Reproductive Public Health Ethics at the MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory, 2014.

In a few hours, I'm off to Manchester, UK, for participation in a so-called panel ( ≈ special symposium) at the MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory 2014. The panel is on the topic of Reproductive Public Health Ethics and has been conceived of and convened by myself. The topic itself is described thus, at the Mancept website:

Human reproduction and resulting population patterns is a classic concern of public policy, yet philosophical and ethical applications to this area remain imprecise, scattered and unsystematic. The point of this workshop is to stimulate a more integrated addressing of this area for social and political philosophical analysis from a public health standpoint. Reproductive bioethics hosts established interest in the regulation of reproductive technology, yet mostly ignoring overarching societal concerns to the benefit of a discourse focusing on individual reproductive liberty. This individualism has stimulated the emergence of public health ethics, where queries regarding health policy are put at a population level, but reproduction- and population issues have not been in focus, partly due to a common conflation in public health between reproductive and sexual health. In parallel, biopolitics subjects cultural layers of policy to critical scrutiny regarding “identities” and concepts central to laws across the world – e.g. parenthood and family – in light of, e.g., technological developments. Also here, public health ethical perspectives are scant, while dimensions of justice otherwise often ignored are addressed, making possible, e.g., explorations of hidden presumtions behind reproductive policies. More basic research on population ethics, while having somewhat informed reproductive bioethics, remains largely unexplored as to more conrete political and policy implications in either of the mentioned dimensions, e.g. in the face of environmental challenges and expected consequences in the form of resource scarcity and global migration. There are also theoretical conundrums which need attention, e.g. how justice-oriented discourses of biopolitics can be squared with the intricate problems of population ethics, or how the combination of these and a globalised public health ethical approach relates to the individualist assumptions of reproductive bioethics. The workshop assembles a selected group of presenters from the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden and the UK.

The same website also lists an, alas, not so up to date speaker list, as I've had a few cancellations and a few new people entering the program since it was initially presented to the Mancept organisation. The actual program looks like this:

• Session 1: Sept 8, 2 PM - 5:30 PM

Christian Munthe, University of Gothenburg: Reproductive Population Health and the Goals of Public Health: Exploring a Territory of Moral Unease

Angus Dawson, University of Birmingham: Public Health Reproduction: Defending the Very Idea

• Session 2: Sept 9, 9:30 AM - 1 PM

Daniela Cutas, Umeå University & University of Gothenburg: The Nuclear Family and Reproductive Policy: Ethical Challenges

Marian Verkerk, University of Groningen & Ulrik Kihlbom, Uppsala University: Preconception Genetic Testing and Reproductive Counselling as Challenge to the Family as Social Institution

Anca Gheaus, Sheffield University: Biological Parenthood: Gestational not Genetic – Implications for Reproductive and Family Law

• Session 3: Sept 9, 2 PM - 5:30 PM

Stephen Wilkinson, Lancaster University: The Public Health Ethics of Selecting Future Children

Anna Smajdor, University of East Anglia: Postponed Motherhood and the State

Rebecca Brown, University of Aberdeen: Incentives for Reproductive Public Health

• Session 4: Sept 10, 9:30 AM - 1 PM

Kalle Grill, Umeå University: Population Policy in the Face of Environmental Challenge: What Place for Reproductive Liberty?

General discussion on future developments and prospects of the topic in forthcoming endeavours


If you happen to be at the Mancept Workshops event, please don't hesitate to drop in on our panel, or approach about interest in the general topic!

Reproductive Public Health Ethics at MANCEPT 2014

Happy to be able to tell the world that a proposal headed by myself for a series of sessions at the increasingly popular and important MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory conference has been accepted for this year's edition, September 8-10, 2014.

The proposal is on the theme of Reproductive Public Health Ethics, where a selected lineup of speakers from the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden and the UK will address different dimensions (biopolitics, bioethics, public health ethics, population ethics, environmental ethics) of ethics and value issues attached to reproductive policy. The presenters include, besides my humble self:

Gustaf Arrhenius
Richard Ashcroft
Becky Brown
Krister Bykvist
Daniela Cutas
Angus Dawson
Anca Gheaus
Kalle Grill
Marcel Verweij
Stephen Wilkinson

With a few possible additions to come. More on this as the exact program etc. is set and made public.

(Now Updated with open access link) Review in Theoria of The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk

Update 2013-02-17: I discovered today, that Theoria has chosen to make this review available for all, free of charge, so-called open access. To read it in full, follow the link given below, or access a pdf directly here.

My book on the moral basis of the precautionary principle that was published by Springer in 2011, The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk, is very favorably reviewed over four pages in the latest issue of the renowned philosophy journal, Theoria. To read the entire review, written by Niklas Möller, you need access to reach behind the Wiley paywall (e.g. through a university library) or a subscription of your own, and in that case just click here. If you lack this sort of access, clicking the just mentioned link can still let you sample the first page of the four of the review.

Of course, besides describing the content of the book, the reviewer also launches some criticism – as should indeed be the case in any serious academic review. However, the overall assessment is very favorable, evidenced by these quotes of the sections where Möller sums up his overall evaluation:

Munthe’s book is a well-argued contribution to the PP [i.e. precautionary principle] debate, putting neglected justificatory and methodological questions at the forefront. His many discussions of alternative accounts as well as his drawing out the consequences of his own suggestion in practical cases give the reader a thorough, holistic sense of what justification of PP amounts to. /..../ Munthe’s main case, his argumentation for the requirement of precaution as a moral norm, is convincing and puts a strong pressure on too narrow alternative suggestions on how it should be perceived and justified, and he launches a plausible defence of its practical usability.

 Should you be interested in acquiring the book as hardcopy or pdf, this can be done through the Springer book webpage above or any major online book seller. If you have university library access, chances are the library has a Springer license and in that case you can access and download the e-book through that channel. If you're interested in the issue of the precautionary principle and its moral and political justification, as well as the ethics and politics of environmental and technological risk in general, you may be interested in a lengthy review article written by myself on exactly that topic, including some further ideas, considerations and contributors over and above those discussed in my book, which will be appearing the the very soon to be released International Encyclopedia of Ethics, under the heading of "precautionary principle".

US Approval of the GMO Salmon "Frankenfish" - Reasons for Continuous Caution Remain in the Absence of Added Value

Today, New Scientist reports about what looks like a landmark event in the USA and (due to the role of the US for the world economy, trade and global regulation affecting trade) global handling of the possibility of using genetically modified animals for food production. Other reports can be found here, here, here, here. The FDA, in a statement released on December 27, has cleared a particular brand of GM Salmon – dubbed the "Frankenfish" by my US bioethics colleague Art Caplan in a comment that is nevertheless cautiously positive of the development, at least from a food safety point of view – modified to internally produce more growth hormone and thus grow to full size faster on less feeding or larger size with maintained feeding levels. To forestall possible negative environmental impact, it has also been engineered to carry a sex-chromosome abnormality, rendering it sterile, and the production will take place in closed off settings, especially in its initial phases, where it will take place in tanks isolated from the natural environment. All of these things are expanded on in the NS piece and the links it provides. The proposal by the FDA will be open for public comment for 60 days.

Concerning the use of genetically modified organisms for food production, there are basically four issues to address: Is it good for anything, what is its benefits? How safe is it to eat and produce (in the same way as we would ask of any other crops or cattle)? How environmentally safe is it? Are the two safety levels mentioned sufficient to warrant production in light of the benefits? Art Caplan comments on the food safety side of the issue, something that has traditionally attracted lots of attention in the media. It is also angle often played by opponents of GMO for food, since immediate safety to consumers (and sometimes workers) is something that appeals very directly to people's sentiments and may thereby affect their moral and political views. However, the GMO industry likes the food safety side of the discussion very much as well, since – as a matter of fact – when assessed on the basis of actual evidence, GM food stands up pretty well compared to many more "traditionally" produced food. This is the point that Art is making and precisely for this reasons, I agree that food safety is not what the discussion should focus on with regard to GM food. However, this is far, far from deciding the issue, since there remains the environmental risk aspects of not the eating, but the actual production of the food. This has always and continue to be the overwhelming reason for a high degree of caution, skepticism and restraint in the GM food area.

In a very recent (and, I would say, seminal) book by David B. Resnik, Environmental Health Ethics, that I just finished reading and am about to review for the journal Public Health Ethics, this is the main conclusion to embrace, although it is held out that GM food may bring some rather particular food safety issues when the genetic modification concerns the production or resistance to toxic agents. Nevertheless, Resnik ends up supporting the notion of a regulated and supervised introduction of GM food, where a number of factors must be considered to decide an issue like that of the "Frankenfish" Salmon production. In my own thinking around the GM food issue – foremost in my book The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk (in particular in chapter 6) – I reached a similar, yet slightly more specific, conclusion. One thing that Resnik lists among the factors to ponder is that of the value of the final product, however, there is not much of specific discussion of what the actual value of actual GM foods is (rather than what it may be). My own analysis, in contrast, takes this into account and ends up, because of this, in the position that, in fact, most actual GM food prospects are very difficult to justify in view of the environmental risks. This since most GM food provides no benefit whatsoever that cannot be had in other ways, besides a better profit margin for the producer.

So where do we end up regarding the GM salmon in light of this. Well, first of all, it should be underscored that the project has indeed put some impressive environmental safeguards in place. The environmental concerns with regard to GM food production are basically two, genetic leakage over species borders and (because of genetic leakage or other reason) ecological hazard, and these are indeed addressed by the sterility of the "Frankenfish" as well as the external measures, such as initial growth in isolated tanks. However, as we know, nature is a very complex system that we still understand only partially (to put is mildly), and there will of course be risks, uncertainties and things we currently don't know about remaining. The crucial question, therefore, is the last one formulated above, whether or not the added value of this particular product makes it worth allowing the introduction in view of the risks and uncertainties, given the safeguards described. It is here, that I become less optimistic than the FDA, Caplan and (possibly) Resnik. While there may certainly be envisioned a use of GMO technology to provide humanity with significant benefits to justify large scale introduction (under oversight) of GM food with safeguards of the sort described, the "Frankenfish" salmon, just as the "roundup ready" crops, does seem to provide benefit, first, merely of a monetary kind and, secondly, only to the producer. This is, in the GM salmon case, no different than the use of growth hormone or antibiotic feeding supplement in industrial farming. Therefore, I can see no added value of this product and thus it cannot justify its environmental risks, however small.

Could and Should Rivers have Rights? Yes, of Course!

This little news item, spurred some slightly uneasy reactions when I forwarded it on Twitter today. It's about New Zealand granting a particular river "legal personhood", implying it to have legitimate interests and rights, just like other legal persons.

Must be crazy, right? Or at least appalling and misguided, given all the instances globally where actual people are not being granted such standing? Or, at least, I – in light of philosophical views I hold in other areas – should be against anything in this direction. I mean, if I'm hesitant to award human embryos or fetuses moral status of the sort claimed by pro-life ethics advocates, why should I be prepared to grant rights to a river??

Well, it may surprise you all to know that I actually find the New Zealand move perfectly defensible. Be back to explain why in a later post, unless someone presents the right answer here in the comments before ;-)

Read Entire Chapt. 1 of My New Book Online for Free

Springer, who publish my new book on the ethical basis of the precautionary principle, The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk, has permitted Google books to make the entire first chapter available for online reading. Here it is embedded:




And if you rather prefer that, here's a link to the Google books site. And here's a presentation of the book from a recent post, with links for sampling other chapters and look at the index.

My Book on the Ethical Basis of the Precautionary Principle is Out!

So, some shameless self-promotion:

My book on the ethical basis of the precautionary principle, The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk, is now officially released by Springer. To view the table of contents, sample substantial portions of chapters and look up names or subjects in the index, click on the button below:

 Here's the content summary in all of its glory:

Since a couple of decades, the notion of a precautionary principle plays a central and increasingly influential role in international as well as national policy and regulation regarding the environment and the use of technology. Urging society to take action in the face of potential risks of human activities in these areas, the recent focus on climate change has further sharpened the importance of this idea. However, the idea of a precautionary principle has also been problematised and criticised by scientists, scholars and policy activists, and been accused of almost every intellectual sin imaginable: unclarity, impracticality, arbitrariness and moral as well as political unsoundness. In that light, the very idea of precaution as an ideal for policy making rather comes out as a dead end. On the basis of these contrasting starting points, Christian Munthe undertakes an innovative, in-depth philosophical analysis of what the idea of a precautionary principle is and should be about. A novel theory of the ethics of imposing risks is developed and used as a foundation for defending the idea of precaution in environmental and technological policy making against its critics, while at the same time avoiding a number of identified flaws. The theory is shown to have far-reaching consequences for areas such as bio-, information- and nuclear technology, and global environmental policy in areas such as climate change. The author argues that, while the price we pay for precaution must not be too high, we have to be prepared to pay it in order to act ethically defensible. A number of practical suggestions for precautionary regulation and policy making are made on the basis of this, and some challenges to basic ethical theory as well as consumerist societies, the global political order and liberal democracy are identified

Thank you for your kind attention!