Life Sciences Research Articles

Procedural norms and their significance in the implementation of the competence of representative bodies

On the eve of the centenary of the birth of Professor E. I. Kozlova, who devoted her scientific life to the study of the problems of democracy and the forms of its implementation, attention should be paid to the problem of improving the mechanisms of parliamentary activity, which she repeatedly raised in her writings of the soviet period. Revealing the legal nature and essence of the representative bodies of the soviet period — the soviets of workers’ deputies, later — the Soviets of People’s deputies, in the post-Soviet period — parliaments, E.I. Kozlova emphasized the enduring importance of the procedures of the representative bodies. Analyzing the scientific heritage of Professor E. I. Kozlova, the author substantiates the relevance of the scientist’s conclusions and proposals for modern representative bodies, defines some directions for the development of the scientist’s ideas.

Bioethics-CSR Divide

Photo by Sean Pollock on Unsplash ABSTRACT Bioethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) were born out of similar concerns, such as the reaction to scandal and the restraint of irresponsible actions by individuals and organizations. However, these fields of knowledge are seldom explored together. This article attempts to explain the motives behind the gap between bioethics and CSR, while arguing that their shared agenda – combined with their contrasting principles and goals – suggests there is potential for fruitful dialogue that enables the actualization of bioethical agendas and provides a direction for CSR in health-related organizations. INTRODUCTION Bioethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) seem to be cut from the same cloth: the concern for human rights and the response to scandal. Both are tools for the governance of organizations, shaping how power flows and decisions are made. They have taken the shape of specialized committees, means of stakeholder inclusion at deliberative forums, compliance programs, and internal processes. It should be surprising, then, that these two fields of study and practice have developed separately, only recently re-approaching one another. There have been displays of this reconnection both in academic and corporate spaces, with bioethics surfacing as part of the discourse of CSR and compliance initiatives. However, this is still a relatively timid effort. Even though the bioethics-CSR divide presents mostly reasonable explanations for this difficult relationship between the disciplines, current proposals suggest there is much to be gained from a stronger relationship between them. This article explores the common history of bioethics and corporate social responsibility and identifies their common features and differences. It then explores the dispute of jurisdictions due to professional and academic “pedigree” and incompatibilities in the ideological and teleological spheres as possible causes for the divide. The discussion turns to paths for improving the reflexivity of both disciplines and, therefore, their openness to mutual contributions. I.     Cut Out of the Same Cloth The earliest record of the word “bioethics” dates back to 1927 as a term that designates one’s ethical responsibility toward not only human beings but other lifeforms as well, such as animals and plants.[1] Based on Kantian ethics, the term was coined as a response to the great prestige science held at its time. It remained largely forgotten until the 1970s, when it resurfaced in the United States[2] as the body of knowledge that can be employed to ensure the responsible pursuit and application of science. The resurgence was prompted by a response to widespread irresponsible attitudes toward science and grounded in a pluralistic perspective of morality.[3] In the second half of the twentieth century, states and the international community assumed the duty to protect human rights, and bioethics became a venue for discussing rights.[4] There is both a semantic gap and a contextual gap between these two iterations, with some of them already being established. Corporate social responsibility is often attributed to the Berle-Dodd debate. The discussion was characterized by diverging views on the extent of the responsibility of managers.[5] It was later settled as positioning the company, especially the large firm, as an entity whose existence is fomented by the law due to its service to the community. The concept has evolved with time, departing from a largely philanthropic meaning to being ingrained in nearly every aspect of a company’s operations. This includes investments, entrepreneurship models, and its relationship to stakeholders, leading to an increasing operationalization and globalization of the concept.[6] At first sight, these two movements seem to stem from different contexts. Despite the difference, it is also possible to tell a joint history of bioethics and CSR, with their point of contact being a generalized concern with technological and social changes that surfaced in the sixties. The publishing of Silent Spring in 1962 by Rachel Carson exemplifies this growing concern over the sustainability of the ruling economic growth model of its time by commenting on the effects of large-scale agriculture and the use of pesticides in the population of bees, one of the most relevant pollinators of crops consumed by humans. The book influenced both the author responsible for the coining bioethics in the 1971[7] and early CSR literature.[8] By initiating a debate over the sustainability of economic models, the environmentalist discourse became a precursor to vigorous social movements for civil rights. Bioethics was part of the trend as it would be carried forward by movements such as feminism and the patients’ rights movement.[9] Bioethics would gradually move from a public discourse centered around the responsible use of science and technology to academic and government spaces.[10]  This evolution led to an increasing emphasis on intellectual rigor and governance. The transformation would unravel the effort to take effective action against scandal and turn bioethical discourse into governance practices,[11] such as bioethics and research ethics committees. The publication of the Belmont Report[12] in the aftermath of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, as well as the creation of committees such as the “God Committee,”[13] which aimed to develop and enforce criteria for allocating scarce dialysis machines, exemplify this shift. On the side of CSR, this period represents, at first, a stronger pact between businesses and society due to more stringent environmental and consumer regulations. But afterward, a joint trend emerged: on one side, the deregulation within the context of neoliberalism, and on the other, the operationalization of corporate social responsibility as a response to societal concerns.[14] The 1990s saw both opportunities and crises that derived from globalization. In the political arena, the end of the Cold War led to an impasse in the discourse concerning human rights,[15] which previously had been split between the defense of civil and political rights on one side and social rights on the other. But at the same time, agendas that were previously restricted territorially became institutionalized on a global scale.[16] Events such as the European Environment Agency (1990), ECO92 in Rio de Janeiro (1992), and the UN Global Compact (2000) are some examples of the globalization of CSR. This process of institutionalization would also mirror a crisis in CSR, given that its voluntarist core would be deemed lackluster due to the lack of corporate accountability. The business and human rights movement sought to produce new binding instruments – usually state-based – that could ensure that businesses would comply with their duties to respect human rights.[17] This rule-creation process has been called legalization: a shift from business standards to norms of varying degrees of obligation, precision, and delegation.[18] Bioethics has also experienced its own renewed identity in the developed world, perhaps because of its reconnection to public and global health. Global health has been the object of study for centuries under other labels (e.g., the use of tropical medicine to assist colonial expeditions) but it resurfaced in the political agenda recently after the pandemics of AIDS and respiratory diseases.[19] Bioethics has been accused from the inside of ignoring matters beyond the patient-provider relationship,[20] including those related to public health and/or governance. Meanwhile, scholars claimed the need to expand the discourse to global health.[21] In some countries, bioethics developed a tight relationship with public health, such as Brazil,[22] due to its connections to the sanitary reform movement. The United Kingdom has also followed a different path, prioritizing governance practices and the use of pre-established institutions in a more community-oriented approach.[23] The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Rights followed this shift toward a social dimension of bioethics despite being subject to criticism due to its human rights-based approach in a field characterized by ethical pluralism.[24] This scenario suggests bioethics and CSR have developed out of similar concerns: the protection of human rights and concerns over responsible development – be it economic, scientific, or technological. However, the interaction between these two fields (as well as business and human rights) is fairly recent both in academic and business settings. There might be a divide between these fields and their practitioners. II.     A Tale of Jurisdictions It can be argued that CSR and business and human rights did not face jurisdictional disputes. These fields owe much of their longevity to their roots in institutional economics, whose debates, such as the Berle-Dodd debate, were based on interdisciplinary dialogue and the abandonment of sectorial divisions and public-private dichotomies.[25] There was opposition to this approach to the role of companies in society that could have implications for CSR’s interdisciplinarity, such as the understanding that corporate activities should be restricted to profit maximization.[26] Yet, those were often oppositions to CSR or business and human rights themselves. The birth of bioethics in the USA can be traced back to jurisdictional disputes over the realm of medicine and life sciences.[27] The dispute unfolded between representatives of science and those of “society’s conscience,” whether through bioethics as a form of applied ethics or other areas of knowledge such as theology.[28] Amid the civil rights movements, outsiders would gain access to the social sphere of medicine, simultaneously bringing it to the public debate and emphasizing the decision-making process as the center of the medical practice.[29] This led to the emergence of the bioethicist as a professional whose background in philosophy, theology, or social sciences deemed the bioethicist qualified to speak on behalf of the social consciousness. In other locations this interaction would play out differently: whether as an investigation of philosophically implied issues, a communal effort with professional institutions to enhance decision-making capability, or a concern with access to healthcare.[30] In these situations, the emergence and regulation of bioethics would be way less rooted in disputes over jurisdictions. This contentious birth of bioethics would have several implications, most related to where the bioethicist belongs. After the civil rights movements subsided, bioethics moved from the public sphere into an ivory tower: intellectual, secular, and isolated. The scope of the bioethicist would be increasingly limited to the spaces of academia and hospitals, where it would be narrowed to the clinical environment.[31] This would become the comfort zone of professionals, much to the detriment of social concerns. This scenario was convenient to social groups that sought to affirm their protagonism in the public arena, with conservative and progressive movements alike questioning the legitimacy of bioethics in the political discourse.[32] Even within the walls of hospitals and clinics, bioethics would not be excused from criticism. Afterall, the work of bioethicists is often unregulated and lacks the same kind of accountability that doctors and lawyers have. Then, is there a role to be played by the bioethicist? This trend of isolation leads to a plausible explanation for why bioethics did not develop an extensive collaboration with corporate social responsibility nor with business and human rights. Despite stemming from similar agendas, bioethics’ orientation towards the private sphere resulted in a limited perspective on the broader implications of its decisions. This existential crisis of the discipline led to a re-evaluation of its nature and purpose. Its relevance has been reaffirmed due to the epistemic advantage of philosophy when engaging normative issues. Proper training enables the bioethicist to avoid falling into traps of subjectivism or moralism, which are unable to address the complexity of decision-making. It also prevents the naïve seduction of “scientifying” ethics.[33] This is the starting point of a multitude of roles that can be attributed to the bioethicists. There are three main responsibilities that fall under bioethics: (i) activism in biopolicy, through the engagement in the creation of laws, jurisprudence, and public policies; (ii) the exercise of bioethics expertise, be it through the specialized knowledge in philosophical thought, its ability to juggle multiple languages related to various disciplines related to bioethics, or its capacity to combat and avoid misinformation and epistemic distortion; (iii) and, intellectual exchange, by exercising awareness that it is necessary to work with specialists from different backgrounds to achieve its goals.[34] All of those suggest the need for bioethics to improve its dialogue with CSR and business and human rights. Both CSR and business and human rights have been the arena of political disputes over the role of regulations and corporations themselves, and the absence of strong stances by bioethicists risks deepening their exclusion from the public arena. Furthermore, CSR and business and human rights are at the forefront of contemporary issues, such as the limits to sustainable development and appropriate governance structures, which may lead to the acceptance of values and accomplishment of goals cherished by bioethics. However, a gap in identifying the role and nature of bioethics and CSR may also be an obstacle for bridging the chasm between bioethics and CSR. III.     From Substance to Form: Philosophical Groundings of CSR and Bioethics As mentioned earlier, CSR is, to some extent, a byproduct of institutionalism. Institutional economics has a philosophical footprint in the pragmatic tradition[35], which has implications for the purpose of the movement and the typical course of the debate. The effectiveness of regulatory measures is often at the center of CSR and business and human rights debates: whatever the regulatory proposal may be, compliance, feasibility, and effectiveness are the kernel of the discussion. The axiological foundation is often the protection of human rights. But discussions over the prioritization of some human rights over others or the specific characteristics of the community to be protected are often neglected.[36] It is worth reinforcing that adopting human rights as an ethical standard presents problems to bioethics, given its grounding in the recognition of ethical pluralism. Pragmatism adopts an anti-essentialist view, arguing that concepts derive from their practical consequences instead of aprioristic elements.[37] Therefore, truth is transitory and context dependent. Pragmatism embraces a form of moral relativism and may find itself in an impasse in the context of political economy and policymaking due to its tendency to be stuck between the preservation of the status quo and the defense of a technocratic perspective, which sees technical and scientific progress as the solution to many of society’s issues.[38] These characteristics mean that bioethics has a complicated relationship with pragmatism. Indeed, there are connections between pragmatism and the bioethics discourse. Both can be traced back to American naturalism.[39] The early effort in bioethics to make it ecumenical, thus building on a common but transitory morality,[40] sounds pragmatic. Therefore, scholars suggest that bioethics should rely on pragmatism's perks and characteristics to develop solutions to new ethical challenges that emerge from scientific and technological progress. Nonetheless, ethical relativism is a problem for bioethics when it bleeds from a metaethical level into the subject matters themselves. After all, the whole point of bioethics is either descriptive, where it seeks to understand social values and conditions that pertain to its scope, or normative, where it investigates what should be done in matters related to medicine, life sciences, and social and technological change. It is a “knowledge of how to use knowledge.” Therefore, bioethics is a product of disillusionment regarding science and technology's capacity to produce exclusively good consequences. It was built around an opposition to ethical relativism—even though the field is aware of the particularity of its answers. This is true not only for the scholarly arena, where the objective is to produce ethically sound answers but also for bioethics governance, where relativism may induce decision paralysis or open the way to points of view disconnected from facts.[41] But there might be a point for more pragmatic bioethics. Bioethics has become an increasingly public enterprise which seeks political persuasion and impact in the regulatory sphere. When bioethics is seen as an enterprise, achieving social transformation is its main goal. In this sense, pragmatism can provide critical tools to identify idiosyncrasies in regulation that prove change is needed. An example of how this may play out is the abortion rights movement in the global south.[42] Despite barriers to accessing safe abortion, this movement came up with creative solutions and a public discourse focused on the consequences of its criminalization rather than its moral aspects. IV.     Bridging the Divide: Connections Between Bioethics and CSR There have been attempts to bring bioethics and CSR closer to each other. Corporate responsibility can be a supplementary strategy for achieving the goals of bioethics. The International Bioethics Committee (IBC), an institution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), highlights the concept that social responsibility regarding health falls under the provisions of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR). It is a means of achieving good health (complete physical, mental, and social well-being) through social development.[43] Thus, it plays out as a condition for actualizing the goals dear to bioethics and general ethical standards,[44] such as autonomy and awareness of the social consequences of an organization’s governance. On this same note, CSR is a complementary resource for healthcare organizations that already have embedded bioethics into their operations[45] as a way of looking at the social impact of their practices. And bioethics is also an asset of CSR. Bioethics can inform the necessary conditions for healthcare institutions achieving a positive social impact. When taken at face value, bioethics may offer guidelines for ethical and socially responsible behavior in the industry, instructing how these should play out in a particular context such as in research, and access to health.[46] When considering the relevance of rewarding mechanisms,[47] bioethics can guide the establishment of certification measures to restore lost trust in the pharmaceutical sector.[48] Furthermore, recognizing that the choice is a more complex matter than the maximization of utility can offer a nuanced perspective on how organizations dealing with existentially relevant choices understand their stakeholders.[49] However, all of those proposals might come with the challenge of proving that something can be gained from its addition to self-regulatory practices[50] within the scope of a dominant rights-based approach to CSR and global and corporate law. It is evident that there is room for further collaboration between bioethics and CSR. Embedding either into the corporate governance practices of an organization tends to be connected to promoting the other.[51] While there are some incompatibilities, organizations should try to overcome them and take advantage of the synergies and similarities. CONCLUSION Despite their common interests and shared history, bioethics and corporate social responsibility have not produced a mature exchange. Jurisdictional issues and foundational incompatibilities have prevented a joint effort to establish a model of social responsibility that addresses issues particular to the healthcare sector. Both bioethics and CSR should acknowledge that they hold two different pieces of a cognitive competence necessary for that task: CSR offers experience on how to turn corporate ethical obligations operational, while bioethics provides access to the prevailing practical and philosophical problem-solving tools in healthcare that were born out of social movements. Reconciling bioethics and CSR calls for greater efforts to comprehend and incorporate the social knowledge developed by each field reflexively[52] while understanding their insights are relevant to achieving some common goals. - [1]. Fritz Jahr, “Bio-Ethik: Eine Umschau Über Die Ethischen Beziehungen Des Menschen Zu Tier Und Pflanze,” Kosmos - Handweiser Für Naturfreunde 24 (1927): 2–4. [2]. Van Rensselaer Potter, “Bioethics, the Science of Survival,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 14, no. 1 (1970): 127–53, https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1970.0015. [3]. Maximilian Schochow and Jonas Grygier, eds., “Tagungsbericht: 1927 – Die Geburt der Bioethik in Halle (Saale) durch den protestantischen Theologen Fritz Jahr (1895-1953),” Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik / Annual Review of Law and Ethics 21 (June 11, 2014): 325–29, https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-02807-2. [4] George J. Annas, American Bioethics: Crossing Human Rights and Health Law Boundaries (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). [5] Philip L. Cochran, “The Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility,” Business Horizons 50, no. 6 (November 2007): 449–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2007.06.004. p. 449. [6] Mauricio Andrés Latapí Agudelo, Lára Jóhannsdóttir, and Brynhildur Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility,” International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 4, no. 1 (December 2019): 23, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-018-0039-y. [7] Potter, “Bioethics, the Science of Survival.” p. 129. [8] Latapí Agudelo, Jóhannsdóttir, and Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.” p. 4. [9] Albert R. Jonsen, The Birth of Bioethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). p. 368-371. [10] Jonsen. p. 372. [11] Jonathan Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice,” Health Care Analysis 24, no. 1 (March 2016): 3–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-015-0310-2. [12]. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, “The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research” (Washington: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, April 18, 1979), https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/the-belmont-report-508c_FINAL.pdf. [13] Shana Alexander, “They Decide Who Lives, Who Dies,” in LIFE, by Time Inc, 19th ed., vol. 53 (Nova Iorque: Time Inc, 1962), 102–25. [14]. Latapí Agudelo, Jóhannsdóttir, and Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.” [15]. Boaventura de Sousa Santos, “Por Uma Concepção Multicultural Dos Direitos Humanos,” Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, no. 48 (June 1997): 11–32. [16] Latapí Agudelo, Jóhannsdóttir, and Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.” [17]. Anita Ramasastry, “Corporate Social Responsibility Versus Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Gap Between Responsibility and Accountability,” Journal of Human Rights 14, no. 2 (April 3, 2015): 237–59, https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2015.1037953. [18]. Kenneth W Abbott et al., “The Concept of Legalization,” International Organization, Legalization and World Politics, 54, no. 3 (2000): 401–4019. [19]. Jens Holst, “Global Health – Emergence, Hegemonic Trends and Biomedical Reductionism,” Globalization and Health 16, no. 1 (December 2020): 42–52, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00573-4. [20]. Albert R. Jonsen, “Social Responsibilities of Bioethics,” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 78, no. 1 (March 1, 2001): 21–28, https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/78.1.21. [21]. Solomon R Benatar, Abdallah S Daar, and Peter A Singer, “Global Health Challenges: The Need for an Expanded Discourse on Bioethics,” PLoS Medicine 2, no. 7 (July 26, 2005): e143, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020143. [22]. Márcio Fabri dos Anjos and José Eduardo de Siqueira, eds., Bioética No Brasil: Tendências e Perspectivas, 1st ed., Bio & Ética (São Paulo: Sociedade Brasileira de Bioética, 2007). [23]. Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice.” p. 8-9. [24]. Aline Albuquerque S. de Oliveira, “A Declaração Universal Sobre Bioética e Direitos Humanos e a Análise de Sua Repercussão Teórica Na Comunidade Bioética,” Revista Redbioética/UNESCO 1, no. 1 (2010): 124–39. [25] John R. Commons, “Law and Economics,” The Yale Law Journal 34, no. 4 (February 1925): 371, https://doi.org/10.2307/788562; Robert L. Hale, “Bargaining, Duress, and Economic Liberty,” Columbia Law Review 43, no. 5 (July 1943): 603–28, https://doi.org/10.2307/1117229; Karl N. Llewellyn, “The Effect of Legal Institutions Upon Economics,” The American Economic Review 15, no. 4 (1925): 665–83; Carlos Portugal Gouvêa, Análise Dos Custos Da Desigualdade: Efeitos Institucionais Do Círculo Vicioso de Desigualdade e Corrupção, 1st ed. (São Paulo: Quartier Latin, 2021). p. 84-94. [26] Milton Friedman, “A Friedman Doctrine‐- The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” The New York Times, September 13, 1970, sec. Archives, https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html. [27] Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice.” p. 8. [28] John Hyde Evans, The History and Future of Bioethics: A Sociological View, 1st ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). [29] David J. Rothman, Strangers at the Bedside: A History of How Law and Bioethics Transformed Medical Decision Making, 2nd pbk. ed, Social Institutions and Social Change (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2003). p. 3. [30] Volnei Garrafa, Thiago Rocha Da Cunha, and Camilo Manchola, “Access to Healthcare: A Central Question within Brazilian Bioethics,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 27, no. 3 (July 2018): 431–39, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180117000810. [31] Jonsen, “Social Responsibilities of Bioethics.” [32] Evans, The History and Future of Bioethics. p. 75-79, 94-96. [33] Julian Savulescu, “Bioethics: Why Philosophy Is Essential for Progress,” Journal of Medical Ethics 41, no. 1 (January 2015): 28–33, https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102284. [34] Silvia Camporesi and Giulia Cavaliere, “Can Bioethics Be an Honest Way of Making a Living? A Reflection on Normativity, Governance and Expertise,” Journal of Medical Ethics 47, no. 3 (March 2021): 159–63, https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105954; Jackie Leach Scully, “The Responsibilities of the Engaged Bioethicist: Scholar, Advocate, Activist,” Bioethics 33, no. 8 (October 2019): 872–80, https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12659. [35] Philip Mirowski, “The Philosophical Bases of Institutionalist Economics,” Journal of Economic Issues, Evolutionary Economics I: Foundations of Institutional Thought, 21, no. 3 (September 1987): 1001–38. [36] David Kennedy, “The International Human Rights Movement: Part of the Problem?,” Harvard Human Rights Journal 15 (2002): 101–25. [37] Richard Rorty, “Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 53, no. 6 (August 1980): 717+719-738. [38]. Mirowski, “The Philosophical Bases of Institutionalist Economics.” [39]. Glenn McGee, ed., Pragmatic Bioethics, 2nd ed, Basic Bioethics (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2003). [40]. Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). [41]. Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice.” [42]. Debora Diniz and Giselle Carino, “What Can Be Learned from the Global South on Abortion and How We Can Learn?,” Developing World Bioethics 23, no. 1 (March 2023): 3–4, https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12385. [43]. International Bioethics Committee, On Social Responsibility and Health Report (Paris: Unesco, 2010). [44]. Cristina Brandão et al., “Social Responsibility: A New Paradigm of Hospital Governance?,” Health Care Analysis 21, no. 4 (December 2013): 390–402, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-012-0206-3. [45] Intissar Haddiya, Taha Janfi, and Mohamed Guedira, “Application of the Concepts of Social Responsibility, Sustainability, and Ethics to Healthcare Organizations,” Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Volume 13 (August 2020): 1029–33, https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S258984. [46]The Biopharmaceutical Bioethics Working Group et al., “Considerations for Applying Bioethics Norms to a Biopharmaceutical Industry Setting,” BMC Medical Ethics 22, no. 1 (December 2021): 31–41, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00600-y. [47] Anne Van Aaken and Betül Simsek, “Rewarding in International Law,” American Journal of International Law 115, no. 2 (April 2021): 195–241, https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2021.2. [48] Jennifer E. Miller, “Bioethical Accreditation or Rating Needed to Restore Trust in Pharma,” Nature Medicine 19, no. 3 (March 2013): 261–261, https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0313-261. [49] John Hardwig, “The Stockholder – A Lesson for Business Ethics from Bioethics?,” Journal of Business Ethics 91, no. 3 (February 2010): 329–41, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0086-0. [50] Stefan van Uden, “Taking up Bioethical Responsibility?: The Role of Global Bioethics in the Social Responsibility of Pharmaceutical Corporations Operating in Developing Countries” (Mestrado, Coimbra, Coimbra University, 2012). [51] María Peana Chivite and Sara Gallardo, “La bioética en la empresa: el caso particular de la Responsabilidad Social Corporativa,” Revista Internacional de Organizaciones, no. 13 (January 12, 2015): 55–81, https://doi.org/10.17345/rio13.55-81. [52] Teubner argues that social spheres tend to develop solutions autonomously, but one sphere interfering in the way other spheres govern themselves tends to result in ineffective regulation and demobilization of their autonomous rule-making capabilities. These spheres should develop “reflexion mechanisms” that enable the exchange of their social knowledge and provide effective, non-damaging solutions to social issues. See Gunther Teubner, “Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law,” Law & Society Review 17, no. 2 (1983): 239–85, https://doi.org/10.2307/3053348.

Coherent Raman spectroscopy: Quo vadis?

Although the potential of Coherent Raman Spectroscopy (CRS) in the area of biomedicine, life sciences and material sciences has been well demonstrated, its wide-spread practical application is still rather limited. The two main CRS techniques are Coherent Anti-Stokes Raman Scattering (CARS) and Stimulated Raman Scattering (SRS) spectroscopy or microscopy. Here we present the current state of the art and challenges facing CRS. Although many technological challenges have been addressed to date, showing how to improve resolution, sensitivity and selectivity of CRS, significant efforts are still needed to increase the awareness of these techniques in the academic community, develop reliable protocols, and extend them to practical applications. For this purpose it is also necessary to initiate national and international research networks that can significantly contribute to the development of CRS approaches in areas that have so far made little use of CRS alongside other Raman spectroscopic methods. The purpose of this perspective paper is to present the current state-of-the-art of CRS with a historical background, assess the challenges and present some future development visions.

Controlled experiment finds no detectable citation bump from Twitter promotion.

Multiple studies across a variety of scientific disciplines have shown that the number of times that a paper is shared on Twitter (now called X) is correlated with the number of citations that paper receives. However, these studies were not designed to answer whether tweeting about scientific papers causes an increase in citations, or whether they were simply highlighting that some papers have higher relevance, importance or quality and are therefore both tweeted about more and cited more. The authors of this study are leading science communicators on Twitter from several life science disciplines, with substantially higher follower counts than the average scientist, making us uniquely placed to address this question. We conducted a three-year-long controlled experiment, randomly selecting five articles published in the same month and journal, and randomly tweeting one while retaining the others as controls. This process was repeated for 10 articles from each of 11 journals, recording Altmetric scores, number of tweets, and citation counts before and after tweeting. Randomization tests revealed that tweeted articles were downloaded 2.6-3.9 times more often than controls immediately after tweeting, and retained significantly higher Altmetric scores (+81%) and number of tweets (+105%) three years after tweeting. However, while some tweeted papers were cited more than their respective control papers published in the same journal and month, the overall increase in citation counts after three years (+7% for Web of Science and +12% for Google Scholar) was not statistically significant (p > 0.15). Therefore while discussing science on social media has many professional and societal benefits (and has been a lot of fun), increasing the citation rate of a scientist's papers is likely not among them.

Exploring the experiences of minoritised groups at life sciences conferences in the UK: new perspectives and actions to improve inclusivity in the sector

Attending and participating in scientific research meetings and conferences is a key mechanism for researchers to share information and knowledge, build networks, and establish relationships and collaborations to support career development. In the UK, researchers from minoritised or underrepresented groups, may have a different experience at a conference than their peers. As a high profile provider of genomics-focussed life science conferences, Wellcome Connecting Science is committed to ensuring that our events are as inclusive as possible. Here we discuss our commitments to improving access and inclusion for everyone at our scientific conferences and research meetings, and we encourage others in the sector to reflect and consider how they can also support equitable experiences.

Binding-induced DNA assembly makes Exo III-aided signal amplification universal for highly sensitive protein detection

Exonuclease III has been involved in many signal amplification strategies for bioanalysis. Although Exo III-based signal amplification methods are sensitive and simple compared to other nuclease-based strategies, existing methods do not work for all proteins. In this work, we combine Exo III-aided signal amplification with binding-induced DNA assembly for highly sensitive protein detection. Two separate single-stranded DNA will hybridize after binding to the same target, and trigger the Exo III-aided target recycling amplification. This strategy can realize homogeneous detection of all proteins, and the detection conditions and performance were discussed. Human epididymis protein-4 (HE4) was token as example, a linear detection range of 0.01 ∼ 50 ng/mL, with the LOD of 3 pg/mL for rapid detection is presented. Notably, a linear relationship in range of 0.05 ∼ 1 pg/mL can be obtained with long time incubation. In conclusion, we believe that this novel approach will have significant implications in life science research, disease diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis.

Automated segmentation of cell organelles in volume electron microscopy using deep learning.

Recent advances in computing power triggered the use of artificial intelligence in image analysis in life sciences. To train these algorithms, a large enough set of certified labeled data is required. The trained neural network is then capable of producing accurate instance segmentation results that will then need to be re-assembled into the original dataset: the entire process requires substantial expertise and time to achieve quantifiable results. To speed-up the process, from cell organelle detection to quantification across electron microscopy modalities, we propose a deep-learning based approach for fast automatic outline segmentation (FAMOUS), that involves organelle detection combined with image morphology, and 3D meshing to automatically segment, visualize and quantify cell organelles within volume electron microscopy datasets. From start to finish, FAMOUS provides full segmentation results within a week on previously unseen datasets. FAMOUS was showcased on a HeLa cell dataset acquired using a focused ion beam scanning electron microscope, and on yeast cells acquired by transmission electron tomography. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Introducing a rapid, multimodal machine-learning workflow for the automatic segmentation of 3D cell organelles. Successfully applied to a variety of volume electron microscopy datasets and cell lines. Outperforming manual segmentation methods in time and accuracy. Enabling high-throughput quantitative cell biology.

Spatial Pattern Analysis using Closest Events (SPACE)-A Nearest Neighbor Point Pattern Analysis Framework for Assessing Spatial Relationships from Digital Images.

The quantitative description of biological structures is a valuable yet difficult task in the life sciences. This is commonly accomplished by imaging samples using fluorescence microscopy and analyzing resulting images using Pearson's correlation or Manders' co-occurrence intensity-based colocalization paradigms. Though conceptually and computationally simple, these approaches are critically flawed due to their reliance on signal overlap, sensitivity to cursory signal qualities, and inability to differentiate true and incidental colocalization. Point pattern analysis provides a framework for quantitative characterization of spatial relationships between spatial patterns using the distances between observations rather than their overlap, thus overcoming these issues. Here we introduce an image analysis tool called Spatial Pattern Analysis using Closest Events (SPACE) that leverages nearest neighbor-based point pattern analysis to characterize the spatial relationship of fluorescence microscopy signals from image data. The utility of SPACE is demonstrated by assessing the spatial association between mRNA and cell nuclei from confocal images of cardiac myocytes. Additionally, we use synthetic and empirical images to characterize the sensitivity of SPACE to image segmentation parameters and cursory image qualities such as signal abundance and image resolution. Ultimately, SPACE delivers performance superior to traditional colocalization methods and offers a valuable addition to the microscopist's toolbox.

Science, technology, and innovation in health for the next twenty years: A survey analysis in Colombia

AbstractBackgroundColombia is a Latin American country with a very complex social and political context that has not allowed the allocation of sufficient resources to the fields of science, technology, and innovation (STI). This is particularly worrying for the area of health since not enough resources are allocated for public health, research, or education.MethodsThe so‐called “Great Survey in Health 2019” was administered online through the SurveyMonkey platform to 5298 people in different regions of the country, representing the public, private, and academic sectors. The questionnaire consisted of 46 open and closed questions, including demographic inquiries. Data analysis involved textual analytics and sentiment analysis.ResultsOverall, 56% of those surveyed were women within the adult life cycle. Most respondents had a postgraduate education. Greater participation was observed in the Oriental, Bogotá, and Antioquia regions, which also concentrate the largest number of resources for STI. Among the main recommendations derived from the results, priorities include investing in research, personalised medicine, promoting the social appropriation of knowledge, addressing mental health, regulating research through a statute, promoting undergraduate research, and establishing recertification exams to pursue excellence.ConclusionThe results of this original study serve as a fundamental input to promote and strengthen the STI processes in life sciences and health. They serve as a guide to generate public policies and actions that guarantee better health and well‐being for the Colombian population, strategically proposing a clear roadmap for the next 20 years.

Platform for Multiple Isotope Labeling via Carbon-Sulfur Bond Exchange.

In this work, we explore a nickel-catalyzed reversible carbon-sulfur (C-S) bond activation strategy to achieve selective sulfur isotope exchange. Isotopes are at the foundation of applications in life science, such as nuclear imaging, and are essential tools for the determination of pharmacokinetic and dynamic profiles of new pharmaceuticals. However, the insertion of an isotope into an organic molecule remains challenging, and current technologies are element-specific. Despite the ubiquitous presence of sulfur in many biologically active molecules, sulfur isotope labeling is an underexplored field, and sulfur isotope exchange has been overlooked. This approach enables us to move beyond standardized element-specific procedures and was applied to multiple isotopes, including deuterium, carbon-13, sulfur-34, and radioactive carbon-14. These results provide a unique platform for multiple isotope labeling and are compatible with a wide range of substrates, including pharmaceuticals. In addition, this technology proved its potential as an isotopic encryption device for organic molecules.

A CONCEPTUAL STUDY OF OJASA AND BALA: REVIEW

Ayurveda is the science of life, and its primary goal is to preserve a healthy state of living, which includes ill-ness prevention and treatment. Ojas is the essence of the seven dhatus or the equivalent of Bala or Sleshma. Ojas is vigour. Ojas is placed in hrdaya and penetrates the whole body, controlling its functioning. By its loss or destruction, the destruction of the body (life) is sure to happen and by its presence, the body is sure to survive. The main function of Ojas is vyadhikshamatva. Bala is the individual's physical and mental strength. Bala is one which prevents the roga, one which is Adhistana of Arogya and treatment is given for protecting it. In Ayurveda, Vyadhikshamatva is also known as Bala. Vyadhikshamatva is the ability or capability of the body to combat sickness and resist disease creation. Manasika Bala might be evaluated as well. This Bala is also linked to Vyadhikshamatva, the body's immunological reaction and vigour. Immunity is defined as the capacity of the body to resist pathogenic agents. So, the concepts of ojas and vyadhikshamatva are similar to modern science immunity.

GENETIC ARCHIVES AND LIFELINE: UNRAVELING THE UMBILICAL CORD’S BIOLOGICAL DATABASE

Biological databases are critical components of the field of bioinformatics, which is dedicated to managing, organising, and making sense of the vast and diverse biological data generated by scientific research. These databases play a fundamental role in modern life sciences, allowing researchers, clinicians, and scientists to access, analyse, and interpret a wide range of biological information. These databases serve as invaluable resources, enabling researchers to access, manage, and analyse biological data, accelerating scientific discoveries and enhancing our understanding of life's complexities. There are various types of biological databases that serve as critical resources for researchers and scientists in the field of life sciences. These databases are categorised based on the types of biological data they store and manage. Keywords: Bioinformatics, biological database, genetics, scientific research, genomics, medical advancements, data repositories

A REVIEW ARTICLE ON NUTRITION IN INFANTS

Nutrition is converting food into energy and other vital nutrients required for life. Nutrients provide energy and biomolecules necessary for carrying out the various body functions. Nutrition is a critical part of health, growth and development. Better nutrition is related to improved child health, strengthens immune systems, and lowers the risk of diseases. Infants, i.e. from birth to one year of age, are a very crucial part of the life of a human being. Nutrition during this period defines how a child grows and develops into an adult, what his physique would be, what his immune system would be, etc. Various research has been done since the beginning and evolution of life sciences. This article will discuss infant nutrition concerning Ayurveda and modern sciences.

Effects of Service Marketing in AI Medical Industry on Brand Image and Consumer Behavior

Emerging smart technology in global medical & health care systems in past years results in the popularity of telework and telehealth. Besides, people’s changing consumption patterns enhance explosive growth of medicine, life sciences, and digital technology in recent years to accelerate the transformation and reform of medical industry. Under real needs and the catalysis of technology, smart medicine becomes the mainstream in the future. For this reason, this study tends to discuss the effect of service marketing in AI medical industry on brand image and consumer behavior. AI medical industry customers in southern Taiwan, as the research samples, are distributed 500 copies of questionnaire. After deducting invalid and incomplete ones, 346 copies of questionnaire are valid, with the retrieval rate 69%. The research results reveal that service marketing would positively and significantly affect brand image, brand image would positively and remarkably affect consumer behavior, and service marketing would positively and notably affect consumer behavior. According to the results to propose suggestions, it is expected to provide effective guide for various service organizations practicing service marketing to grasp critical factors and build the service marketing systems being able to promote the benefit in AI medical industry.

Artificial intelligence (AI) meets biomaterials and biomedicine

With the rapid progress of information technology and life sciences, artificial intelligence (AI) technology has substantially changed the way in many areas of biomaterials and biomedicine, including biomaterials and formulation design, drug development, preclinical study, clinical diagnosis and treatment, as well as health management. This perspective outlines the key issues of AI in the fields of biomaterials and biomedicine applications, and analyzes some opportunities and challenges of AI in the biomedical and clinical development. The gap between experts from multiple disciplines and fields needs to be narrowed, and common participation should be applied to open the next frontier of integrated AI-biomedicine.

A New Generation of Citizen Scientists: Self-Efficacy and Skill Growth in a Voluntary Project Applied in the College Classroom Setting

Using citizen science resources and projects in university education is a burgeoning pedagogical tool that can promote real-world application of science, autonomous learning, and understanding of self-efficacy in science learning. In this case study, we examined several factors relating to self-efficacy and skill growth in STEM and non-STEM majors in life science courses of different levels at one university. Four life science classes in Fall 2022 (n = 109 students) voluntarily participated in a self-guided pollinator training module. Motivations, previous awareness, participation, and self-efficacy and self-identification for citizen science participation and for general scientific inquiry were assessed through pre- and post-surveys before and after module training. Students characterized themselves as STEM or non-STEM majors to understand self-identity. In having students self-report their identity in STEM, we found a trend (79.2%) of natural resource and agricultural majors ranking themselves as non-STEM. Across all participants, we observed a significant increase for learning outcomes between pre- and post-survey results (ɑ = 0.05). Self-reported non-STEM students showed a positive trend between surveys across survey questions. In comparison, self-reported STEM students showed very little increase across surveys but ranked highly in both pre- and post-survey results (mean = 3.42 out of 4). Overall, our findings suggest that even small-scale citizen science–based projects may increase students’ familiarity with concepts based in scientific inquiry and meet learning outcomes benefitting the goals of both higher education and citizen science initiatives.

Theses to Agvan Dorzhiev’s Report at the First International Buddhist Exhibition Expected in 1927 in Leningrad

The publication presents for the first time the B. Baradin’s theses to A. Dorzhiev’s lecture that was supposed to be delivered at the international Buddhist exhibition in Leningrad in 1927. A. Dorzhiev was a famous Buryat lama who received the academic title of Geshe (the highest philosophical academic degree in the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism) upon completion of his philosophical education in the monasteries of Mongolia and Tibet. After 1918, he was involved in organizational issues of the Buddhist Sangha in Russia. B. Baradin was an academic scientist and public figure, a professor at St. Petersburg University, and the author of studies on the history and teachings of Tibetan Buddhism. After the revolution of 1917, he began working in Buryatia in various administrative positions, focusing on the organization of the scientific and cultural life of the Republic. Their main idea is that the modern world consists of the two equal parts - East and West, unification of which is possible and even necessary for the further development of humanity. The system-forming teaching of the East is Buddhism; and the lecture hold on those aspects of Buddhist philosophy that could be compared with the teachings of the West. Four points are highlighted: 1) Buddhism is comparable to Darwin’s theory in that both consider humans in the context of all living beings in an evolutionary manner; 2) Buddhism, like science, accepts the determinism principle; 3) the Buddhist concept of shunya is similar to the relativistic principles of physics; and 4) the system of Buddhist psychotechniques is similar to the theory of reflexology. B. Baradin concludes that Indo-Buddhist culture and European culture are complementary and their rapprochement will bring us closer to a truly universal culture. The theses mentioned here are, apparently, the first systematic exposition of the views of neo-Buddhists-renewalists on the points of convergence between Buddhist and Western cultures.

Differential Responses to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors are Governed by Diverse Mismatch Repair Gene Alterations.

The response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer is variable. Here, we explored the differential response to ICIs according to different mismatch repair alterations. Colorectal cancer (N = 13,701) and endometrial cancer (N = 3,315) specimens were tested at Caris Life Sciences. Median overall survival (mOS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier. The prediction of high-, intermediate-, and low-affinity epitopes by tumor mutation burden (TMB) values was conducted using R-squared (R2). Compared with mutL (MLH1 and PMS2) co-loss, the mOS was longer in mutS (MSH2 and MSH6) co-loss in all colorectal cancer (54.6 vs. 36 months; P = 0.0.025) and endometrial cancer (81.5 vs. 48.2 months; P < 0.001) patients. In ICI-treated patients, the mOS was longer in mutS co-loss in colorectal cancer [not reached (NR) vs. 36 months; P = 0.011). In endometrial cancer, the mOS was NR vs. 42.2 months; P = 0.711]. The neoantigen load (NAL) in mutS co-loss compared with mutL co-loss was higher in colorectal cancer (high-affinity epitopes: 25.5 vs. 19; q = 0.017, intermediate: 39 vs. 32; q = 0.004, low: 87.5 vs. 73; q < 0.001) and endometrial cancer (high-affinity epitopes: 15 vs. 11; q = 0.002, intermediate: 27.5 vs. 19; q < 0.001, low: 59 vs. 41; q < 0.001), respectively. R2 ranged from 0.25 in mutS co-loss colorectal cancer to 0.95 in mutL co-loss endometrial cancer. Patients with mutS co-loss experienced longer mOS in colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer and better response to ICIs in colorectal cancer. Among all explored biomarkers, NAL was higher in mutS co-loss and may be a potential driving factor for the observed better outcomes. TMB did not reliably predict NAL.

Intellectual Property Rights and Economical Development: A Brief Overview

A "strong" IPRs regime, in the sense of providing robust protection of private intellectual property rights, was not a necessary prerequisite for their economic growth, according to the historical experiences of the now-developed nations while they were growing themselves, which we reviewed. Most of them did not provide PIPRs with any real protection until quite late in their development related to life science and especially biotechnology. Even the most developed nations, like the UK and the US, didn't create robust PIPRs regimes until the middle of the 19th century (with the exception of copyright protection in the US's instance), while the less developed nations didn't establish such regimes until much later. The legal framework governing the ownership and protection of intangible works of human intelligence, such as inventions, literary and creative creations, designs, symbols, names, and pictures used in commerce, is known as the Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) regime. This system consists of international agreements, rules, and laws that provide owners or inventors of intellectual property the exclusive right to profit from their creations or investments in them.  For the purposes of this paper, it is more important to note that all of these nations were quite willing to v30isolate the intellectual property rights (IPRs) of other nations, even when they had put in place laws protecting the IPRs. Examples include hiring illegal foreign labor, smuggling machinery, industrial espionage, violating trademark laws, allowing the patenting of imported inventions, and outright refusing to adopt the patent system (in the case of the Netherlands and Switzerland) related to life science and especially biotechnology. Some nations approached this issue in ways that can only be described. The best examples include the routine infringement of British trademarks by German producers in the late 19th century, when the nation was pressuring Switzerland to enact a patent law, and the US pressing other nations for the "improvement" of their patent laws in the lead-up to the adoption of the Paris Convention while flatly refusing to protect foreign copyrights related to life science and especially biotechnology. We talked about the issues with the dominant IPR regime that is now in place, which is centered on the patent system, and the TRIPS agreement that represents its apex. Contrary to popular belief, a "good" IPRs regime need not provide the strongest protection for private IPRs. Next, we looked at whether developing nations would likely gain from a stronger PIPRs system, particularly the one required under the TRIPS. Given that most developing nations do minimal R&amp;D and that much of the new information they produce is not patentable, the "domestic" advantages of a stronger IPRs system—that is, an increase in knowledge production by the citizens—are probably relatively minor related to life science.

Assumption-free analysis for amplification-based quantitative nucleic acid detection.

The accurate detection and quantification of biological species that are rarely present but potentially devastating is of paramount importance for the life sciences, biosecurity, food safety, and environmental monitoring. Consequently, there has been significant interest in the sensitive and accurate detection of nucleic acids, leveraging both chemical and biological methods. Among these, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is regarded as the gold standard due to its sensitivity and precision in identifying specific nucleic acid targets. Despite the widespread adoption of qPCR for nucleic acid detection, the analysis of qPCR data typically depends on the use of calibrated standard curves and a threshold method to interpret signal measurements. In this study, we use a stochastic simulation to show the limitations of the threshold method due to its assumptions on amplification kinetics. We propose a new approach for the absolute quantification of nucleic acids that overcomes these limitations by reconstructing the efficiency profile across amplification cycles and using cumulative amplification folds to build a standard curve, thus avoiding the constant efficiency assumption. Our method, validated through experiments with nucleic acid amplification in the presence of potent inhibitors, demonstrates improved accuracy in quantifying nucleic acids, avoiding the systematic errors of the threshold method. This innovation enhances the reliability of nucleic acid quantification, especially where traditional methods struggle with kinetic variability.