Program

Download the program here (PDF, 274 KB).

We are delighted to welcome an outstanding group of keynote speakers to our event. Each of them brings unique perspectives and expertise that promise to enrich our discussions. We look forward to their insights and the engaging conversations that will follow.

Title: «What does scientific responsibility and integrity mean in times of polarized and politicized research?»

Outline: Research has become ever more polarized and politicized. This poses basic challenges to scientific responsibility and integrity. In this keynote lecture Bjørn Hofmann will characterize polarization and politization in research. He will then discuss the implications for research ethics in terms of responsibility and integrity. In order to point to ways to promote scientific responsibility and integrity Hofmann will investigate drivers and facilitators of polarization and politization.

Bio: Bjørn Hofmann is a Norwegian professor in philosophy of medicine and bioethics with special interest for the relationship between epistemology and ethics. He is affiliated with and the Centre for Medical Ethics at the University of Oslo in Norway and the Department of Health Science at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) at Gjøvik. Hofmann is trained in the natural sciences (electrical engineering and biomedical technology), history of ideas, and philosophy. His main subjects and interests are basic concepts for health care, norms of knowledge and evidence production, the theory and practice of governing technology, health services research, and (bio)medical ethics.

Title: «Moonshots and miracles – how to ethically navigate the gene therapy debate»

Outline: Gene therapy currently raises high societal expectations. At the core of these therapies lie ethical assumptions about hope, healing, and the potential for cure. Some gene therapies have also shown to be very successful and be able to significantly improve the quality of life of individuals.
Gene therapies are sometimes presented as moonshots, showing the direction in which science should develop and patients expect to be cured. Some successful examples of gene therapy are also presented as miracles. I will argue that there’s an interesting analogy between gene therapy and miracles as we know them from the Christian tradition, with sudden cures of diseases that were previously impossible to be cured, faith in the therapy and the healing power of physicians.
I will argue that framing gene therapies as moonshots and miracles can have implications for at least three ethical aspects in the gene therapy discussion that are currently underemphasized: not offering false hope, ensuring equitable access (not everyone can be cured), and the social value of gene therapy.

Bio: Rieke van der Graaf is an associate professor of Bioethics, with a special focus on research ethics, the ethics of gene therapies and global health ethics. She is the head of the Bioethics and Health Humanities department at the Julius Center of the UMC Utrecht. She is co-director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Bioethics. She is a member of various committees, including the Dutch Health Council, and the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects in the Netherlands.

Title: «Towards a global health approach: the challenges for One Health»

Outline: Broad visions, to encompass diversity, and articulated visions, to present an integrated picture, are the best approach for deeply understanding the surrounding reality, being also a fundamental basis for acting effectively on the problems that arise.
This is also the case in the field of health. The holistic approach to health began to be recommended by the World Health Organization in 1948, in its definition of health (widely criticized at the time, remaining controversial for decades); the most recent step in pursuing this path was the proposal for One Health (generally well accepted, which is a sign of the times).
One Health is a holistic and integrated approach that recognizes the interconnection between the health of humans, animals, plants, and their shared environment (ecosystems), currently considered by the WHO as crucial for preventing and responding to global health threats like pandemics. This approach, if well and fully implemented on the field, could have avoided or minimized the impact of several epidemics/pandemics of the 21st century (e.g. H5N1 Avian Influenza, SARS, H1N1 Influenza / Swine Flu, MERS, Ebola, Zika, COVID-19, Monkeypox).
There are currently several international programs seeking to implement the One Health perspective. However, this has proved to be quite difficult and challenging. The challenges are of different nature – e.g. scientific, terminological and methodological, regulatory –, arise on different levels – e.g. political, institutional, professional –, and require different types of intervention – e.g. communication, collaboration, coordination.
In this talk we will try to present the specific nature of the One Health approach, defining the concept and outlining its scope (what is it?); explain the origin of its formulation, highlighting the context and objectives of its proposal (how and why did it come about?); and point out the requirements for its successful implementation, identifying the important challenges that its deployment poses (how is it operationalized?).

Bio: Maria do Céu Patrão Neves is Full Professor of Ethics of the University of the Azores (Portugal), President of the National Council of Ethics for the Life Sciences (Portugal), Vice-chair of the European Group of Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE, European Commission), Member Steering Committee for Human Rights in the fields of Biomedicine and Health (CDBIO, Council of Europe), of the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST, UNESCO), of the Lisbon Academy of Sciences. She was consultant on Ethics of Life for the President of the Portuguese Republic, Member of the Board of Directors of the International Association of Bioethics. Currently she teaches at different Universities and is a member of several Ethics Committees, also coordinating international projects, namely within Africa-EU partnership. Ethics expert and project evaluator for the European Commission, and Ethics Advisor and Chair of Ethics Advisory Boards (EAC) of several European Research Projects. Authored and/or coordinated 38 books, including the 13-volume collection dedicated to Applied Ethics (2016-2018), and the Dictionary of Global Bioethics, with Henk ten Have (2021), and hundreds of papers, delivered over 400 conferences. She is a regular columnist in regional and national journals. Member of the European Parliament (2009-2014).

Title: «When Slowing Down Creates Value»

Outline: Healthcare innovation and research often prioritises acceleration and efficiency. This talk challenges this paradigm by examining how slowing down can result in more meaningful and beneficial outcomes. Drawing on examples from medical research and community engagement initiatives, and my own research on judgments about laziness, effort, and productivity, I distinguish between justified slowness and mere delay. Pacing in research and innovation leads to more ethically sound and effective healthcare advancements but there are challenges in determining when deliberate pacing creates value.

Bio: Katrien Devolder is Professor of Applied Ethics and Director of Public Philosophy at the Uehiro Oxford Institute, and a Fellow at Reuben College, University of Oxford. Her work has mainly focussed on the ethics of cloning, stem cell research, gene editing in humans and animals, medical complicity, and the role of compromise in bioethical debate. Her most recent project explores the meaning and impact of judgments about laziness through community engagement and research (https://www.projectlazy.co.uk). She produces (conducts, films and edits) interviews with academics to make complex ethical debates accessible to a wide audience (Uehiro Oxford Institute YouTube Channel/Thinking Out Loud podcast) and engages with diverse communities, including children, to foster critical thinking and meaningful dialogue around ethical issues.