|
1
|
de Mori B, Spiriti MM, Pollastri I, Normando S, Biasetti P, Florio D, Andreucci F, Colleoni S, Galli C, Göritz F, Hermes R, Holtze S, Lazzari G, Seet S, Zwilling J, Stejskal J, Mutisya S, Ndeereh D, Ngulu S, Vigne R, Hildebrandt TB. An Ethical Assessment Tool (ETHAS) to Evaluate the Application of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Mammals' Conservation: The Case of the Northern White Rhinoceros ( Ceratotherium simum cottoni). Animals (Basel) 2021; 11:312. [PMID: 33530613 PMCID: PMC7911958 DOI: 10.3390/ani11020312] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2020] [Revised: 01/15/2021] [Accepted: 01/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) can make a difference in biodiversity conservation. Their application, however, can create risks and raise ethical issues that need addressing. Unfortunately, there is a lack of attention to the topic in the scientific literature and, to our knowledge, there is no tool for the ethical assessment of ARTs in the context of conservation that has been described. This paper reports the first applications of the Ethical Assessment Tool (ETHAS) to trans-rectal ovum pick-up (OPU) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures used in a northern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum cottoni) conservation project. The ETHAS consists of two checklists, the Ethical Evaluation Sheet and the Ethical Risk Assessment, and is specifically customized for each ART procedure. It provides an integrated, multilevel and standardized self-assessment of the procedure under scrutiny, generating an ethical acceptability ranking (totally, partially, not acceptable) and a risk rank (low, medium, high), and, hence, allows for implementing measures to address or manage issues beforehand. The application of the ETHAS to the procedures performed on the northern white rhinoceros was effective in ensuring a high standard of procedures, contributing to the acceptability and improved communication among the project's partners. In turn, the tool itself was also refined through an iterative consultation process between experts and stakeholders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barbara de Mori
- Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy; (M.M.S.); (I.P.)
- Ethics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation and Animal Welfare, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy; (P.B.); (D.F.); (F.A.)
| | - Maria Michela Spiriti
- Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy; (M.M.S.); (I.P.)
- Ethics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation and Animal Welfare, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy; (P.B.); (D.F.); (F.A.)
| | - Ilaria Pollastri
- Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy; (M.M.S.); (I.P.)
- Ethics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation and Animal Welfare, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy; (P.B.); (D.F.); (F.A.)
| | - Simona Normando
- Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy; (M.M.S.); (I.P.)
- Ethics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation and Animal Welfare, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy; (P.B.); (D.F.); (F.A.)
| | - Pierfrancesco Biasetti
- Ethics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation and Animal Welfare, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy; (P.B.); (D.F.); (F.A.)
- Department of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, D-10315 Berlin, Germany; (F.G.); (R.H.); (S.H.)
| | - Daniela Florio
- Ethics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation and Animal Welfare, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy; (P.B.); (D.F.); (F.A.)
- Department of Veterinary Medical Science, University of Bologna, 40064 Bologna, Italy
| | - Francesco Andreucci
- Ethics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation and Animal Welfare, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy; (P.B.); (D.F.); (F.A.)
| | - Silvia Colleoni
- Avantea, Laboratory of Reproductive Technologies, 26100 Cremona, Italy; (S.C.); (C.G.); (G.L.)
| | - Cesare Galli
- Avantea, Laboratory of Reproductive Technologies, 26100 Cremona, Italy; (S.C.); (C.G.); (G.L.)
- Avantea Foundation, 26100 Cremona, Italy
| | - Frank Göritz
- Department of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, D-10315 Berlin, Germany; (F.G.); (R.H.); (S.H.)
| | - Robert Hermes
- Department of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, D-10315 Berlin, Germany; (F.G.); (R.H.); (S.H.)
| | - Susanne Holtze
- Department of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, D-10315 Berlin, Germany; (F.G.); (R.H.); (S.H.)
| | - Giovanna Lazzari
- Avantea, Laboratory of Reproductive Technologies, 26100 Cremona, Italy; (S.C.); (C.G.); (G.L.)
- Avantea Foundation, 26100 Cremona, Italy
| | - Steven Seet
- Science Communication, Science Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, D-10315 Berlin, Germany; (S.S.); (J.Z.)
| | - Jan Zwilling
- Science Communication, Science Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, D-10315 Berlin, Germany; (S.S.); (J.Z.)
| | - Jan Stejskal
- ZOO Dvůr Králové, 54401 Dvůr Králové nad Labem, Czech Republic;
| | - Samuel Mutisya
- Ol Pejeta Wildlife Conservancy, Nanyuki 10400, Kenya; (S.M.); (S.N.); (R.V.)
| | | | - Stephen Ngulu
- Ol Pejeta Wildlife Conservancy, Nanyuki 10400, Kenya; (S.M.); (S.N.); (R.V.)
| | - Richard Vigne
- Ol Pejeta Wildlife Conservancy, Nanyuki 10400, Kenya; (S.M.); (S.N.); (R.V.)
| | - Thomas B. Hildebrandt
- Department of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, D-10315 Berlin, Germany; (F.G.); (R.H.); (S.H.)
- Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Free University of Berlin, D-14195 Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Abstract
This paper discusses the criminalization of scientific misconduct, as discussed and defended in the bioethics literature. In doing so it argues against the claim that fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) together identify the most serious forms of misconduct, which hence ought to be criminalized, whereas other forms of misconduct should not. Drawing the line strictly at FFP is problematic both in terms of what is included and what is excluded. It is also argued that the criminalization of scientific misconduct, despite its anticipated benefits, is at risk of giving the false impression that dubious practices falling outside the legal regulation "do not count". Some doubts are also raised concerning whether criminalization of the most serious forms of misconduct will lower the burdens for universities or successfully increase research integrity. Rather, with or without criminalization, other measures must be taken and are probably more important in order to foster a more healthy research environment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William Bülow
- Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Gert Helgesson
- Stockholm Centre for Healthcare Ethics (CHE), Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Hansson SO. Experiments: Why and How? SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2016; 22:613-632. [PMID: 25721443 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9635-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2014] [Accepted: 02/14/2015] [Indexed: 06/04/2023]
Abstract
An experiment, in the standard scientific sense of the term, is a procedure in which some object of study is subjected to interventions (manipulations) that aim at obtaining a predictable outcome or at least predictable aspects of the outcome. The distinction between an experiment and a non-experimental observation is important since they are tailored to different epistemic needs. Experimentation has its origin in pre-scientific technological experiments that were undertaken in order to find the best technological means to achieve chosen ends. Important parts of the methodological arsenal of modern experimental science can be traced back to this pre-scientific, technological tradition. It is claimed that experimentation involves a unique combination of acting and observing, a combination whose unique epistemological properties have not yet been fully clarified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sven Ove Hansson
- Department of Philosophy and History, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Brinellvägen 32, 100 44, Stockholm, Sweden.
| |
Collapse
|