This paper explores the limitations of artificial intelligence (AI) in fulfilling the obligations inherent in close personal relationships, particularly in the context of loneliness. While AI technologies may offer some of the goods that we associate with close personal relationships, they lack the capacity for genuine commitment and individualized care that characterize human interactions. The finitude of human existence—our cognitive, emotional, and temporal limitations— and our capacity to make judgments concerning distinct kinds of value imbues human relationships with significance that (...) AI cannot replicate. (shrink)

_This article examined the accounts of diplomatic relations between Russia and Syria. It interrogated a significant aspect of global politics, where the interaction of geopolitical interests, ideological affinities, and regional influences played defining roles in shaping this diplomatic association from the height of the Cold War in the 1960s and 1970s to the Syrian Civil War that began in 2011. This scope allowed extensive research into the changing nature of Russo-Syrian relations, providing a diverse revelation into their historical evolution. This (...) article relies on a wide array of primary sources, including diplomatic records, as well as secondary sources offering useful context and perspective. The primary aim was to reveal the motivations and strategies that steered diplomatic exchanges between them and the real-political considerations that formed the basis of their engagement. Moreover, this article considered the ramifications of Russo-Syrian relations on the broader Middle East region and how partnership affected regional stability, conflict, and the distribution of power such as the Soviet Union's support for the Ba'athist regime in 1963, Syria's involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict in 1967, and Russia's military intervention in the Syrian civil war in 2015. Through historical evaluation, this article contributes to an understanding of international relations and their implications for security and stability._. (shrink)

This paper attempts to establish the epistemological import and limits of informed consent in clinical research. It points out that informed consent is a necessary requirement in clinical research because it ensures adequate participation of care receivers in issues relating to their health. Besides ensuring that care receivers have knowledge of whatever medical intervention they are consenting to, informed consent, as an ideal, provides assurance that care receivers and others are neither coerced nor deceived. While the question of the value (...) of informed consent in health care delivery is not so much controverted, in contest is the question of whether or not complete and wholly specifically informed consent can indeed be realized in medical intervention. Two orientations are identified in this debate. One insists that an individual will be able to make an informed decision and make reasonable choices amongst alternatives when fully informed. The other orientation sees as an epistemic illusion, achieving full informed consent, and rather opts for informed request. This paper examines this debate by clarifying the notion of informed consent, its components and its nexus with knowledge. The position of the paper is that informed consent is not only an ethical ideal in clinical research and health care; it is also an epistemic virtue that must be continuously strived towards. This paper establishes that health care receivers can only have an epistemic claim of their medical situation if all requirements of informed consent in health care delivery such as provision of adequate information, the risk and benefits of treatment, avoidance of vague/ambiguous statements, voluntariness, etc. are met. (shrink)

Although Burt provides a valuable critique of the scientific value of integrating genetic data into social science research, she reinforces rather than disrupts the age-old horserace between genetic effects and environmental effects. We must move past this false dichotomy to create a new ontology that recognizes the ways in which genetic and environmental processes are inextricably intertwined.

Genes have long been used to validate social inequality. The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality, by Kathryn Paige Harden, attempts not only to reclaim genetic research on human behavior from its eugenic past but also to argue that genetic research can be used to understand and enhance social equality. This review essay illustrates why embracing a political agenda in which genetics matter for social equality will not in practice advance efforts to reduce social inequality. It argues that (...) the points raised in The Genetic Lottery would be important in an alternate world in which structural inequalities have ceased to exist, but not in the world we live in today. (shrink)

Conley and colleagues (2023) conduct a fascinating analysis of how influential organizations in the global governance of human genome editing debate conceptualize and perform public engagement. Whi...

In this consensus report by a diverse group of academics who conduct and/or are concerned about social and behavioral genomics (SBG) research, the authors recount the often‐ugly history of scientific attempts to understand the genetic contributions to human behaviors and social outcomes. They then describe what the current science—including genomewide association studies and polygenic indexes—can and cannot tell us, as well as its risks and potential benefits. They conclude with a discussion of responsible behavior in the context of SBG research. (...) SBG research that compares individuals within a group according to a “sensitive” phenotype requires extra attention to responsible conduct and to responsible communication about the research and its findings. SBG research (1) on sensitive phenotypes that (2) compares two or more groups defined by (a) race, (b) ethnicity, or (c) genetic ancestry (where genetic ancestry could easily be misunderstood as race or ethnicity) requires a compelling justification to be conducted, funded, or published. All authors agree that this justification at least requires a convincing argument that a study's design could yield scientifically valid results; some authors would additionally require the study to have a socially favorable risk‐benefit profile. (shrink)

In this work, we study and analyze the aggregate death counts of COVID-19 reported by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the fifty states in the United States. To do this, we derive a stochastic model describing the cumulative number of deaths reported daily by CDC from the first time Covid-19 death is recorded to June 20, 2021 in the United States, and provide a forecast for the death cases. The stochastic model derived in this (...) work performs better than existing deterministic logistic models because it is able to capture irregularities in the sample path of the aggregate death counts. The probability distribution of the aggregate death counts is derived, analyzed, and used to estimate the count’s per capita initial growth rate, carrying capacity, and the expected value for each given day as at the time this research is conducted. Using this distribution, we estimate the expected first passage time when the aggregate death count is slowing down. Our result shows that the expected aggregate death count is slowing down in all states as at the time this analysis is conducted (June 2021). A formula for predicting the end of Covid-19 deaths is derived. The daily expected death count for each states is plotted as a function of time. The probability density function for the current day, together with the forecast and its confidence interval for the next four days, and the root mean square error for our simulation results are estimated. (shrink)

Bioethicists frequently call for empirical researchers to engage participants and community members in their research, but don't themselves typically engage community members in their normative research. In this article, we describe an effort to include members of the public in normative discussions about the risks, potential benefits, and ethical responsibilities of social and behavioral genomics (SBG) research. We reflect on what might—and might not— be gained from engaging the public in normative scholarship and on lessons learned about public perspectives on (...) the risks and potential benefits of SBG research and the responsible conduct and communication of such research. We also provide procedural lessons for others in bioethics who are interested in engaging members of the public in their research. (shrink)

In their article on the limited duty to reinterpret genetic variants, Watts and Newson argue that clinical labs are not morally obligated to conduct routine reinterpretation despite its potential clinical and personal value.1 We endorse the authors’ argument for a circumscribed duty to reclassify genomic variants in certain cases, including to promote diagnostic equity for racial and ethnic minority populations that have been historically excluded from and exploited by genomic research and medicine. However, given the history and resilience of scientific (...) racism, the use of socially constructed racial and ethnic categories to enhance diagnostic equity raises several ethical and practical challenges. In the short term, using socially constructed racial and ethnic categories to identify patients for variant reclassification is a practical approach for addressing concerns of diagnostic equity. In contrast, diagnostic accuracy depends on patients’ genetic similarity to reference genomes, rather than their socially determined race or ethnicity.2 Thus, in the long term, securing both diagnostic equity and diagnostic accuracy through targeted variant reclassification will require a shift away from relying on race and ethnicity and towards assessing genetic similarity. Critically, the identification of patients for genomic variant reclassification using socially constructed race or ethnicity runs the risk of perpetuating the harmful …. (shrink)

Conflicts within the tsetse fly belt revealed a strong correlation between the dynamics of bovine trypanosomosis and the insurgency involving farmers and herders in Nigeria and parts of West Africa. This study examined the history, causes and influence of farmers-herdsmen conflicts on banditry, terrorism and food security as it relates to the epidemiology of African animal trypanosomosis (AAT). A combination of literature database searches, semi-structured questionnaires, and mathematical modeling was employed. The study found that transhumance contributes significantly to conflicts between (...) farmers and herdsmen. An average of 6.46 persons per attack were reported between 2005 and 2021. Only 8.4 $$\%$$ (95 $$\%$$ CI: 5.0 $$-$$ 12.9) of farmers and 18.2 $$\%$$ (95 $$\%$$ CI: 12.4 $$-$$ 25.4) of herdsmen have engaged in conflict resolution efforts. The study shows that both conflict and the spread of trypanosomosis can be effectively controlled when $$R_0 < 1$$, ensuring that the sub-population remains in the basin of attraction of the trypanosomosis-conflict-free equilibrium ( $$T_{0c}$$ ). The partial derivative of the basic reproduction number, $$R_0$$, with respect to improved conflict resolution, suggests that halting transhumance can prevent a portion of the cattle recruitment rate ( $$\Lambda_c$$ ) from becoming infected with AAT. Climate change exacerbates these issues, leading to settlement and resettlement strategies within the fly belt regions. The model indicates that the basic reproduction number can only be reduced to less than one ( $$R_0 < 1$$ ) to become globally asymptotically stable if there is effective conflict resolution involving both farmers and herders. The study advocates for the establishment of ranching in tsetse-free zones with adequate social amenities, improved marketing strategies for animals and animal products led by government agencies through public-private partnerships, the banning of open grazing, and strict enforcement of policies against violators. (shrink)