Human Genetic Engineering. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (2):87-102.score: 381.0
    It is tempting to argue that Kantian moral philosophy justifies prohibiting both human germ-line genetic engineering and non-therapeutic genetic engineering because they fail to respect human dignity. There are, however, good reasons for resisting this temptation. In fact, Kant’s moral philosophy provides reasons that support genetic engineering—even germ-line and non-therapeutic. This is true of Kant’s imperfect duties to seek one’s own perfection and the happiness of others. It is also true of the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Traci Warkentin (2006). Dis/Integrating Animals: Ethical Dimensions of the Genetic Engineering of Animals for Human Consumption. [REVIEW] AI and Society 20 (1):82-102.score: 381.0
    Research at the intersections of feminism, biology and philosophy provides dynamic starting grounds for this discussion of genetic technologies and animals. With a focus on animal bodies, I will examine moral implications of the genetic engineering of “domesticated” animals—primarily pigs and chickens—for the purposes of human consumption. Concepts of natural and artificial, contamination and purity, integrity and fragmentation and mind and body will feature in the discussion. In this respect, Margaret Atwood’s novel, Oryx and Crake, serves (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Russell Powell (2010). The Evolutionary Biological Implications of Human Genetic Engineering. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (1):22.score: 345.0
    A common worry about the genetic engineering of human beings is that it will reduce human genetic diversity, creating a biological monoculture that could not only increase our susceptibility to disease but also hasten the extinction of our species. Thus far, however, the evolutionary implications of human genetic modification remain largely unexplored. In this paper, I consider whether the widespread use of genetic engineering technology is likely to narrow the present range of genetic (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Russell Powell, Guy Kahane & Julian Savulescu (2012). Evolution, Genetic Engineering, and Human Enhancement. Philosophy and Technology 25 (4):439-458.score: 345.0
    There are many ways that biological theory can inform ethical discussions of genetic engineering and biomedical enhancement. In this essay, we highlight some of these potential contributions, and along the way provide a synthetic overview of the papers that comprise this special issue. We begin by comparing and contrasting genetic engineering with programs of selective breeding that led to the domestication of plants and animals, and we consider how genetic engineering differs from other contemporary (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Chris Gyngell (2012). Enhancing the Species: Genetic Engineering Technologies and Human Persistence. Philosophy and Technology 25 (4):495-512.score: 345.0
    Many of the existing ethical analyses of genetic engineering technologies (GET) focus on how they can be used to enhance individuals—to improve individual well-being, health and cognition. There is a gap in the current literature about the specific ways enhancement technologies could be used to improve our populations and species, viewed as a whole. In this paper, I explore how GET may be used to enhance the species through improvements in the gene pool. I argue one aspect of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. R. De Vries (2006). Ethical Concepts Regarding the Genetic Engineering of Laboratory Animals. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 9 (2):211-225.score: 345.0
    Intrinsic value and animal integrity are two key concepts in the debate on the ethics of the genetic engineering of laboratory animals. These concepts have, on the one hand, a theoretical origin and are, on the other hand, based on the moral beliefs of people not directly involved in the genetic modification of animals. This ‘external’ origin raises the question whether these concepts need to be adjusted or extended when confronted with the moral experiences and opinions of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Bernard E. Rollin (1995). The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals. Cambridge University Press.score: 315.0
    This book is a philosophically sophisticated and scientifically well-informed discussion of the moral and social issues raised by genetically engineering animals, a powerful technology that has major implications for society. Unlike other books on this emotionally charged subject, the author attempts to inform, not inflame, the reader about the real problems society must address in order to manage this technology. Nontechnical and anecdotal in nature, written by a professor of philosophy, physiology and biophysics, this book will appeal to (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Andrew Edgar (2009). The Hermeneutic Challenge of Genetic Engineering: Habermas and the Transhumanists. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 12 (2):157-167.score: 312.0
    The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact that developments in transhumanist technologies may have upon human cultures (and thus upon the lifeworld), and to do so by exploring a potential debate between Habermas and the transhumanists. Transhumanists, such as Nick Bostrom, typically see the potential in genetic and other technologies for positively expanding and transcending human nature. In contrast, Habermas is a representative of those who are fearful of this technology, suggesting that it will compound the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Ilhan Ilkilic & Rainer Brömer (2009). Michael J. Sandel: The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. [REVIEW] Medicine Studies 1 (2):183-185.score: 297.0
    Michael J. Sandel: The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering Content Type Journal Article Category Book Review Pages 183-185 DOI 10.1007/s12376-009-0018-4 Authors Ilhan Ilkilic, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz Medical Center Institute for History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine Am Pulverturm 13 55131 Mainz Germany <span class='Hi'>Rainer</span> Brömer, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz Medical Center Institute for History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine Am Pulverturm 13 55131 Mainz Germany Journal Medicine Studies Online ISSN 1876-4541 (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Keekok Lee (2003). Philosophy and Revolutions in Genetics: Deep Science and Deep Technology. Palgrave Macmillan.score: 288.0
    The last century saw two great revolutions in genetics the development of classic Mendelian theory and the discovery and investigation of DNA. Each fundamental scientific discovery in turn generated its own distinctive technology. These two case studies, examined in this text, enable the author to conduct a philosophical exploration of the relationship between fundamental scientific discoveries on the one hand, and the technologies that spring from them on the other. As such it is also an exercise in the philosophy (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Lisa A. Bergin (2009). Latina Feminist Metaphysics and Genetically Engineered Foods. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (3):257--271.score: 286.0
    In this paper I critique two popular, non-scientific attitudes toward genetically engineered foods. In doing so, I will be employing the concepts of ambiguity, purity/impurity, control/resistance, and unity/diversity as developed by Latina feminist metaphysicians. I begin by casting a critical eye toward a specific anti-biotech account of transgenic food crops, an account that I will argue relies on an anti-feminist metaphysics. I then cast that same critical eye toward a specific pro-biotech account, arguing that it also relies on such an (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Peter Janich & Michael Weingarten (2002). Verantwortung Ohne Verständnis? Wie Die Ethikdebatte Zur Gentechnik Von Deren Wissenschaftstheorie Abhängt. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 33 (1):85-120.score: 270.0
    Responsibility Without Understanding? How the Debate on the Ethics of Genetic Engineering Depends on Its Philosophy of Science. The main thesis in this paper is that bioethics has no own criteria to judge the chances and risks of genetic engineering. But if we distinguish (1) between different types of genetic, (2) between genetic engineering as a set of methods for experimentation and genetic engineering as an industrial technique and (3) reconstruct (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Gordon Graham (2002). Genes: A Philosophical Inquiry. Routledge.score: 267.0
    "It's all in the genes." Is this true, and if so, what is all in the genes? Genes: A Philosophical Inquiry is a crystal clear and highly informative guide to a debate none of us can afford to ignore. Beginning with a much-needed overview of the relationship between science and technology, Gordon Graham lucidly explains and assesses the most important and controversial aspects of the genes debate: Darwinian theory and its critics, the idea of the "selfish" gene, evolutionary psychology, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. S. Matthew Liao (2008). Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering. Philosophy Compass 3 (5):973-991.score: 261.0
    Advances in reproductive genetic engineering have the potential to transform human lives. Not only do they promise to allow us to select children free of diseases, they can also enable us to select children with desirable traits. In this paper, I consider two clusters of arguments for the moral permissibility of reproductive genetic engineering, what I call the Perfectionist View and the Libertarian View; and two clusters of arguments against reproductive genetic engineering, what I (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Martin Gunderson (2006). Human Rights, Dignity, and the Science of Genetic Engineering. Social Philosophy Today 22:43-57.score: 261.0
    In the past decade several international declarations have called for banning reproductive non-therapeutic and germ-line engineering. Article 11 of UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights states that practices that are contrary to human dignity such as cloning of human beings should not be permitted. Article 12 of the same declaration restricts genetic applications to the relief from suffering and the improvement of health. The European Council has also taken a strong stand on germ-line (...) engineering in general and cloning in particular. Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine simply forbidsgerm-line engineering except for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes. The convention along with its explanatory report make it clear that the rationale for the decision is based, in large part, on the need to protect the dignity of persons.Several notions of dignity have been advanced to support bans on non-therapeutic germ-line engineering. I argue that they fail to provide a rationale for such a ban. I consider both secular and religious views of human dignity. In addition, I argue that there are forms of germ-line and non-therapeutic engineering that are compatible with human rights. (shrink)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Claudio Marcello Tamburrini & Torbjörn Tännsjö (eds.) (2005). Genetic Technology and Sport: Ethical Questions. Routledge.score: 255.0
    For elite athletes seeking a winning advantage, manipulation of their own genetic code has become a realistic possibility. In Genetic Technology and Sport, experts from sports science, genetics, philosophy, ethics, and international sports administration describe the potential applications of the new technology and debate the questions surrounding its use.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. David F. Kelly (1995). Karl Rahner and Genetic Engineering. Philosophy and Theology 9 (1/2):177-200.score: 228.0
    Karl Rahner’s analysis of genetic manipulation is found most explicitly in two articles written in 1966 and 1968: “The Experiment with Man,” and “The Problem of Genetic Manipulation.” The articles have received some attention in ethical literature. The present paper analyzes Rahner’s use of theological and ethical principles, comparing and contrasting the two articles. In the first article, Rahner emphasizes humankind’s essential openness to self-creativity. What has always been true on the transcendental level—-we choose our final destiny and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Rob De Vries (2006). Genetic Engineering and the Integrity of Animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (5):469-493.score: 224.0
    Genetic engineering evokes a number of objections that are not directed at the negative effects the technique might have on the health and welfare of the modified animals. The concept of animal integrity is often invoked to articulate these kind of objections. Moreover, in reaction to the advent of genetic engineering, the concept has been extended from the level of the individual animal to the level of the genome and of the species. However, the concept of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Maurizio G. Paoletti & David Pimentel (2000). Environmental Risks of Pesticides Versus Genetic Engineering for Agricultural Pest Control. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12 (3):279-303.score: 224.0
    Despite the application of 2.5 million tons ofpesticides worldwide, more than 40% of all potentialfood production is lost to insect, weed, and plantpathogen pests prior to harvest. After harvest, anadditional 20% of food is lost to another group ofpests. The use of pesticides for pest control resultsin an estimated 26 million human poisonings, with220,000 fatalities, annually worldwide. In the UnitedStates, the environmental and public health costs forthe recommended use of pesticides total approximately$9 billion/yr. Thus, there is a need for alternativenon-chemical (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Philipp Balzer, Klaus Peter Rippe & Peter Schaber (2000). Two Concepts of Dignity for Humans and Non-Human Organisms in the Context of Genetic Engineering. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (1):7-27.score: 224.0
    The 1992 incorporation of an article by referendum in the SwissConstitution mandating that the federal government issue regulations onthe use of genetic material that take into account the dignity ofnonhuman organism raises philosophical questions about how we shouldunderstand what is meant by ``the dignity of nonhuman animals,'' andabout what sort of moral demands arise from recognizing this dignitywith respect to their genetic engineering. The first step in determiningwhat is meant is to clarify the difference between dignity when (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Grzegorz Bugajak (2004). Theology and Genetic Engineering: New Incarnation of the Old Conflict? In Ulf Görman, Willem B. Drees & Hubert Meisinger (eds.), Studies in Science and Theology, vol. 9(2003–2004), Lunds Universitet, Lund. 127–143.score: 224.0
    It is widely acknowledged among science˗and˗theology thinkers – or at least desired – that we have left behind the era of conflict between science and religion. An approach which avoids conflict by pointing out that science and religion employ two different methodologies and therefore occupy two separate magisteria, is, however, unsatisfactory for both – the advocates of a fruitful dialogue between these two realms of human activity as well as the most vigorous opponents of possible conciliation, and the latter still (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Anders Melin (2004). Genetic Engineering and the Moral Status of Non-Human Species. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (6):479-495.score: 224.0
    Genetic modification leads to several important moral issues. Up until now they have mainly been discussed from the viewpoint that only individual living beings, above all animals, are morally considerable. The standpoint that also collective entities such as species belong to the moral sphere have seldom been taken into account in a more thorough way, although it is advocated by several important environmental ethicists. The main purpose of this article is to analyze in more detail than often has been (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Marko Ahteensuu (2012). Assumptions of the Deficit Model Type of Thinking: Ignorance, Attitudes, and Science Communication in the Debate on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):295-313.score: 224.0
    This paper spells out and discusses four assumptions of the deficit model type of thinking. The assumptions are: First, the public is ignorant of science. Second, the public has negative attitudes towards (specific instances of) science and technology. Third, ignorance is at the root of these negative attitudes. Fourth, the public’s knowledge deficit can be remedied by one-way science communication from scientists to citizens. It is argued that there is nothing wrong with ignorance-based explanations per se. Ignorance accounts at least (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Andrew Sneddon (2005). Rawlsian Decisionmaking and Genetic Engineering. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 15 (01):35-41.score: 224.0
    This paper evaluates Sara Goering’s recent attempt to use the Rawlsian notion of the veil of ignorance as a tool for distinguishing permissible from impermissible forms of genetic engineering. I argue that her article fails due to a failure to include vital contextual information in the right way.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Christian J. Peters (2000). Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: Who Stands to Benefit? [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (3-4):313-327.score: 224.0
    The use of genetic engineering inagriculture has been the source of much debate. Todate, arguments have focused most strongly on thepotential human health risks, the flow of geneticmaterial to related species, and ecologicalconsequences. Little attention appears to have beengiven to a more fundamental concern, namely, who willbe the beneficiaries of this technology?Given the prevalence of chronic hunger and thestark economics of farming, it is arguable thatfarmers and the hungry should be the mainbeneficiaries of agricultural research. However, theapplication of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Peter Schaber, Klaus Peter Rippe & Philipp Balzer, Two Concepts of Dignity for Humans and Non-Human Organisms in the Context of Genetic Engineering.score: 224.0
    The 1992 incorporation of an article by referendum in the SwissConstitution mandating that the federal government issue regulations onthe use of genetic material that take into account the dignity ofnonhuman organism raises philosophical questions about how we shouldunderstand what is meant by ``the dignity of nonhuman animals,'' andabout what sort of moral demands arise from recognizing this dignitywith respect to their genetic engineering. The first step in determiningwhat is meant is to clarify the difference between dignity when (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Roberta M. Berry (2007). The Ethics of Genetic Engineering. Routledge.score: 224.0
    Genetic engineering: past and present as prelude to the future -- Utilitarianism and engineering to maximize welfare -- Deontology: engineering at the edges of disease, disability, difference, and death -- Virtue ethics and engineering for the virtues -- Genetic engineering, fractious problems, and a navigational approach to policymaking.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Lynn J. Frewer, Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd (1998). The Influence of Initial Attitudes on Responses to Communication About Genetic Engineering in Food Production. Agriculture and Human Values 15 (1):15-30.score: 224.0
    Source credibility has been thought to bean important determinant of peoples‘ reactions toinformation about technology. There has also been muchdebate about the need to communicate effectively withthe public about genetic engineering, particularlywithin the context of food production. Questionnaireswere used to investigate the impact of sourcecredibility, admission of risk uncertainty, andinitial attitude towards genetic engineering onattitudes of respondents after information provision.120 respondents with positive attitudes towardsgenetic engineering in food production were providedwith persuasive information about the technology,where (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Stewart Lockie (2006). Capturing the Sustainability Agenda: Organic Foods and Media Discourses on Food Scares, Environment, Genetic Engineering, and Health. [REVIEW] Agriculture and Human Values 23 (3):313-323.score: 224.0
    This paper undertakes a content analysis of newspaper articles from Australia, the UK, and the US concerned with a variety of issues relevant to sustainable food and agriculture from 1996 to 2002. It then goes on to identify the various ways in which sustainability, organic food and agriculture, genetic engineering, genetically modified foods, and food safety are framed both in their own terms and in relation to each other. It finds that despite the many competing approaches to sustainability (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Linda Barclay (2003). Genetic Engineering and Autonomous Agency. Journal of Applied Philosophy 20 (3):223–236.score: 219.0
  35. J. A. Shapiro (2007). Bacteria Are Small but Not Stupid: Cognition, Natural Genetic Engineering and Socio-Bacteriology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 38 (4):807-819.score: 219.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Emy Lucassen (1996). The Ethics of Genetic Engineering. Journal of Applied Philosophy 13 (1):51-62.score: 219.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. H. Tristram Engelhardt (1996). Germ-Line Genetic Engineering and Moral Diversity: Moral Controversies in a Post-Christian World. Social Philosophy and Policy 13 (02):47-.score: 219.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Matti Häyry (1998). Genetic Engineering and the Risk of Harm. Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy 1 (1):61-64.score: 219.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Peter Wheale & Ruth McNally (1994). Environmental and Medical Bioethics in Late Modernity: Anthony Giddens, Genetic Engineering and the Post-Modern State. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 36:211-225.score: 219.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Shyli Karin-Frank (1987). Genetic Engineering and the Autonomous Individual. Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures 22:213-229.score: 219.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Karen A. Rader (1997). Bernard Rollin, The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 17 (2):127-129.score: 219.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Jeremy Caddick (1999). Essay Reviews-Genetic Engineering and Ethical Arithmetic. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science-Part C 30 (4):545.score: 219.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Ruth Mcnally & Peter Wheale (1994). Environmental and Medical Bioethics in Late Modernity: Anthony Giddens, Genetic Engineering and the Post-Modern State. Philosophy 36:211-225.score: 219.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Egbert Schuurman (1997). Philosophical and Ethical Problems of Technicism and Genetic Engineering. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 3 (1):27-44.score: 219.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. T. Van Willigenburg (1998). Improving Nature? The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering. Journal of Applied Philosophy 15:116-118.score: 219.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. R. Vries (2006). Ethical Concepts Regarding the Genetic Engineering of Laboratory Animals. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 9 (2):211-225.score: 219.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Kristina Hubbard & Neva Hassanein (2013). Confronting Coexistence in the United States: Organic Agriculture, Genetic Engineering, and the Case of Roundup Ready® Alfalfa. [REVIEW] Agriculture and Human Values 30 (3):325-335.score: 205.3
    In agriculture, the principle of coexistence refers to a condition where different primary production systems can exist in the vicinity of each other, and can be managed in such a way that they affect each other as little as possible. Coexistence policies aim to ensure that farmers are able to freely grow the crops they choose—be they genetically engineered (GE), non-GE conventional, or organic. In the United States (US), the issue of coexistence has very recently come into sharp relief with (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Catherine Legg (2010). Engineering Philosophy. International Journal of Machine Consciousness 2 (01):45-50.score: 202.0
    A commentary on a current paper by Aaron Sloman (“An alternative to working on machine consciousness"). Sloman argues that in order to make progress in AI, consciousness (and related unclear folk mental concepts), "should be replaced by more precise and varied architecture-based concepts better suited to specify what needs to be explained by scientific theories". This original vision of philosophical inquiry as mapping out 'design-spaces' for a contested concept seeks to achieve a holistic, synthetic understanding of what possibilities such spaces (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Tomasz Żuradzki (2008). Genetic Engineering and The Non-Identity Problem. Diametros 16:63-79.score: 202.0
    In my essay I consider the imaginary case of a future mother who refuses to undergo genetic alteration on her germline although she knows that her, as yet unconceived, child will have a serious genetic disorder. I analyze the good and bad points of two branches of arguments directed against her decision, consequentialist and rights-based. Then I discuss whether accepting one line of these arguments or the other makes a difference in moral assessment. I conclude that, although from (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Wha-Chul Son (2008). Philosophy of Technology and Macro-Ethics in Engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3):405-415.score: 198.0
    The purpose of this paper is to diagnose and analyze the gap between philosophy of technology and engineering ethics and to suggest bridging them in a constructive way. In the first section, I will analyze why philosophy of technology and engineering ethics have taken separate paths so far. The following section will deal with the so-called macro-approach in engineering ethics. While appreciating the initiative, I will argue that there are still certain aspects in this approach (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000