Search
Search

Justice and Bioethics: Who Should Finance Academic Publishing?

Name / volume / issue

64266

Page number

1-2

Primary author

Udo Schuklenk (Joint Editor in Chief) & David Magnus (Editor in Chief)

Tag(s): Journal article

Abstract

We applaud the authors of this article for tackling an important and often neglected topic in bioethics: the challenges that our underresourced colleagues face in conducting research and contributing to the literature in bioethics. Indeed, one of us (U.S.) has spent a good deal of his career attempting to draw attention to this problem and ameliorate it.

Full text

Related posts

Making Bioethics Creative: Art Should Be Treated as Method, Not Decoration

What if, instead of another conference panel, bioethicists hosted an exhibition, curated a playlist, staged a performance, or collaborated on a short film? What if our work did more than explain and evaluate ethical problems? What if it also moved people, unsettled assumptions, and made unfamiliar experiences more difficult to ignore? Our field has developed […]

One Letter Apart: Credential Confusion in Clinical Ethics

  While looking into credentials in clinical ethics, I came across one I had never seen before: the “Certified Health Care Ethics Consultant,” with the initials HCEC-C. For a moment, I thought I was looking at a typo. The credential I know well, the one I hold, is the Healthcare Ethics Consultant-Certified, or HEC-C. This […]

The Slippery Slope of the DOJ Slip Opinion: A Threat to Disability Integration

“Because the country was so inaccessible, disabled people had a hard time getting out and doing things—which made us invisible. So we were easy to discount and ignore. Until institutions were forced to accommodate us we would remain locked out and invisible—and as long as we were locked out and invisible, no one would see […]

OMB Proposed Rule Change: The New Lysenkoism?

The proposed OMB rule changes (OMB-2026-0034) are problematic and should be withdrawn or substantially altered. At a fundamental level, the rules represent an attack on the peer review process and replace it with an explicitly political, vague, and poorly defined standard and process for review that is more likely to hinder science than promote it. […]