@book{Chadwick_2012,address={London},edition={2nd ed},title={Encyclopedia of applied ethics},ISBN={978-0-12-373932-2},publisher={Academic Press},author={Chadwick, Ruth F.},year={2012},language={eng}}
doi:10.1073/pnas.1213273110,
@article{Rubeis_Steger_2018,title={Risks and benefits of human germline genome editing: An ethical analysis},volume={10},ISSN={1793-8759, 1793-9453},DOI={10.1007/s41649-018-0056-x},number={2},journal={Asian Bioethics Review},author={Rubeis, Giovanni and Steger, Florian},year={2018},month=jul,pages={133–141},language={en}}
author={Baruch Fischhoff },
@article{Ansah_2022,title={Ethical Challenges and Controversies in the Practice and Advancement of Gene Therapy},volume={2022},rights={https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/},ISSN={2573-8461},DOI={10.1155/2022/1015996},abstractNote={One of the most important technologies in modern medicine is gene therapy, which allows therapeutic genes to be introduced into cells of the body. The approach involves genetics and recombinant DNA techniques that allow manipulating vectors for delivery of exogenous material to target cells. The efficacy and safety of the delivery system are a key step towards the success of gene therapy. Somatic cell gene therapy is the easiest in terms of technology and the least problematic in terms of ethics. Although genetic manipulation of germline cells at the gene level has the potential to permanently eradicate certain hereditary disorders, major ethical issues such as eugenics, enhancement, mosaicism, and the transmission of undesirable traits or side effects to patients’ descendants currently stymie its development, leaving only somatic gene therapy in the works. However, moral, social, and ethical arguments do not imply that germline gene therapy should be banned forever. This review discusses in detail the current challenges surrounding the practice of gene therapy, focusing on the moral arguments and scientific claims that affect the advancement of the technology. The review also suggests precautionary principles as a means to navigate ethical uncertainties.},journal={Advances in Cell and Gene Therapy},author={Ansah, Emmanuel Owusu},editor={Miao, Carol H.},year={2022},month=aug,pages={1–5},language={en}}
title={The sciences of science communication},
@book{Pugh_2020,edition={1},title={Autonomy, Rationality, and Contemporary Bioethics},rights={https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/},ISBN={978-0-19-885858-4},url={https://academic.oup.com/book/33778},DOI={10.1093/oso/9780198858584.001.0001},abstractNote={Abstract Personal autonomy is often lauded as a key value in contemporary Western bioethics, and the claim that there is an important relationship between autonomy and rationality is often treated as an uncontroversial claim in this sphere. Yet, there is also considerable disagreement about how we should cash out the relationship between rationality and autonomy. In particular, it is unclear whether a rationalist view of autonomy can be compatible with legal judgments that enshrine a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment, regardless of whether ‘… the reasons for making the choice are rational, irrational, unknown or even non-existent’. This book brings recent philosophical work on the nature of rationality to bear on the question of how we should understand autonomy in contemporary bioethics. In doing so, the author develops a new framework for thinking about the concept, one that is grounded in an understanding of the different roles that rational beliefs and rational desires have to play in personal autonomy. Furthermore, the account outlined here allows for a deeper understanding of different forms of controlling influence, and the relationship between our freedom to act, and our capacity to decide autonomously. The author contrasts his rationalist account with other prominent accounts of autonomy in bioethics, and outlines the revisionary implications it has for various practical questions in bioethics in which autonomy is a salient concern, including questions about the nature of informed consent and decision-making capacity.},publisher={Oxford University PressOxford},author={Pugh, Jonathan},year={2020},month=apr,language={en}}
\ No newline at end of file
journal={Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
abstract={The May 2012 Sackler Colloquium on “The Science of Science Communication” brought together scientists with research to communicate and scientists whose research could facilitate that communication. The latter include decision scientists who can identify the scientific results that an audience needs to know, from among all of the scientific results that it would be nice to know; behavioral scientists who can design ways to convey those results and then evaluate the success of those attempts; and social scientists who can create the channels needed for trustworthy communications. This overview offers an introduction to these communication sciences and their roles in science-based communication programs.}}
