Euro plus Med-Checklist Notulae, 11

This is the eleventh of a series of miscellaneous contributions, by various authors, where hitherto unpublished data relevant to both the Med-Checklist and the Euro+Med (or Sisyphus) projects are presented. This instalment deals with the families Anacardiaceae, Asparagaceae (incl. Hyacinthaceae), Bignoniaceae, Cactaceae, Compositae, Cruciferae, Cyperaceae, Ericaceae, Gramineae, Labiatae, Leguminosae, Orobanchaceae, Polygonaceae, Rosaceae, Solanaceae and Staphyleaceae. It includes new country and area records and taxonomic and distributional considerations for taxa in Bidens, Campsis, Centaurea, Cyperus, Drymocallis, Engem, Hoffmannseggia, Hypopitys, Lavandula, Lithraea, Melilotus, Nicotiana, Olimarabidopsis, Opuntia, Orobanche, Phelipanche, Phragmites, Rumex, Salvia, Schinus, Staphylea, and a new combination in Drimia.Peer reviewe

Euro+Med-Checklist Notulae, 14

Abstract: This is the fourteenth of a series of miscellaneous contributions, by various authors, where hitherto unpublished data relevant to both the Med-Checklist and the Euro+Med (or Sisyphus) projects are presented. This instalment deals with the families Apocynaceae, Compositae, Crassulaceae, Cyperaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Gramineae, Leguminosae, Nyctaginaceae, Onagraceae, Orobanchaceae, Rubiaceae, Solanaceae and Umbelliferae. It includes new country and area records and taxonomic and distributional considerations for taxa in Acalypha, Bupleurum, Carex, Datura, Epilobium, Eragrostis, Galium, Leontodon, Mirabilis, Nerium, Orobanche, Phelipanche, Rhinanthus, Saccharum, Sedum, Trifolium, Tripleurospermum and Willemetia. Citation For the whole article: Raab-Straube E. von & Raus Th. (ed.) 2021: Euro+Med-Checklist Notulae, 14.-Willdenowia 51: 355-369. For a single contribution (example): Bergmeier E. 2021: Leontodon longirostris (Finch & P. D. Sell) Talavera-Pp. 356-357 in: Raab-Straube E. von & Raus Th. (ed.), Euro+Med-Checklist Notulae, 14.-Willdenowia 51: 355-369. https://doi.org/10.3372/wi.51.51304 Version of record first published online on 30 November 2021 ahead of inclusion in December 2021 issue

Euro+Med-Checklist Notulae, 13

This is the thirteenth of a series of miscellaneous contributions, by various authors, where hitherto unpublished data relevant to both the Med-Checklist and the Euro+Med (or Sisyphus) projects are presented. This instalment deals with the families Amaryllidaceae (incl. Alliaceae), Apocynaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Compositae, Crassulaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Gramineae, Hydrocharitaceae, Iridaceae, Labiatae, Liliaceae, Malvaceae, Meliaceae, Myrtaceae, Orobanchaceae, Oxalidaceae, Papaveraceae, Pittosporaceae, Primulaceae (incl. Myrsinaceae), Ranunculaceae, Rhamnaceae, Rubiaceae, Solanaceae and Umbelliferae. It includes new country and area records and taxonomic and distributional considerations for taxa in Allium, Anthemis, Atriplex, Centaurea, Chasmanthe, Chenopodium, Delphinium, Digitaria, Elodea, Erigeron, Eucalyptus, Hypecoum, Leptorhabdos, Luffa, Malvaviscus, Melia, Melica, Momordica, Nerium, Oxalis, Pastinaca, Phelipanche, Physalis, Pittosporum, Salvia, Scorzoneroides, Sedum, Sesleria, Silene, Spartina, Stipa, Tulipa and Ziziphus, new combinations in Cyanus, Lysimachia, Rhaponticoides and Thliphthisa, and the reassessment of a replacement name in Sempervivum

TFOS European Ambassador meeting: Unmet needs and future scientific and clinical solutions for ocular surface diseases

The mission of the Tear Film & Ocular Surface Society (TFOS) is to advance the research, literacy, and educational aspects of the scientific field of the tear film and ocular surface. Fundamental to fulfilling this mission is the TFOS Global Ambassador program. TFOS Ambassadors are dynamic and proactive experts, who help promote TFOS initiatives, such as presenting the conclusions and recommendations of the recent TFOS DEWS II™, throughout the world. They also identify unmet needs, and propose future clinical and scientific solutions, for management of ocular surface diseases in their countries. This meeting report addresses such needs and solutions for 25 European countries, as detailed in the TFOS European Ambassador meeting in Rome, Italy, in September 2019

The ethical desirability of moral bioenhancement: A review of reasons

Background: The debate on the ethical aspects of moral bioenhancement focuses on the desirability of using biomedical as opposed to traditional means to achieve moral betterment. The aim of this paper is to systematically review the ethical reasons presented in the literature for and against moral bioenhancement. Discussion: A review was performed and resulted in the inclusion of 85 articles. We classified the arguments used in those articles in the following six clusters: (1) why we (don't) need moral bioenhancement, (2) it will (not) be possible to reach consensus on what moral bioenhancement should involve, (3) the feasibility of moral bioenhancement and the status of current scientific research, (4) means and processes of arriving at moral improvement matter ethically, (5) arguments related to the freedom, identity and autonomy of the individual, and (6) arguments related to social/group effects and dynamics. We discuss each argument separately, and assess the debate as a whole. First, there is little discussion on what distinguishes moral bioenhancement from treatment of pathological deficiencies in morality. Furthermore, remarkably little attention has been paid so far to the safety, risks and side-effects of moral enhancement, including the risk of identity changes. Finally, many authors overestimate the scientific as well as the practical feasibility of the interventions they discuss, rendering the debate too speculative. Summary: Based on our discussion of the arguments used in the debate on moral enhancement, and our assessment of this debate, we advocate a shift in focus. Instead of speculating about non-realistic hypothetical scenarios such as the genetic engineering of morality, or morally enhancing 'the whole of humanity', we call for a more focused debate on realistic options of biomedical treatment of moral pathologies and the concrete moral questions these treatments raise

Public Attitudes Towards Moral Enhancement. Evidence that Means Matter Morally

To gain insight into the reasons that the public may have for endorsing or eschewing pharmacological moral enhancement for themselves or for others, we used empirical tools to explore public attitudes towards these issues. Participants (N = 293) from the United States were recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and were randomly assigned to read one of several contrastive vignettes in which a 13-year-old child is described as bullying another student in school and then is offered an empathy-enhancing program. The empathy-enhancing program is described as either involving taking a pill or playing a video game on a daily basis for four weeks. In addition, participants were asked to imagine either their own child bullying another student at school, or their own child being bullied by another student. This resulted in a 2 × 2 between-subjects design. In an escalating series of morally challenging questions, we asked participants to rate their overall support for the program; whether they would support requiring participation; whether they would support requiring participation of children who are at higher risk to become bullies in the future; whether they would support requiring participation of all children or even the entire population; and whether they would be willing to participate in the program themselves. We found that people were significantly more troubled by pharmacological as opposed to non-pharmacological moral enhancement interventions. The results indicate that members of the public for the greater part oppose pharmacological moral bioenhancement, yet are open to non-biomedical means to attain moral enhancement. [248 words]