The ethical treatment of human remains after excavation is a core debate in archaeology. This project explores the treatment of human remains in some European museums with an aim to support open discussion of complex ethical issues among research and heritage professionals involved in the care of human remains.

Since its inception, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) has typically determined the value of a technology by collecting information derived from randomized clinical trials (RCTs), in line with the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM). However, data from RCTs did not constitute the sole source of information, as other types of evidence (such as primary qualitative research) have often been utilized. Recent advances in both generating and collecting other types of evidence are broadening the landscape of evidence, adding complexity to the discussion of “robustness of evidence.” What are the consequences of these recent developments for the methodology and conduct of HTA, the HTA community, and its ethical commitments? The aim of this article is to explore some ethical challenges that are emerging in the current evolving evidence landscape, particularly changes in evidence generation and collection (e.g., diversification of data sources), and shifting standards of evidence in the field of HTA (e.g., increasing acceptability of evidence that is thought of as lower quality). Our conclusion is that deciding how to best maintain trustworthiness is common to all these issues.

One of the goals of open science is to promote the transparency and accessibility of research. Sharing data and materials used in network research is critical to these goals. In this paper, we present recommendations for whether, what, when, and where network data and materials should be shared. We recommend that network data and materials should be shared, but access to or use of shared data and materials may be restricted if necessary to avoid harm or comply with regulations. Researchers should share the network data and materials necessary to reproduce reported results via a publicly accessible repository when an associated manuscript is published. To ensure the adoption of these recommendations, network journals should require sharing, and network associations and academic institutions should reward sharing.

It is widely agreed upon that morality guides people with conflicting interests towards agreements of mutual benefit. We therefore might expect numerous proposals for organizing human moral cognition around the logic of bargaining, negotiation, and agreement. Yet, while “contractualist” ideas play an important role in moral philosophy, they are starkly underrepresented in the field of moral psychology. From a contractualist perspective, ideal moral judgments are those that would be agreed to by rational bargaining agents—an idea with wide-spread support in philosophy, psychology, economics, biology, and cultural evolution. As a practical matter, however, investing time and effort in negotiating every interpersonal interaction is unfeasible. Instead, we propose, people use abstractions and heuristics to efficiently identify mutually beneficial arrangements. We argue that many well-studied elements of our moral minds, such as reasoning about others’ utilities (“consequentialist” reasoning) or evaluating intrinsic ethical properties of certain actions (“deontological” reasoning), can be naturally understood as resource-rational approximations of a contractualist ideal. Moreover, this view explains the flexibility of our moral minds—how our moral rules and standards get created, updated and overridden and how we deal with novel cases we have never seen before. Thus, the apparently fragmentary nature of our moral psychology—commonly described in terms of systems in conflict—can be largely unified around the principle of finding mutually beneficial agreements under resource constraint. Our resulting “triple theory” of moral cognition naturally integrates contractualist, consequentialist and deontological concerns.

Scholars have called for additional research into the antecedents to corporate political activity (CPA), including why firms may engage in specific kinds of CPA. In response, in what we believe to be a first-of-its-kind study, we rely on upper echelons theory to explore the relationship between CEO personality and the kind of CPA in which a firm engages. In particular, we argue that certain traits will be related to ideological CPA (iCPA) that is less beneficial to the firm but which will appeal to CEOs with those traits. We also propose that managerial discretion will moderate the relationship between CEO personality and this form of opportunistic CPA. We test our hypotheses using a unique database combined with a variety of archival sources, resulting in a sample of 329 publicly traded firms from the S&P 500 for which we had complete records that engaged in CPA 63,142 times over a ten-year period (2011–2020). We find that CEO agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism will be negatively related to iCPA, while CEO openness will be positively associated with it. We further find that managerial discretion moderates the relationship of CEO extraversion and openness with iCPA, however in opposite directions. Finally, we discuss theoretical and managerial implications and propose directions for future research.

Environmental education (EE) can never be separated from politics and the relationship between the two is complex, has changed over time, and is understood and experienced differently. The field’s relationship with politics is both internal (its own politics) and external (political forces outside the field) to it. In this article, I narrate my story of engaging with EE, politics and the relationship between the two. I refer to my story as an autocartophilosography because it has been significantly influenced by my engagement with philosophy and by my movement in space and over time. My most recent engagement has been with scholars’ theorising in the posthuman condition, and I suggest that this present condition requires a different politics, an affirmative politics. I generate seven propositions towards an affirmative politics for EE: making kin, transversal subjectivity, new alliances, dis/identification, embracing slowness, ethical and intellectual stamina; experimental energy.

In Bangladesh, many secularists pursue their political goals through cultural activism. While committed to achieving a secular, progressive, and non-communal society, they often refrain from explicitly articulating their politics due to the sensitivity of their goals. Instead, cultural performances allow them to instantiate and embody a secular ethos with transformative potential, expressed through distinct cultural genres that become recognized as secular aesthetics. While activists consider culture to be a morally superior and ‘purer’ way to promote their political aims than party politics, which they perceive as ‘dirty’ and corrupt, cultural traditions are hardly neutral ground from which to enact secular aspirations. This article explores the ethical struggles that emerge from this position to illuminate what it means to act politically while trying to avoid politics, and why people might choose comparatively elusive forms of political engagement despite their strong commitment to a cause. Attending to less tangible forms of politics encourages us to rethink the role of political messages and visibility in social movements by highlighting the significant role, as well as contradictory implications, of aesthetics, embodiment, and gestures in political action. Conversely, the elusive politics of cultural activism underlines the need to go beyond analysing national discourses to understand the contested nature of secularism in Bangladesh.

Kenneth Waltz once stated, unequivocally, that, ‘I consider myself to be a Kantian, not a positivist’. I explain what Waltz might have meant by this, and how deep this professed Kantianism ran. Such is the depth of the engagement, I argue, that it is no exaggeration to claim that Waltz's political philosophy, his philosophy of history, his philosophy of science, his methodology, and his normative theory of anarchy are all broadly Kantian. Crucially, what Waltz meant by the ‘virtues of anarchy’, is best understood as an attempt to develop a regulative ideal, or an ‘organising principle’ of ‘practical reason’ that would guide diplomats in the nuclear age. Indeed, in his most contentious intervention in global public policy, Waltz deploys Kant to argue that horizontal nuclear spread, rather than the spread of democracy, would ensure the peaceful development of states. This anarchic nuclear peace would, he thought, be the means to achieve ‘perpetual pacification’. This revisionist reconstruction is the primary contribution of the paper. But through unsettling paradigmatic readings of ‘Waltzian IR theory’, the paper also presents an immanent critique of ‘the virtues of anarchy’ that contributes to a wider research project on the concept of anarchy and its emancipatory potential.

Artificial intelligence (AI) recently had its “iPhone moment” and adoption has drastically accelerated. Quantum computing appears poised to follow suit over the next years. However, while there has been discourse about how to use AI responsibly, there is still little appreciation and awareness among executives, managers and practitioners about the broader ethical questions and implications raised by the intersection of these emerging technologies. In this article, it is highlighted why quantum computing and AI ethics must be taken seriously by businesspersons and how these technologies affect strategic decisions; moreover, recommendations and action areas are formulated.

Amputation as a life-saving measure for earthquake-trapped patients is supported by WHO and INSARAG guidelines. However, implementing these guidelines in highly stressful contexts can complicate decision-making. This report presents a case of life-saving amputation during the 2023 Turkey earthquake, adhering to recommended guidelines. The 16-year-old patient was trapped for 55 hours in a narrow corridor. Extensive interdisciplinary discussions led to the decision for a field amputation after alternative rescue attempts failed. Consent was obtained from the family, given the patient’s delirium. Meticulous planning and anesthesia using midazolam and ketamine ensured successful amputation with minimal blood loss. Challenges encountered during the disaster response were discussed. Delays in administering antibiotics, a lack of cervical protection, ethical dilemmas, psychological concerns, and legal implications were highlighted. Continued improvement and addressing ethical, legal, and psychological aspects are essential for optimal disaster response outcomes.

Germline gene editing (GGE) is a controversial procedure, prohibited by most intergovernmental and scientific bodies and is not currently medically utilized. However, given circumstances where GGE would be essential for human survival, it is possible that GGE could be ideal, ethical and even necessary. One such possible instance of this circumstance could be long-term presence of humans on other planets. In our paper, we point out that there is a strong case for genetically modifying humans, including through GGE, for a future settlement in space directed at preserving human (and other) species. To avoid unnecessarily suffering and death from such difficult missions and environments, GGE enhancements should be considered, although only if shown to be safe, well-regulated and efficacious. We also examine and detail how major ethical frameworks can be shown to support, rather than prohibit, such procedures.

The field of International Studies has often been concerned with either negative conceptualisations of freedom and liberty (i.e. freedom from obstacles and interference) or positive notions of freedom (i.e. the possibility to act and develop). Further, these two notions of freedom have been conceived of as rival and incompatible. Drawing upon Simone de Beauvoir’s ethics of ambiguity (1947), this article rejects such a binary conceptualisation of freedom and instead puts forward a relational understanding of freedom. This article also begins to sketch the possibilities offered by such an understanding of freedom via a nascent dialogue between this relational freedom and the ethics of care. Specifically, it is posited that care and freedom weave together to form the very ethical space and conditions in and through which in becomes possible to pursue various life projects in the first place. Care and freedom, it is suggested, may thus provide one orientation for studying and practising international relations in a manner that moves towards building, amending, and maintaining relations that better support everyone (where this, crucially, also entails the ending of relations which oppress, harm, and cause suffering).

When admitting patients to hospital and treating them, psychiatrists and other health professionals may need to deprive them of their liberty. Where this occurs, professionals will need to work within a statutory framework to practice legally and protect their patients’ right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Within England and Wales, some clinical scenarios will require a choice to be made between the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and its Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This choice can be complex, is often overlooked and frequently misunderstood in clinical practice. Deciding between the two frameworks must be done on a case-specific basis. With the use of code of practice guidelines, case law and an unfolding clinical scenario we aim in this article to support clinicians in taking a clear-sighted approach to the dilemma and the factors to consider when deciding between the two regimes.

Unethical behavior among US judges, including sexual misconduct and other forms of discriminatory behavior, is becoming increasingly publicized. These controversies are particularly concerning given the important role judges play in shaping policy pertaining to individual rights. We argue that types of misconduct serve as a signal to the public about potential threats judges may pose to people, particularly groups of people who are marginalized. We use a survey experiment that introduces a judge who has engaged in misconduct to measure if the type of misconduct will influence attitudes on whether the judge poses a threat to the rights of women, racial minorities, and ethnic minorities. Interestingly, we find that judges accused of discriminatory misconduct toward one group are viewed as a threat to rights across the board and are seen as less able to rule fairly on matters pertaining to marginalized people more generally.

This editorial describes the Cass Review findings and the extraordinary challenge we all face in managing uncertainty amid a toxic and highly polarised debate. Children and young people will only get the best care if patients and professionals join forces to seek answers collaboratively and respectfully.