It is now 10 years ago that human embryonic stem cell research appeared as a major topic of societal concern following significant scientific breakthroughs.1 2 During these 10 years it has become obvious that stem cell research is embedded in a narrative characterised by hope and hype and that it has created heated moral and political debate. Although it would be tempting to try to deconstruct the importance attributed to hope in this story or to unmask the different instigators active (...) in promoting hype,3–5 the main aim of this editorial is to briefly review the controversies underlying the debate and propose some possible answers to a set of inter-related questions: What are the main disagreements in the stem cell debate? Is there any hope that we can resolve these main disagreements? Has the debate been a fruitful model for future debates about ethically contentious issues in biomedicine, or has it been characterised more by rhetoric than by argument? What kind of ethical debates are most efficient as models for future debates?The two authors agree with regard to the importance of asking these questions, but they disagree about at least some of the answers. Let us start with the questions about the debate and its use as a model for future debates.WHAT KIND OF ETHICAL DEBATE IS MOST EFFICIENT AS A MODEL FOR FUTURE DEBATES?Could it be the case that ethical debates that are characterised by overselling of the potential of the technology are more efficient as models for future debates about ethically contentious issues in biomedicine than more sober and “neutral” debates? The narratives of stem cell research are full of examples of overselling and underselling, and we will suggest that it is precisely for this reason that there is a lot to learn morally from reviewing the narratives. The two main forms of overselling are therapeutic …. (shrink)

Obviously the work of an erudite and cultured man, this book is what it purports to be, "an informal story of China," "designed for the interested layman as well as the student rather than the specialist." Like most popularization, it suffers from oversimplification, overenthusiasm, lack of proper scholarly support for the material, and zealous digression. The somewhat stilted style is often awkward and un-English. Nevertheless, a decidedly entertaining book, distinguished by several translations of Chinese lyrics. --J. H. S.

This book provides an invaluable overview of the reach of logic. It provides reference to some of the most important, well-established results in logic, while at the same time offering insight into the latest research issues in the area. It also has a balance of theory and practice, containing essays in the areas of modal logic, intuitionistic logic, logic and language, nonmonotonic logic and logic programming, temporal logic, logic and learning, combination of logics, practical reasoning, logic and artificial intelligence, abduction, (...) theorem proving and goal-directed reasoning. It will be invaluable reading for researchers and graduate students in logic and computer science, and a fabulous source of inspiration for research students in search of a topic for a PhD in logic and theoretical computer science. (shrink)

The acceleration of the market globalisation process over the last three decades has internationalised clinical research and influenced both the way in which it is funded and the development and application of research practices. In addition, in recent years international multicentre randomised clinical trials have become the model par excellence for research on new medicines. The neoliberal model of globalisation has induced a decline in state power, both with regard to establishing national research for health priorities and to influencing the (...) development of adequate ethical guidelines to protect human beings that participate in multinational research. In this respect, poor and low-income countries, which lack sustainable control and review systems to deal with the ethical and methodological challenges of complex studies conducted by researchers from affluent countries and funded by large multinational pharmaceutical companies, are particularly vulnerable. The aim of the present paper is to explore critically some of the actual and possible ethical pitfalls of globalisation of clinical research and propose mechanisms for turning transnational clinical research into a more cooperative and fairer enterprise. (shrink)