Switzerland has very detailed laws regulating the use of animals in agriculture, entertainment and science. There are also many Swiss laws governing the genetic modification of animals, protecting human embryos, and criminalising the creation of human/animal chimeras or hybrids. Despite all these regulations, the creation of an animal embryo that will develop a human organ using induced pluripotent stem cells and the subsequent birth of the resulting chimera would actually be permitted by current legislation. While this might appear to be (...) an unhappy accident due to insufficient scientific foresight, I argue here that this loophole should not be closed, as the creation of human organs inside animals will probably be possible within 10 years, and Swiss laws would currently enable the use of this process to save human lives through this allogenic or autologous organ source. (shrink)

If bioethics should care about the environment, this could be, among other ways, by reflecting on certain radical solutions, such as biomedical human engineering. In a recent article, Liao, Sandberg and Roache consider reducing human size through biomedical treatments in order to mitigate climate change. In this viewpoint, we point out that the various methods used to reduce human height, be they sophisticated tech­ nologies or mere undernutrition, seem all subject to highly undesirable consequences. This is to show that one (...) of the problems with Liao et al.’s account is that it does not provide us with an ethical framework com­ prehensive enough to balance these consequences with the problematic effects of climate change. In sum, we wish to draw from the discussion of this specific example a more general claim. This claim is that, even if we accept that human engineering per se is not problematic, we nevertheless need a more comprehensive ethical theory than the mere claim that climate change should be mitigated in order to assess the desirability of human engineering. (shrink)