(Bio)ethicists and (Bio)ethical Expertise in National Ethical Advisory Bodies: Roles, Functions and Perceptions

Over the past decades, (bio)ethical expertise has been gaining considerable influence in decision-making processes on various levels, but the nature and role of bioethical expertise and experts has only rarely been subject to empirical investigation in institutional contexts. One of the characteristics of modern (bio)ethics is its “empirical” and “policy” turn, which has led to the formation of institutions that were given the remit to provide political decision-makers with ethical advice on dealing with contentious developments in new and emerging sciences and technologies. In Europe, such national Ethical Advisory Bodies (EABs) have become a key mechanism in the legitimization of contested sociopolitical decisions. (Bio)ethicists can be seen as important experts in the workings of such institutions, but the role and function of (bio)ethical expertise and (bio)ethicists have so far not been systematically investigated in European national EABs. The present article thus tackles some of the theoretical and practical questions concerning ethicists and ethics in the context of EABs by combining theoretical reflection with empirical investigation. The first part provides a brief sketch of the development of modern (bio)ethics and its institutionalization in various expert bodies, especially EABs at the national level in Europe. The second part explores theoretical questions relating to the notion of ethical and moral expertise, as well as the attributes that ethicists should possess in order to be able to perform the role of experts in ethics within EABs. The third part compares theory to practice by examining the results of a survey conducted among European national EABs on how ethicists and ethical expertise are actually perceived by EABs and what functions they perform in such institutions

Problemi javnih politika prema međunarodnoj produktivnosti i vidljivosti društvenih znanosti u zemljama Srednje i Istočne Evrope

The contribution deals with the issue of the international productivity and visibility of the social sciences in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. The reasons why the social sciences in CEE countries lag behind in being more internationalised stem not only from the past, but also the present. The intellectual potential of the social sciences is often neither fully acknowledged nor effectively used by different groups of social actors. There is also a lack of institutional support from R&D policy decision-makers to encourage social scientists to publish more abroad and to establish excellent networks beyond national borders. In the paper, the main focus is national R&D evaluation systems. R&D evaluation systems play a crucial role in the allocation of financial support to scientists, the promotion of individual scientific careers, ensuring disciplinary (or interdisciplinary) standards etc. Last but not least, it is impossible to fully understand the state-of-the-art in the social sciences’ international productivity and visibility in CEE countries without explaining the context of how these national R&D evaluation systems function. Some analytical data are used to illustrate the international orientation of social scientists. These data warn that the great expectations that social scientists from this part of Europe would easily “break through” into publication channels in the West and thereby have a big scientific impact have yet to be realised.Rad se bavi problematikom međunarodne produktivnosti i vidljivosti društvenih znanosti u zemljama Srednje i Istočne Evrope (SIE). Razlozi zbog kojih društvene znanosti u SIE državama zaostaju u internacionalizaciji proizlaze ne samo iz prošlosti, već i iz sadašnjosti. Intelektualni potencijal društvenih znanosti često nije sasvim priznat niti efektivno korišten od različitih grupa društvenih aktera. Postoji također i nedostatak institucionalne potpore od nositelja I&R politika u poticanju društvenih znanstvenika na više objavljivanja u inozemstvu i na uspostavljanje mreža izvrsnosti izvan nacionalnih granica. U radu je glavni fokus na nacionalnim I&R evaluacijskim sistemima. I&R evaluacijski sustavi imaju ključnu ulogu u alokaciji financijskih potpora znanstvenicima, potpomaganju individualnih znanstveničkih karijera, osiguranju disciplinarnih (ili interdisciplinarnih) standarda itd. Naposljetku, nemoguće je razumjeti sadašnju razinu internacionalne produktivnosti i vidljivosti društvenih znanosti u SIE državama bez objašnjavanja kako nacionalni I&R evaluacijski sistemi funkcioniraju. Korišteni su neki analitički podaci kako bi se ilustriralo međunarodnu orijentaciju društvoznanstvenika. Ovi podaci upozoravaju da se velika očekivanja kako će društvoslovci iz ovog dijela Evrope lako prodrijeti u kanale objavljivanja na Zapadu i imati veliki znanstveni odjek tek trebaju realizirati

Co-authorship trends and collaboration patterns in the Slovenian sociological community

The article deals with some processes generating increases in research collaboration; one of the most characteristic tendencies of modern science. The major empirical focus is the increasing tendency to co-authorship in sociological publications in Slovenia. Bibliometric analyses, based on two joint national research information systems (SICRIS and COBISS), show the amount of coauthored publications in the field of sociology have increased over the last two decades. Blockmodeling of co-authorship networks in sociology has shown that sociologists who are not systematically tied to strongly connected and wellestablished research groups produce the best scientific publications in their field

The personal factors in scientific collaboration: views held by Slovenian researchers

Scientific collaboration (SC) has become a widespread feature of modern research work. While many social network studies address various aspects of SC, little attention has so far been given to the specific factors that motivate researchers to engage in SC at the individual level. In our article, we focus on the types and practices of SC that researchers in Slovenia engage in. We consider this topic by adopting a quantitative and qualitative methodological approach. The former was conducted through a web survey among active researchers, and the latter through in-depth interviews with a selected group of top researchers, i.e. intellectual leaders. Results show the extent of individual SC depends on the perceptions of researchers of the benefits of SC. Qualitative interviews additionally provide broader reflections on certain policy mechanisms that could better motivate Slovenian scientists to scientifically collaborate in the international arena

Are Better Workers Also Better Humans? On Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement in the Workplace and Conflicting Societal Domains

The article investigates the sociocultural implications of the changing modern workplace and of pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) as a potential adaptive tool from the viewpoint of social niche construction. We will attempt to elucidate some of the sociocultural and technological trends that drive and influence the characteristics of this specific niche, and especially to identify the kind of capabilities and adaptations that are being promoted, and to ascertain the capabilities and potentialities that might become diminished as a result. In this context, we will examine what PCE is, and how and why it might be desirable as a tool for adaptation within the workplace. As human beings are, or at least should be allowed to be, more than merely productive, able-bodied and able-minded workers, we will further examine how adaptation to the workplace niche could result in problems in other domains of modern societal life that require the same or other cognitive capabilities. In this context we will also focus on the concept of responsibility and how it pertains to PCE and the modern workplace niche. This will shed some light on the kind of trends related to workplace niche construction, PCE and capability promotion that we can expect in the future, and on the contexts in which this might be either beneficial or detrimental to the individual as a well-rounded human being, and to other members of society

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570