Ethical Imaginaries
By Gina Maranto, Biopolitical Times guest contributor
| 03. 30. 2011
Is each of us morally obligated to volunteer as a subject for biomedical research? Are we blameworthy if we don't sign up to participate in clinical trials? Of the several proponents of this startling notion, bioethicist John Harris put the case perhaps most forcefully in a 2005 article in the Journal of Biomedical Ethics. He contends that
the obligation to participate in research should be compelling for anyone who believes there is a moral obligation to help others, and/or a moral obligation to be just and do one's share. Little can be said to those whose morality is so impoverished that they do not accept either of these two obligations.
According to Harris, even children (providing they are competent) bear this obligation, via their parents.
In the current Hastings Center Report [subscription only], Stuart Rennie examines this point of view. He surveys three arguments advanced singly or in concert by those who claim participation is a moral imperative:
- the "rescue" argument: if one fails to participate in medical research, one fails to prevent harms and is blameworthy...
Related Articles
By Rachel Hall, The Guardian | 11.20.2025
Couples are needlessly going through IVF because male infertility is under-researched, with the NHS too often failing to diagnose treatable causes, leading experts have said.
Poor understanding among GPs and a lack of specialists and NHS testing means male infertility...
By Grace Won, KQED [with CGS' Katie Hasson] | 12.02.2025
In the U.S., it’s illegal to edit genes in human embryos with the intention of creating a genetically engineered baby. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Bay Area startups are focused on just that. It wouldn’t be the first...
By Pam Belluck and Carl Zimmer, The New York Times | 11.19.2025
Gene-editing therapies offer great hope for treating rare diseases, but they face big hurdles: the tremendous time and resources involved in devising a treatment that might only apply to a small number of patients.
A study published on Wednesday...
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...