@article{AlmeidaRanisch2022,
  author    = {Almeida, Mara and Ranisch, Robert},
  title     = {Beyond safety: mapping the ethical debate on heritable genome editing interventions},
  series = {Humanities and Social Sciences Communications},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Humanities and Social Sciences Communications},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Springer Nature},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {2662-9992},
  doi       = {10.1057/s41599-022-01147-y},
  pages     = {14},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Genetic engineering has provided humans the ability to transform organisms by direct manipulation of genomes within a broad range of applications including agriculture (e.g., GM crops), and the pharmaceutical industry (e.g., insulin production). Developments within the last 10 years have produced new tools for genome editing (e.g., CRISPR/Cas9) that can achieve much greater precision than previous forms of genetic engineering. Moreover, these tools could offer the potential for interventions on humans and for both clinical and non-clinical purposes, resulting in a broad scope of applicability. However, their promising abilities and potential uses (including their applicability in humans for either somatic or heritable genome editing interventions) greatly increase their potential societal impacts and, as such, have brought an urgency to ethical and regulatory discussions about the application of such technology in our society. In this article, we explore different arguments (pragmatic, sociopolitical and categorical) that have been made in support of or in opposition to the new technologies of genome editing and their impact on the debate of the permissibility or otherwise of human heritable genome editing interventions in the future. For this purpose, reference is made to discussions on genetic engineering that have taken place in the field of bioethics since the 1980s. Our analysis shows that the dominance of categorical arguments has been reversed in favour of pragmatic arguments such as safety concerns. However, when it comes to involving the public in ethical discourse, we consider it crucial widening the debate beyond such pragmatic considerations. In this article, we explore some of the key categorical as well sociopolitical considerations raised by the potential uses of heritable genome editing interventions, as these considerations underline many of the societal concerns and values crucial for public engagement. We also highlight how pragmatic considerations, despite their increasing importance in the work of recent authoritative sources, are unlikely to be the result of progress on outstanding categorical issues, but rather reflect the limited progress on these aspects and/or pressures in regulating the use of the technology.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GrosseBoeltingScheppachMuehling2023,
  author    = {Große-B{\"o}lting, Gregor and Scheppach, Lukas and M{\"u}hling, Andreas},
  title     = {The Place of Ethics in Computer Science Education},
  series = {Hochschuldidaktik Informatik HDI 2021 (Commentarii informaticae didacticae)},
  journal   = {Hochschuldidaktik Informatik HDI 2021 (Commentarii informaticae didacticae)},
  number    = {13},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-548-4},
  issn      = {1868-0844},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-61598},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-615982},
  pages     = {173 -- 187},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Ethical issues surrounding modern computing technologies play an increasingly important role in the public debate. Yet, ethics still either doesn't appear at all or only to a very small extent in computer science degree programs. This paper provides an argument for the value of ethics beyond a pure responsibility perspective and describes the positive value of ethical debate for future computer scientists. It also provides a systematic analysis of the module handbooks of 67 German universities and shows that there is indeed a lack of ethics in computer science education. Finally, we present a principled design of a compulsory course for undergraduate students.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Raters2020,
  author    = {Raters, Marie-Luise},
  title     = {Ich tat doch nur meine Pflicht!},
  series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Praktische Philosophie},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Praktische Philosophie},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Salzburg},
  address   = {Salzburg},
  issn      = {2409-9961},
  doi       = {10.22613/zfpp/7.1.2},
  pages     = {43 -- 68},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Menschen, die moralisch Herausragendes getan haben, sagen mit signifikanter H{\"a}ufigkeit, dass sie damit nur ‚ihre Pflicht' getan h{\"a}tten. So auch Staszek Jackowski, der im besetzten Polen 18 Monate lang 32 j{\"u}dische Menschen in einem Keller unter seinem Haus vor den Nazi-Verbrechern versteckt hatte. Der Essay diskutiert dieses irritierende Ph{\"a}nomen, das in der aktuellen angloamerikanischen Supererogationsforschung als ‚Heroismus-Paradox' bezeichnet wird. In einem ersten Schritt wird Jackowskis Handlungsweise als Supererogation (Ultraerogation) und damit als Nichtpflicht ausgewiesen. Anschließend werden verschiedene L{\"o}sungsvorschl{\"a}ge des Heroismus-Paradoxes diskutiert. Daraus wird ein alternativer L{\"o}sungsvorschlag entwickelt, demzufolge das Handeln von Supererogateuren in einer freiwilligen Selbstverpflichtung auf einen besonders anspruchsvollen Entwurf vom moralischen Selbst wurzelt. In zwei Ausblicken wird abschließend in grobem Umriss begr{\"u}ndet, warum Mitl{\"a}ufer unanst{\"a}ndig wirken und was unter Jackowskis Umst{\"a}nden tats{\"a}chlich moralische Pflicht gewesen w{\"a}re.},
  language  = {de}
}