Human cloning laws, human dignity and the poverty of the policy making dialogue

BACKGROUND: The regulation of human cloning continues to be a significant national and international policy issue. Despite years of intense academic and public debate, there is little clarity as to the philosophical foundations for many of the emerging policy choices. The notion of "human dignity" is commonly used to justify cloning laws. The basis for this justification is that reproductive human cloning necessarily infringes notions of human dignity. DISCUSSION: The author critiques one of the most commonly used ethical justifications for cloning laws – the idea that reproductive cloning necessarily infringes notions of human dignity. He points out that there is, in fact, little consensus on point and that the counter arguments are rarely reflected in formal policy. Rarely do domestic or international instruments provide an operational definition of human dignity and there is rarely an explanation of how, exactly, dignity is infringed in the context reproductive cloning. SUMMARY: It is the author's position that the lack of thoughtful analysis of the role of human dignity hurts the broader public debate about reproductive cloning, trivializes the value of human dignity as a normative principle and makes it nearly impossible to critique the actual justifications behind many of the proposed policies

A Complexity Thinking Take on Thinking in the University

Universities are explicitly sites of thinking: they present myriad ways to think – and to provoke thinking. We address thinking relationally, that is, by doing it under provocation – it is in the doing of thinking that our learning emerges. In this chapter, we develop the significance of this ‘learning thinking by doing thinking’ to which Heidegger, in What is Called Thinking (1954) draws attention, and we do so by setting out a contemporary account of complexity. First, we provide a theorisation of complexity, which comes across from the natural sciences to the social sciences, though in a somewhat different form. Secondly, we put this theorisation to work, in raising some challenges and opportunities for re-thinking thinking for universities, by tackling some of the big issues facing learning in universities. These include excessive individualism, narrow cognitivism and an emaciated notion of learners’ agency, all of which under-acknowledge the formative power of groups, especially for shaping subsequent professional practice broadly conceived. We close with some practical implications for universities’ core work of this complexity thinking ‘take’ on thinking. We advocate ‘thinking relationally’ as central and indeed constitutive of universities. strengths of this internalist view, limited as it may be. The thinking university may  ..