SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Ethics " 273 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
The Death of Public Health
During the recent measles outbreak, the largest in more than 30 years, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. refused to clearly recommend the measles vaccine, saying instead that it was a “personal decision,” and that parents should “do their own research.” Similarly, during her recent confirmation hearing for United States Surgeon General, Casey Means was questioned by Senator William Cassidy (R, La). “You’re the nation’s doctor,” said Cassidy. “Would you encourage [a mother] to have her child vaccinated!” “I’m not an individual’s doctor,” Means said. “And every individual needs to talk to their doctor before putting a medication in their body.” In June 2025, Marty Makary, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said that COVID vaccines for pregnant women should be a “personal choice”, even though every other country in the world recommended the COVID vaccine during pregnancy due to a higher risk for severe disease. It doesn’t end there. On January 5, 2026, RFK Jr. reduced the number of routinely recommended vaccines from 18 to 10. For vaccines that protected against influenza, COVID, and rotavirus, parents were urged to speak with their doctors—to make an individual choice. (On March 16, 2026, in a ruling by a federal court in Boston, RFK Jr.’s revised schedule was invalidated.) What’s happening? Why are public health officials moving away from making recommendations for the public? The origin of this change might be rooted in the first two years of the COVID pandemic. In 2020, during the first year on the pandemic, we didn’t have anything to stop a virus that was killing hundreds of people a day and could be spread asymptomatically. We didn’t have antivirals until October, monoclonal antibodies until November, and vaccines until December. All we could do was restrict travel, close businesses, shutter schools, and mask, isolate, quarantine, test, and social distance. During the second year of the pandemic, when we had vaccines to prevent COVID, people couldn’t go anywhere without their vaccine cards. They couldn’t go to their favorite bar or restaurant or sporting event or place of worship without proof of vaccination. Some people were fired from their jobs for refusing to get vaccinated. For many, this was seen as massive government overreach and energized what has been called the “medical freedom movement.” Indeed, a headline in the New York Times declared, “How Health Freedom Became a Winning Rally Cry.” As expressed in the comments of RFK Jr., Casey Means, and Marty Makary, the medical freedom movement focuses on the individual not the community—the opposite of public health. In an article titled “Ethics and Social Value Judgments in Public Health,” ethicists from Yale University distinguished public health from medical freedom. “Public health policies,” they wrote, “are population oriented. Because individual health affects the health of others, public health measures regulate individual behavior to achieve population health goals. All raise questions about how individual autonomy and freedom should be balanced against public health interests…which respects individuals’ sovereignty over their bodies and actions as long as their actions do not harm others.” The medical freedom movement fails to recognize that it often limits the freedom of others. For example, a parent who is afraid to send a child to school where many of the students are unvaccinated. Or immune compromised children who depend on those around them to for protection. The question then becomes “Freedom for whom?” Is it your right, in the name of medical freedom, to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection—and in so doing, take away the freedom of others? In Four Essays on Liberty, Isaiah Berlin sums it up best. “Liberty for the wolves,” he wrote, “is death to the lambs.” Thanks for reading Beyond the Noise! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe
Nancy Mace introduces resolution to expel Republican Cory Mills from Congress
Mills, who is being investigated by the House Ethics Committee in connection with allegations including sexual and financial misconduct, has denied wrongdoing.
House Ethics conducted 28 sexual misconduct investigations in 50 years, with 4 Florida Congressmen targeted
Current Florida candidate Madison Cawthorn also was investigated when he represented North Carolina.
A Deep Dive into Hawai‘i’s Shell Jewelry Industry
The journey of a seashell from the reef to a pendant on a gold chain is a fascinating tale made increasingly relevant as a burgeoning business takes shape. Three Hawai‘i artisans who make jewelry from shells talk about their craft as well as the ethics of shelling for commerce and for personal collections.
Statehouse beat: Ethics in West Virginia politics are dead and gone
We are witnessing an appalling, perhaps unprecedented decline in ethics in West Virginia politics.
Four receive inaugural Responsible Business and Ethics Awards
Justin Ames, associate professor in management and the College of Business and Economics Robert V....
Doing business right
For Kelly O'Brien, business and ethics go hand in hand.
Fraud allegations may spark additional probe
Staff found 15 instances when this occurred but noted that time limits for making a decision made it “impossible to determine the exact number of fraudulent QC’s claimed by Collector 1.”
The Ethics of Junk Science: It’s Time for a Reboot - Petrie-Flom Center
Science is supposed to be self-correcting. That mechanism is broken.
SBART Press Luncheon: Matteo Williams Receives Phil Womble Ethics in Sports Award
Matteo Burdick and Josephine Grossman are the SBART Athletes of the Week.
Judge weighs whether ethics case should proceed against Councilmember Paladino
Paladino has several days to provide a written response.
Pitt Team Shines in National Bioethics Competition
In an annual tournament where students debate ethical issues in medicine, biotechnology and health care, the Pitt team placed second.
Ethics panel clears Life Science Hub board member for paid adviser gig under ‘hardship’ exception
The Rhode Island Ethics Commission unanimously approved a staff recommendation Tuesday allowing Patrice Milos to serve as a paid advisor to the Life Science Hub, despite Milos' recent role on the 15-person, volunteer board for the agency.
Ethics panel clears Life Science Hub board member for paid adviser gig under ‘hardship’ exception
For the second time in less than two years, Patrice Milos is temporarily swapping her volunteer role on the board for the Rhode Island Life Science Hub to take a paid agency position. And again, the s...
House Ethics Committee investigating sexual misconduct allegations against Swalwell
The announcement comes one day after Swalwell suspended his campaign for California governor after the emergence of allegations that he continues to deny.
How Commissioner Joe Neunder became a symbol of everything voters distrust in SWFL
Sarasota land deal raises ethics questions and fuels voter distrust
Pooja Thakur-Wernz Publishes Paper in the Journal of Business Ethics
Pooja Thakur-Wernz, assistant professor of business administration at Washington and Lee University, recently co-authored an article published in the Journal of Business Ethics, titled “Family Owne…
Infantino’s FIFA: Ten years of power, politics, and so-called ethics
Gianni Infantino promised reform, transparency, accountability, and a “new FIFA.” Ten years on, Infantino’s FIFA is instead defined by political proximity, weakened scrutiny, and an increasing alignment with state power at the highest levels.
House Ethics Committee to consider sanctions for Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick on April 21
The meeting on punishment, up to expulsion, will happen as Florida lawmakers consider a map that already could end her career.
3L Rachel Sadler Charts Path in Brain Health, Technology, and Policy Through UC Law SF’s Health Law Concentration - UC Law San Francisco (Formerly UC Hastings)
3L Rachel Sadler studies health law and policy at UC Law SF while researching the legal implications of neurotechnology and other emerging tools that may affect human cognition. 3L student Rachel Sadler shares how UC Law SF’s Health Law Concentration prepared her for a career focused on the intersection of brain health, government policy, and technology. Gained a detailed understanding of how U.S. health care is regulated and where policy reform is needed through coursework and research. Interned with state and federal agencies that regulate health care services and worked with a major health care provider’s bioethics department. Plans to pursue a career focused on protecting cognitive liberty and mental privacy as new technologies reshape healthcare. 3L Rachel Sadler: The Health Law Concentration has given me fluency in one of the most complex regulated industries and the tools to become an effective advocate for better health policy. Before coming to law school, I spent a decade teaching and working with teachers and administrators on high school programming for multilingual learners. Healthcare kept emerging as the most powerful driver of student outcomes. I wanted to understand how to make effective policy change in this area and how to use existing law to defend people’s health rights in California. Through the concentration’s coursework, I gained a sophisticated understanding of how U.S. healthcare is regulated. I also learned where the pressure points for reform exist. The courses gave me space to develop what became my central research interest: how law and policy can be built to protect human cognition and healthy brain development, particularly regarding new technologies such as generative AI and neurotechnology. The health law faculty were instrumental in that process, genuinely invested in helping me and other students define and pursue our own intellectual vision. During law school, I interned at the General Counsel’s Office for Region IX of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. I also externed at the California Department of Justice’s Health, Education and Welfare Division. Additionally, I externed at Kaiser Permanente Northern California’s Bioethics Department. Alongside those placements, I conducted extensive independent research on mental privacy and emerging neurotechnology, working closely with Professors Emily Murphy and George Horvath. That research became the throughline of my law school experience and the foundation of my current policy focus. I must also credit Nicole Ozer of the Center for Constitutional Democracy (CCD), whose deep knowledge of California privacy law and the public-interest privacy landscape deeply informed my work. I currently serve a research assistant with the CCD, where I spearhead the development of K-12 educational resources in partnership with law faculty and students. I’ve found UC Law SF to be an ideal place for second-career, nontraditional students. There is a tremendous diversity of life and career experience here, and I felt fully welcomed into the community, despite returning as a student at a different stage of life. I came to law school wanting to promote equity in California’s healthcare system. I am leaving with a sharper and more specific ambition: to build a policy career focused on protecting cognitive liberty and mental privacy from technological intrusion. This is both an urgent and underserved area of law, and I want to be part of defining this landscape going forward. Whether as a practicing attorney or a policy advisor, I plan to work on these issues after law school. I strongly recommend UC Law SF and the Health Law Concentration. When I arrived in law school, I worried the concentration would be narrow and that my non-clinical background would be a disadvantage. The opposite was true. The health law faculty thinks about health expansively, encompassing social determinants of health, structural inequity, and emerging technologies alongside the regulatory mechanics of the industry. The faculty are accessible, intellectually generous, and genuinely invested in students’ development. I found my research vision here, and I deeply appreciate the concentration’s role in this. The Evidence of Success series highlights UC Law SF students as they share how the College’s opportunities equip them with the experience, skills, and confidence to excel in the legal profession.
Management Students Explore the Business Ethics of Food in Italy
News from Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. Our Newsroom highlights students, faculty, and staff who make LMU a brighter community.
House ethics panel finds Florida Democratic Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick committed 25 violations
The allegations center around Cherfilus-McCormick's receipt of millions of dollars from her family's health care business after Florida made an overpayment of roughly $5 million in disaster relief funds.
House Democrat violated ethics rules, panel finds, putting her seat in jeopardy
A House Ethics Committee panel found Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, accused of misusing covid funds, violated ethics rules. She has maintained her innocence.
House ethics panel finds Florida congresswoman Cherfilus-McCormick committed 25 violations
The House Ethics Committee has found Democratic congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick of Florida committed numerous violations of House rules and ethics standards
'That money was earned': Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick counsel pushes back on allegations of siphoning money to campaign
But a bipartisan panel of lawmakers said much of defense at House Ethics trial 'strained credibility.'
House Ethics Panel Holds Rare Public Hearing on Democrat’s Conduct
Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick of Florida is charged with stealing $5 million in FEMA money for her campaign.
House Ethics panel declines delay for Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick's Ethics trial
The Miramar Democrat also faces criminal charges and asked Congress hold off on a verdict until her criminal trial.
CU Boulder Leeds Launches 9-Month Master’s In Sustainable Business Built With Engineers
Leeds School of Business' new Master of Science in Sustainable Business is designed with engineers and natural sciences to fast-track graduates into climate and sustainability careers.
Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick appears before House Ethics for rare public hearing
Democratic Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick appeared before the House Ethics Committee on Thursday in a rare public hearing to face allegations she stole millions in federal disaster funds and used it to bolster her 2021 campaign.
Florida congresswoman faces a rare public hearing on ethics charges. Threat of expulsion vote looms
The House Ethics Committee is holding a rare public hearing into alleged ethics violations by Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick. The hearing Thursday pushes into the open a yearslong investigation into how...
House Democrat bans staff from betting on prediction markets, citing ethics concerns
Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts has prohibited staffers from betting on prediction markets on areas such as politics and any information obtained in an official capacity.
I Tried Some Games With Nvidia's DLSS 5. It's Controversial, Yes, But Also an Eyeful
Is Nvidia's forthcoming DLSS 5, shown last week at GTC 2026, a game-ethics question mark? Is it spectacular? Yes and yes.
A public health professor is bringing the National Bioethics Bowl to Pitt
The competition, organized this year by Cindy McCarthy, gives students a chance to consider challenging questions about health and technology.
We Would Be Bragging, of Course: American Science on Tour : The Hastings Center for Bioethics
The Chinese Minister of Health's grand tour around the U.S. in 1980 was a glittering assortment of legendary figures in mid-century medicine and the great scientific institutions. Could we pull off a similar junket today?
Binghamton Health Center employee falsified records, deleted evidence: Commission
A state employee in Binghamton is one of three people involved in ethics cases brought by the Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government.
KU Business announces 2026 Sutton Lecture with VML innovation leader Brian Yamada
The University of Kansas School of Business will host Brian Yamada, global chief innovation officer at VML, for the Walter S. Sutton Lecture at 5 p.m. April 8. His talk, “From Madison Avenue to Machine Learning: Business Ethics at the Speed of AI,” will explore the ethical questions emerging as artificial intelligence transforms marketing, technology and business.
House ethics panel investigates GOP Rep. Gonzales of Texas over affair allegations
The House Ethics Committee said Wednesday that it has opened an investigation of Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, over allegations that include having an affair with an aide.
A History of HeLa Cells: How the Immortal Cells Advanced Biomedical Science
HeLa cells are the most famous human cells in science. Discover how cervical cancer, HPV proteins, and bioethics shaped one of medicine’s biggest breakthroughs.
AI, Ethics and Business Collide in Anthropic’s Standoff with the Pentagon
Marc Ruggiano, director of Darden’s LaCross Institute for Ethical Artificial Intelligence in Business and a navy veteran, shares his insights on the clash between Anthropic and the Pentagon and explains how Darden teaches students to navigate the often choppy waters of business, ethics and technology.
Spears Business assistant professor Dinkel wins research awards for legal ethics papers
Dr. Christopher Dinkel, an assistant professor of legal studies in OSU’s Spears School of Business Department of Management, recently won regional and international awards for his legal ethics research. His findings have significant implications for both attorneys and business scholars.
Hankamer School of Business to host large-scale worship event
“For us in particular, this event is a really good community event," Dr. Matt Quade, associate dean for values-based leadership and director of the Center for Christian Leadership and Ethics, said. "It allows us to gather together, not just with students, but faculty and staff, all gathering together. We can come together within the business school, just for an hour each semester, and spend some time together in prayer and worship."
Supreme Court adopts automated recusal software to avoid ethics conflicts
The Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will start using software to assist in justices’ decisions to recuse themselves from cases that present a potential conflict of interest.
New judicial ethics code says judges may speak out against ‘illegitimate’ attacks
Newly released ethics guidance for the federal judiciary makes clear that judges can speak out against “illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks.”
Bar complaint filed over search of Washington Post reporter’s home
A press group says a prosecutor broke ethics rules by not flagging a law that limits searches for reporting materials.
Bar Complaint Filed Over Search of Washington Post Reporter’s Home
A press group says a prosecutor broke ethics rules by not flagging a law that limits searches for reporting materials.
Ethics Opinion 1291: Participation in an Alternative Business Structure (ABS) - New York State Bar Association
Opinion 1291 (01/30/2026) Topic: Participation in an Alternative Business Structure (ABS) Digest: A New York lawyer may hold a financial interest in an ABS which renders legal services in a jurisdiction where such provision of legal services is permitted. A New York lawyer may have a contractual relationship with such an entity pursuant to which
On the Future of Species by Adrian Woolfson review – are we on the verge of creating synthetic life?
A genomic entrepreneur’s guide to the coming revolution in biology raises troubling questions about ethics and safety
The Review of Politics is pleased to welcome Thom Brooks to our editorial advisory board.
Professor Brooks serves as Principal of Collingwood College and holds a personal Chair in Law, Ethics and Government at Durham University, whe...
Business Leadership Week 2026 at Texas State University
Business Leadership Week will explore leadership, innovation, entrepreneurship and ethics through workshops, panel discussions, engaging sessions and networking opportunities.
Colorado House launches ethics review of Republican Rep. Ron Weinberg
The Colorado House will convene an ethics committee to review a complaint filed by Rep. Brandi Bradley, R-Roxborough Park, against fellow Republican Rep. Ron Weinberg, R-Loveland. It will be the first time since 2012 that the House has formed an ethics committee. The contents of Bradley’s complaint are confidential under House rules. Bradley has filed […]
Trump’s ‘pay-to-play’ politics fuel a ‘new gilded age’, experts say
Major donors reap influence and material benefits, ethics experts argue, as money and governance intertwine
Sports-Betting Scandals Are Ubiquitous. Whether Fans Will Care Is an Open Question.
Breaches of ethics in sports are almost as old as professional competitions. Here’s when they have affected the business — and when they haven’t.
New UC Merced major teaches how to tackle questions of ethics in science, tech
In a world where artificial intelligence, climate change, epidemics and more compete for our concern, the need for people who can weigh the technical and humanistic sides of an argument is crucial. A new UC Merced major addresses this need.
Board finds 'reasonable cause' Ferguson violated ethics law
An ethics investigation found "reasonable cause" to believe Gov. Bob Ferguson violated ethics rules in bringing former aide Mike Webb on a state plane.
Longtime Oregon lawmaker admits to ethics violation, but fails to disclose business client
The Heppner Republican agreed to a letter of education from the Oregon Government Ethics Commission over the violation.
Rep. Greg Smith admits ethics violation, fails to disclose business client
AROUND OREGON: A state legislator facing multiple ethics investigations in the past year agreed to a state sanction in a second case. State Rep. Greg Smith, R-Heppner, still has two other ethics cases pending at the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.
Ethics investigations, scandals plague Colorado Capitol
Over the course of the year, a series of investigations, allegations and controversies emerged at the state Capitol, drawing scrutiny to the behavior of elected officials and, in some cases, overshadowing policy debates. Here are some of the notable investigations, stories and accusations to come out of Colorado’s latest legislative session. Sonya Jaquez Lewis In […]
Experts met to discuss the ethics of using organoids in research
Organoids are bits of neural tissue that model human brain development. Their use in science makes some uneasy, in part because the brain is so closely tied to our sense of self.
WHO launches call for high-level experts to join the Science Council
The World Health Organization (WHO) is today soliciting the interest of internationally-renowned experts to serve on its Science Council, one of the Organization’s highest-level advisory bodies to the WHO Director-General.
Ethics commission investigates progressive Portland city councilors over August retreat
Oregon ethics officials will investigate whether six Portland city councilors violated public meetings law when they met for a private August retreat.
The New WHO Pandemic Treaty and Global Health Governance: Incorporating Common but Differentiated Responsibilities into PABS - Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
On May 20, 2025, the World Health Assembly unanimously adopted the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, an international treaty designed to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. The product of three years of arduous negotiations, the treaty marks a new era of global cooperation in public health. However, core aspects of the agreement remain unresolved—notably the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) System, which is intended to ensure equitable access to pandemic-related materials and benefits. To support the successful implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” should be formally incorporated into the negotiating agenda of the PABS annex. Introduction For the first time, an international treaty has enshrined the principle of “One Health,” the compelling idea that the health of animals, humans, and the environment all contribute to pandemic risks. SARS (2003), H1N1 (2009–10), Ebola (2014–16), and COVID-19 all emerged through zoonotic spillover from animal hosts—respectively, civets, hogs, and bats. Together, they underscore the need for a coordinated, cross-sectoral approach. The Pandemic Agreement responds to this call, requiring state parties to acknowledge the ecological interplay and commit to a comprehensive “One Health” strategy. Specifically, Article 5 charges governments to address “the drivers of pandemics and the emergence and re-emergence of infectious disease at the human-animal-environment interface,” including wild animal markets, deforestation, and antibiotic overuse. Yet the effectiveness of this “One Health” vision depends equally on the free flow of scientific information and data among countries and institutions. Just as environmental and animal health factors have been neglected in past global frameworks, so too has data sharing been marginalized, despite its centrality to timely detection and response. The Pandemic Agreement takes an important step by requiring governments to enhance data collection and cooperate with the World Health Organization (WHO). However, these provisions will remain aspirational without a robust Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) annex. The PABS system will determine whether countries and researchers can rapidly exchange pathogen samples and genetic data while ensuring equitable access to resulting research and development, including diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. Without such mechanisms, the treaty’s promise to operationalize “One Health” and strengthen global preparedness will risk becoming largely symbolic, echoing earlier failures to translate shared principles into coordinated action. Equity Concerns When the 2025 Health Assembly adopted the Pandemic Agreement, it left the difficult question of access to pathogens and the sharing of resulting benefits to be addressed in a separate agreement. Negotiations on this separate agreement, PABS, are now underway in Geneva. Yet governments remain divided over fundamental questions of equity between the countries that primarily contribute to the system and those that primarily draw from it—and consequently benefit. For example, wildlife in countries bordering the equator is likely to produce PABS materials, but companies in Europe are likely to use them to develop lucrative products. The most likely contributor countries are likely to be those biodiverse countries around the equator, such as Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Indonesia, where the number of human-mammalian viral host interactions is large. Conversely, countries most likely to benefit from this material are those with the technology, investors, and infrastructure to capitalize on genomic data, such as the United States, EU member states, and Japan. This imbalance reflects a broader pattern seen in prior international frameworks. Now, as in the past, the wealthiest countries in the world (a useful heuristic is membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) disproportionately benefit from systems in which pathogens and genomic sequencing data are contributed to a common source. Under the International Agreement on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (the “Plant Treaty” or “Seed Treaty”) and the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework, companies from Europe and North America disproportionately withdraw biological samples and data for development into lucrative medical products. Their governments and companies have both statutory and contractual claims to the products that those companies correspondingly produce. PABS appears poised to follow the same pattern. The text calls for strong language on access to pathogens and associated data, but the corresponding benefits that should flow to poorer countries are couched in equivocal or non-binding language. Common but Differentiated Responsibilities To address these inequities, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” should be formally incorporated into the negotiating agenda of the PABS annex. Common but differentiated responsibilities are often a feature of climate change negotiations. The basic principle is that, even though all countries should reduce carbon emissions, governments that became rich and powerful through massive carbon emissions (e.g., France, the United Kingdom, the United States) should have a greater obligation to address the resulting crises. Applied to PABS, it would require that governments hosting and supporting companies developing lucrative products carry greater obligations toward the cost of running the PABS system; share benefits or final medical products; and transfer technology to help countries worldwide develop their own capacities to innovate and manufacture vaccines during an emergency. For example, an annex could mandate that any company based in an OECD country that withdraws PABS material would be obligated to donate the resulting diagnostics, therapeutics, or vaccines to the WHO during a public health emergency or pandemic. Questions remain about how robust those donations would be, but the principle is that they should deliver highly significant lifesaving benefits to be equitably shared. Theoretically, this approach mirrors the PIP Framework, in which companies withdrawing influenza samples are required to pay half of the operating costs. In practice, however, the framework has fallen short. The PIP Framework Secretariat has struggled to secure payments from companies, with companies often disagreeing over how much is owed. Additionally, without another pandemic influenza to test the strength of the agreement during a public health emergency, corporate compliance with sharing mechanisms remains unknown. Even if these limitations did not characterize the PIP Framework, partially paying for operating expenses does not address the inequity in access to genetic data and pathogen samples that left less developed countries last in line for COVID-19 vaccines (and, before them, H1N1). Common but differentiated responsibilities would go further, addressing governments’ legitimate grievances regarding information sharing. It would make withdrawals of PABS material and resulting products more transparent, building trust across the board. Enforcement and Enduring Success A key implication of this approach is that the governing mechanism of the PABS must have real enforcement authority. The WHO Pandemic Agreement delegates its core governance responsibilities to a Conference of the Parties (COP)—a governing body composed of one representative from each participating government, similar to those established under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement COP is charged with oversight functions but ultimately possesses no real authority to compel a government to take any action it does not wish to take. The text does not give the COP the ability to, for example, sanction a party that does not comply with either textual obligations or PABS provisions. In other words, there are no effective mechanisms in place to ensure compliance. Perhaps just as significant, establishing a meaningful enforcement mechanism within the PABS system would strengthen the WHO’s credibility and its ability to ensure compliance across global health governance. By setting a precedent for accountability, such a mechanism could enhance the organization’s authority not only within the Pandemic Agreement but also in enforcing the revised International Health Regulations and other frameworks for public health emergencies. Conclusion The PABS annex can—and should—be different. It should establish clear responsibilities for funding as well as for sharing the diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines that result from contributions to the system. The system, in turn, must include a dedicated body empowered to hold governments and the corporations they sponsor accountable for their responsibilities before, during, and after pandemics. Doing so would restore trust in the broader agreement, which was eroded as commitments were repeatedly diluted while parties scrambled to meet their own self-imposed deadlines during the Pandemic Agreement negotiations. A robust PABS Annex would cement a grand social bargain. Wealthier countries and their corporations would gain unimpeded access to scientific information essential for developing and manufacturing lifesaving medical products. As such, they would stand to gain considerable economic benefit. Yet that privilege must be matched with responsibility. The grand bargain must include not only the right to innovate, but also the duty to ensure that innovation serves all. As medical products are developed and produced through collective contributions, every person must have equal access. All human beings deserve an equitable chance to survive—to save their own life, the lives of their families, and the well-being of their communities. … Sam Halabi, JD, MPhil, is the Bette Jacobs Endowed Professor at Georgetown University’s School of Health and the Director of the Center for Transformational Health Law at Georgetown Law. He serves as the co-lead for the WHO’s Working Group on Regulatory Consideration on AI and Health’s training workstream. He earned his JD from Harvard, his MPhil from Oxford, and undergraduate degrees from Kansas State University. Lawrence Gostin, LLD (Hon.), JD, BA, is University Distinguished Professor and Founding Director and Timothy and Linda O’Neill Professor of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. He is the author of Global Health Security: A Blueprint for the Future (Harvard University Press, 2021); Global Health Law (Harvard University Press, 2014); Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2016); Public Health Law and Ethics: A Reader (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2018); Law and the Health System (Foundation Press, 2014); Principles of Mental Health Law & Practice (Oxford University Press, 2010). He also directs the WHO Collaborating Center at Georgetown University. Image Credit: United States Mission Geneva, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Mini brains, big questions: science is racing ahead of ethics
Brain organoids are revolutionising research, but their growing complexity raises unsettling ethical questions.
FIFA accused of breaking ethics rules after giving Peace Prize to Trump
FIFA's ethics committee has been asked to investigate Gianni Infantino, claiming he broke the governing body's rules on political neutrality.
Discuss ethical issues in the world of sports | CWRU Newsroom | Case Western Reserve University
Members of the Case Western Reserve University community are invited to enroll in Siegal Lifelong Learning Program’s “Fair Play: The Ethics of Spo...
Column: The Golden Globes' ethics are worse than ever, and no one seems to care
The Golden Globes came back from the brink of scandal. But the awards' suspect ethics haven't really changed, our columnist writes.
U. professor appointed co-editor-in-chief of 'Business Ethics Quarterly'
Danielle Warren, professor of management and global business at Rutgers Business School, was recently appointed co-editor-in-chief of "Business Ethics Quarterly," according to a press release.
Expansive prescribed fire research project brings Montana scientists together
The SMART FIRES project combines smoke and fire science, smart sensors, sociology, artificial intelligence, ethics and more in the context of prescribed fires.
Team of Penn State Smeal seniors win Business with Integrity Case Competition
Students explored the ethical challenges of the wellness industry in the 2025 Business with Integrity Case Competition. Every fall, the Tarriff Center for Business Ethics and Social Responsibility hosts the competition where students examine the role of ethics in business and put their ethical frameworks to the test.
Science must move from materialism to mystery
Theoretical physicist and neuroscientist Àlex Gómez-Marín argues that modern science has become trapped in a framework that mistakes matter for the whole of reality. In this wide-ranging interview, Gómez-Marín challenges the foundations of materialism, defends the scientific study of near-death experiences, and calls for a new type of science grounded in mystery and a renewed sense of the sacred. He suggests that abandoning materialism could open the door to a deeper understanding of consciousness, death, and the purpose of human existence. Simon Custer: You are both a theoretical physicist and a neuroscientist, and you have also been fiercely critical of materialist theories of mind and consciousness. What do you think the ultimate nature of reality is?Àlex Gómez-Marín: I don't know what the ultimate nature of reality is, but what I try to first assess is whether the stories that they [mainstream science] have told us about it are right, or maybe whether there are other alternatives. That's why I've been a fierce critic of materialism. As a scientist, I realized that they had sold us this idea that to be a good scientist you also had to subscribe to many other -isms, like materialism, reductionism, and even secularism. And so first I think one needs to unmount these -isms, and then, as is happening today in consciousness studies, we have a huge landscape where there isn't only one game in town, the idea that matter is the only thing that really exists. But because we are studying the hard problem of consciousness, it may be the case that other views of reality, like idealism, or even dualism, or other theories like dual aspect monism... these are philosophical ideas that now, I think, have room in science to be taken seriously. How does something like materialism relate to dualism or idealism? What is materialism in the first place?Well, materialism is the philosophical position that matter is the only really ‘real’ thing in the universe. And I think that worked kind of well because science started 400 years ago and Galileo made that split, I call it the foundational wound. It was a great business move.He said, let's start doing science on that portion of reality that lends itself more easily to mathematization and measurement. So, for some reason, the solidity of this table or the movement of planets lend themselves very well to this foundational idea of science. But as time went on, 400 years later, we realized that we had forgotten the other side, which is what really matters.What really matters is pain, is love, is feelings, sensation, consciousness, which is very hard to define, but very intimate. We all know what it is. It's that thing that disappears when we go into deep sleep and comes back in the morning. SUGGESTED VIEWING On the edges of knowledge With Michael Shermer, Rupert Sheldrake, Güneş Taylor It's what it is like to be, as Nagel said. It's the feeling of being alive. So, materialism is good to study certain things, but then when it ossifies into this ideology and then is dressed like science, now it's preventing us from understanding these key questions that are really that everybody wants to know.Why are we here? Why do we feel reality? Where do we go when we die? And so we need other ways. We need pluralism. I'm only asking for having more options on the table and taking them seriously. Why does materialism fail to explain consciousness? For example, if you were to lobotomize me, I would not be a functional human being. What do you say to someone who might think that materialism adequately explains the mind?Well, here we could speak about different things. We could talk about physics or about neuroscience. I happen to have training with both.For instance, for neuroscientists, 99% of them, I'm not included in that portion, believe that the brain can only be a productive organ. It's an organ that somehow, somewhere, consciousness emerges. It's like a lamp. And then something happens, magic happens, and then consciousness emerges.That's the position you need to be if you're a materialist because if the only really ‘real’ thing is matter, then you need to say, just give us some more time and money and we'll figure out how mind emerges or is produced from matter. There are many philosophically sophisticated ways of criticizing this.Now there's another option, which is the brain as a permissive organ. This was said by William James more than 100 years ago.Now then the brain wouldn't be like this machine, like for instance, a heat engine whose smoke is consciousness, which is what we would have in the first big model, the productive model. But in the permissive model, the brain would be a kind of a filter. And so the brain would still have a very important role in consciousness, but it wouldn't be a productive role.It would be permissive, much like a filter or much like a prism which would receive light. And - I'm speaking metaphorically - it would receive the light of the mind and then it could reflect it and refract it.Now, with these two big options on the table, I think we can make progress into what I call the edges of consciousness, which are all these experiences, weird experiences that many people have, but we don't talk about enough, like near-death experiences, precognitive dreams, synchronicities. These experiences are very important for humans and they have a place in the permissive hypothesis and they are literally impossible in the productive hypothesis. So that's yet one more reason to explore alternatives to materialism. There may be anecdotal evidence for near-death experiences, but is there robust evidence that would be accepted by the majority of scientists who subscribe to the scientific method?Sure. And the plural of anecdotes, someone said, is data.And there's a lot of data. Actually, this year is the 50th anniversary, half a century, since Dr. Raymond Moody realized that we have two ears and one mouth and started listening to what his patients had to say about their experiences while they were clinically dead.The heart had stopped, breathing had stopped in these patients. These patients would come back and tell him these amazing stories that some people may say are hallucinations, but for the patients were hyper-real, like seeing light at the end of the tunnels, seeing deceased family members waiting for them, feeling bliss.___I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the death of activity of the brain.___And so he and others started taking them seriously and writing their accounts down. And then you can do a science based on that material of experience that people have. Now, on the more objective side, more recently people have started to measure what's going on in the brain when people are clinically dead and brought back. This has opened a proper field of study, which is near-death studies.Evidence is a difficult word, because sometimes people think that when you say evidence, this is just the final proof. Evidence is like in a jury. You bring testimony, you bring pieces of data that point in one direction or another.I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the death of activity of the brain. When brains are broken or shut off, there can still be mind going on. And that's revolutionary.That would entail that when we die, it's not game over, which, by the way, is the thesis of materialism. If consciousness survives, materialism dies. It's game over for materialism if something of us continues after we die. Do you think that there is mental continuity after death?Well, I think so, and I believe so, and I could also say I may have experienced it myself, because four years ago I had a near-death experience. I was in the hospital, I lost a lot of blood, and I saw those beings at the end of the tunnel, three beings, and there was yellow light. I was in a well, I was looking upwards, and I hadn't read about NDEs by then, but when I came back from this experience, I decided I would try to integrate this also in my professional life. Not just my personal life, of course, but my professional life as a physicist and as a neuroscientist. So I may have had the experience of glimpses of what an afterlife would be, and I'm not ashamed to say it in this way, and then one can do science of it, and then one can do philosophy of it.One can think about what -isms we were discussing, what views on reality would allow those experiences to be really ‘real,’ as opposed to, well, poor guy, the brain was kind of broken, it must have been a hallucination. Do you have a view about whether individuality or “the ego” persists after death, or whether we sort of merge into some sort of cosmic consciousness instead?I don't know, but my view would be along those lines you're suggesting. I think we could speak about a kind of universal mind, and then the problem is not how we emerge from matter, but how we fragment from a more holistic consciousness into these individual eddies and then when we die, this kind of dissipates.But I'm not sure. For instance, idealism would promote that view, but then what would survive of us after these eddies just vanish and become again the big Consciousness, I'm not sure what that would be. I don't know for sure, but I would tell you I believe something of us survives.And there are other lines of research, not just near-death experience, that can address this really hard question of survival. For instance, there are children who remember previous lives. This was studied by Ian Stevenson at the University of Virginia for more than 50 years.___Research takes place within a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that are not very scientific.___It's amazing research. He went all over the world, especially in the East, and collected all these case studies, all these stories. In plural, these were data of kids, very young age, who would describe up to 40 items that then he could go and verify.There was no internet. There was really no way the kid could know. Why would the kid say that when I was living in this other body and I was a woman and that's how my house would look like or that's how I would die, right? Again, there is evidence, not proof, but there's evidence not only that something weird and interesting is happening as we cross the threshold, but also when we come back to this life.Scientists should not be afraid of studying this, but they are because there's stigma. There's usually stigma upon the enigma, and this is so unfortunate. And one of the reasons is because of the ideology of materialism, because those things cannot be possible. What is wrong with the politics of science such that they have generated this stigma?So many things. Science is a human activity to begin with.So it falls prey to all our passions and ego and greed. That's one thing. Science is a job for the good and for the bad.You need to get a salary. You need to get grants. Research takes place within a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that are not very scientific.And then, we didn't have time to unpack this, but science for many years become entangled, as I was suggesting before, to other -isms, materialism, secularism. So anything that smells like the afterlife, people may think has to do with God, and then they freak out.Anything that suggests that there's something about the mind that may not need a physical material substrate to exist, it smells like non-materialism. So, all these -isms are ideologically blocking that kind of research, and then there are all these sociopolitical constraints as to what should be studied and what shouldn't be studied.I call it the backstage of science. Sometimes we scientists or science communicators seem to speak as if the data is the only thing that matters. We say, well, data and theory.But then there's a third leg of this stool, which is all the politics that goes behind the scenes. And we often don't speak about this, and it's quite vicious and petty, and it's very real. Why is materialism so attractive to most scientists?Well, an easy answer is because we've grown up with it.It's what the educational system promotes, and that's what you hear when you go to university. So it's like growing in a culture. It feels like the air in which you breathe.So it's very hard to begin with to detect, well, maybe there's another alternative. Maybe there are other ways of doing science, other environments in which one could do science. That's one reason.And other reasons maybe are more profound, and I'm not qualified to explain them, but I could say, looking at this 400-year history of science, since it started around 1623 with Galileo's book The Assayer, that science went and coupled with all what's going on in the West.And so the fall of religion, you could say, and science presented us this new alternative that then could be coupled very well with other -isms, and this idea of growth, and then science losing its good twin brother, which was philosophy. There's a whole natural history of science starting as philosophy, kind of emancipating or breaking out from philosophy, and then marrying technology, and then marrying other social systems.From that point of view, materialism is a very convenient idea to propose. There were attempts, like the German idealists tried to do a more romantic science. But no, the idea prevailed, like Francis Bacon said: You should pursue nature through all her corners, he said, and make her spill her secrets.Our attitude towards nature in the science that dominates is very much reflecting how we treat nature in our society, in our culture, like a resource to extract secrets by force and then dominate it. How is materialism related to the notions of growth and progress? What's wrong with having a productive citizenry?This is another very interesting and very difficult question to answer.But there's this recent book coming out by Paul Kingsnorth. In it, he explains this idea of the machine and this idea of progress. And this, again, this conflation of more is better, of we need to go forward always, and convincing us that the way to do that is to continually extract more from nature. But because we don't have the religious context anymore, because God is dead, then what do we have? We have what we can do as humans with our own gadgets.It's kind of the story of the Promethean fire. We will just build anything to make ourselves God.A good example today is transhumanism. Transhumanism is this pseudo-religion dressed in technoscientific language whose goal is very religious. They promise immortality, they promise redemption, they promise transformation of the entire natural world, but it's done by human means through technology. Are you suggesting that we can't have ethics without religion?Well, we should have ethics with or without religion. That's another pruning that has happened in science. We say, forget about aesthetics, although some physicists still think that beautiful means probably true, and forget about politics. We pretend there's no backstage of science, and even let's forget about ethics.___Science needs to be in the service of mankind.___Scientists, when they become more like engineers, they're just thinking how to make things work so that they can go to the moon, go to Mars, make machines that think, but they don't think whether that's a good idea.And also consider metaphysics. Many scientists for a long time pretended, and maybe that comes from the stream of positivisms, that really one doesn't need metaphysics at all, except that materialism is always the metaphysics running the system.You see, it's not just ethics. It's the pruning of all of these, you could say, five main legs of philosophy that just makes a kind of unconscious science, a science that doesn't really know what it's doing. It's doing it very well locally, but it just doesn't know what it's doing globally. Do you think science has to have an ultimate vision and purpose behind it for it to be effective or for it to be meaningful and transformative?Yes, a way I would say that is that science needs to be in the service of mankind. And it hasn't been that. And we can see it through, you know, when we discovered the secrets of the atom, and all of a sudden, the Manhattan Project, and then we create nuclear weapons.And now we're trying to crack how machines may think, and now we're creating this mess, right? So science needs to be in service of mankind, not in service of a few ideas that maybe want to make more money or just dominate upon nature. What about planes, trains, automobiles, and modern medicine? Hasn't science served mankind by helping us develop those technologies?Yes and no. I see where you're going, and it's fair.I came here by plane, and it's a blessing. When I almost died, the surgeons did their job, and they saved my life. But these two forced choices between Luddites and Silicon Valley types, I think, of course, it's a false dichotomy.Progress, in a way, it's good, but we often don't speak about the dark side of the moon. We say the great things that progress has brought, and we don't speak about the disasters, the side effects that it has come with, and the same when we promise new technologies. We tend to think that any technology is great, that email is going to save us so much time because we don't need to write letters and send them anymore.Is that true? I spend so many hours a week writing emails. Let's just say there are great things about it and bad things about it. People like Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, for example, argue that we've made moral progress over time because of the Enlightenment. Do you think that's totally wrong-headed?I think he's emphasizing a side of the moon, and he does that very well, and you can find tons of plots where there's a slope going up and say it's great. But I think he should also tell the not-so-friendly story.But if your ideology is just to resist and continue to explain that the Enlightenment is the best thing ever and reason is the best thing ever… this feels to me like you're worshipping these abstractions.I'm very critical of it and also of these, again, science communicators and scientists that say, Oh, science says, in the name of science, experts say. It's like, come on, let's be careful because we can shoot ourselves in the foot by putting forth to the people an image of science that we know is not really true. Recently there's been a resurgence of spirituality and of people who say that they're spiritual but not religious, especially in the United States. If materialism is going away, what is going to fill that gap? Are we going to return to traditional religion? Do you see that being connected with the rise of the political right?I'm not a fortune teller, so I don't know what's going to happen. But, yeah, we could say we're in this post-materialist age and even post-secular age. One cannot come back to the past, but maybe just to contact with the roots is a good idea.What do I mean by that? I think we need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method. We need to do so in a culture where we realize humans cannot thrive in a vacuum where there's this idea that the sacred has to be removed.Now, how do we do that without bringing in back all the vices of religion? I don't know. I'm from a Catholic country.Here we are in England, so there are differences and interreligious dialogue has always been a challenge. But I think maybe a way of putting it is: after all these conflicts and branchings I was quickly alluding to, science from philosophy and then also from religion, now there's a time of reconciliation perhaps and maybe debates in the proper sense, like exchange of ideas in service of learning and getting into something higher than both poles. We need science to talk to religious people and it's interesting when people say they're spiritual and not religious.I think this is just a way of saying, no, I don't want to go back, I want to go forward. But at the end of the day, religions have offered us practices and grounding that we now desperately need. Everybody can and should just meditate or pray or do whatever they want, but we're in a crisis and it's time for reconciliation. What do you say to critics that say you are merely projecting our need for meaning onto a fundamentally indifferent universe?Yeah, I know that the typical science communicator says something like this. But we're not projecting. Human beings feed on meaning.It's the other way around. If you're a materialist, because the only thing that there is is matter, all that comes next, free will, consciousness, meaning, this is a kind of illusion that we need to explain.They're just craving for meaning, but there isn't really for them. I would also like to remind my materialist friends that for decades, if not centuries, they've said in the name of science, we know that this and this and this doesn't really exist. I think now they sense they're forced to say, well, actually, we don't know. We've been saying, for instance, that there's nothing after you die, and now probably they need to admit that they don't know the answer.___We need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method.___So it's a moment to open up possibilities and also to gently but fiercely critique these claims that I think harm society. If you say in the name of science, get on with it, when your father dies, you'll never see him again. Well, what the F do you know about it? You haven't studied the literature, you haven't had any of those experiences, and basically what you're doing is you're just doing marketing on ideology. This needs to stop. Do you think that it's scarier for some people to entertain the thought that there might be life after death, compared to a materialist worldview where you just die, given that there might be consequences for unsavory behaviour?Well, death and dying is scary. It's maybe the ultimate ending. It's a limit on life, and when we're in this conquest mode, we don't like limits.And it also has, there's a shockwave backwards, so I think if you change your notion of what death is or may be, you live differently. It also has consequences, as you're saying, for the future because this is not our only goal here and we come back in whatever form. And again, different religions would say different things. I the East, they are more happy with the idea of reincarnation, and here in the West, there are other preferences. But in any case, it changes how we live, and that's really what matters.It's not about just projecting or imagining what we'll be after, but how we live now and also how we treat those who are dying. So it goes from the individual to the families, to the hospitals.Now in the near-death research I do, this has ramifications at all these levels, all the way to society.But our society is thanatophobic. It has a phobia of death. We don't want to hear about death, and this is another thing we need to put on the table and be willing to talk about it. Do you think that we might get closer to answering ultimate questions like why is there anything at all if we jettison materialism?That’s an excellent question, Simon. Two things: we should stop treating reality, I believe, as a great sudoku, as an enigma, as something that with intelligence, money, and time that we will crack and instead treat reality more like a mystery. And what you do for in front of a mystery is not to be the clever guy in a class and say “I’ll solve you” but more like “I will bow and you will transform me.”I know this sounds a bit like a scientist speaking like a mystic. But I think this reorientation is needed. In the end, we won’t crack the big questions, but they will transform us. If we free ourselves from this prison of materialism, the way we will explore these questions will be freer, more creative, and in service of mankind. Do you think exploring mystery is the reason why we are here?I think we are here because, and this pseudo-theological argument I’m making off the cuff, But the One, the Absolute, if there is such a thing, had everything except limitation. We are that absolute experiencing that contingency. It’s like an act of divine proprioception. It’s a wonderful adventure, it’s just incredible to be alive. Perhaps we have forgotten why we are here and the whole point is to experience the flesh.Let me end by saying this. I criticize materialism harshly. I bang on this dead horse, because I think it’s dead. But matter is a great mystery. So maybe my invitation is as follows: hey materialist friends, come here, let’s work on materialism 2.0! Consciousness is a mystery, but matter is also a mystery. The fact that we can have an intersubjective experience consensus, the fact that we can apply mathematics, that we can measure things... the physical world we take for granted, but it is a great mystery too.Maybe that’s related to your last question: why are we here? Why did spirit decide to incarnate? Being in the flesh may be a great thing if spirit decided to do so.Àlex Gómez-Marín, thank you very much.My pleasure.
Cities put science in the spotlight
When three European cities launch an initiative next year to boost scientific excellence and collaboration, much of the action is likely to take place in public spaces rather than in the laboratory.That is welcome news for Ana Marušić. A medical doctor and professor at the University of Split Medical School in Croatia, Marušić champions close connections between “town and gown” to encourage citizen involvement in research, raise public health awareness and ignite young people’s interest in science. “Responsible research and innovation cannot be done in an ivory tower, answering only the questions that are relevant for scientists,” explains Marušić, who chairs the Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health and leads the Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. “The role of the university is to be a medium for transferring new discoveries in science to society, but also to listen to society about what is important and what is needed.”Three cities united by scienceMarušić’s efforts stand to gain traction through Science Comes to Town (SCTT), a new European project to highlight science’s role in society and strengthen cross-border collaboration in research, innovation and sustainability. With funding from the European Commission, three cities—Split, Brest (in France) and Kiel (in Germany)—plan more than 1,000 public events, workshops and competitions for citizens of all ages, researchers, businesses and policymakers. The year-long project kicks off in Spilt on 20 January with a conference involving partner institutions, community representatives and European policymakers. The three cities may be geographically far apart, but they share much in common. All are located on coasts and are home to top regional research institutions that are part of SCTT. Among the project's partners, the University of Western Brittany in Brest, Kiel University and the University of Split belong to the SEA-EU university alliance, uniting nine European coastal academic institutions to advance research, student exchanges and sustainable development. “These universities have a very strong connection between gown and town,” explains Marušić, who is one of Split’s SCTT ambassadors. “It's very important that these universities are there for the community so that we can learn from each other and grow together.”Tackling Europe’s STEM shortagesSCTT will also reinforce efforts to address Europe’s widening gap in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Studies show that nearly eight out of ten small- and medium-sized businesses cannot find enough workers with the skills required in advanced computing and artificial intelligence (AI)—hindering initiatives to boost European innovation and competitiveness. In healthcare, the European Commission has estimated a shortfall in medical professionals of 1.2 million, due to fewer young people joining the field and an ageing population that needs more care.Strengthening knowledge and dialogue can also help build trust between scientists and the public at time when disruptive technologies are reshaping research and clinical practice, but are also sparking questions about ethics and accuracy. With experience in the classroom and in clinical epidemiology—a discipline involving monitoring and controlling public health problems—Marušić sees the potential risks of over-reliance on AI and chatbot answers for both research and learning. “AI is a very good tool, but one has to be very critical about it,” she adds. “Delegating brain activities will definitely diminish your neural capacities because you are not developing the circuitry that is important for higher-level cognitive engagement.” She stresses the importance of critical thinking and encourages students to use AI as a researcher’s tool to reinforce rather than supplant human discretion and brainpower.The power of outreachSplit’s experience in bringing scientists and the public together has provided a platform for discussing research ethics and explaining science in simple terms. Local efforts to expand health literacy and awareness have helped reduce cardiovascular disease among women, according to Marušić’s research. The city’s university also hosts events to introduce schoolchildren to science, using hands-on experiments to spark curiosity.Marušić’s own love of science began with an interest in studying molecular biology. “But my parents told me, why don't you study medicine?” she recalls. “I said, OK, why not? And that was the best decision that I made.” Marušić is not a practicing physician, but teaches anatomy and public health. She also co-edits ST-OPEN, an overlay university journal that works on capacity building for research publishing among students and their supervisors. Balancing teaching, research and editorial work, she is a strong advocate for medical studies, urging high school students to consider medicine “because later on it gives you a really wide perspective about human life and about society” as well as many career opportunities.As SCTT prepares to bring science into daily life in 2026, Marušić hopes that it will build permanent bridges between scientists and citizens across Europe. “We can be a showcase for making collaboration with the community stronger to share knowledge, attract young talent and integrate critical and scientific thinking into everyday life,” she explains, adding that "collaborating with businesses to improve cities and communities is also an important aspect of this project."Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.