reopening -testing -money). 31. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Testing in highdensity critical infrastructure workplaces. June 13, 2020 (https:// www . cdc . gov/ coronavirus/ 2019 -ncov/ community/ worker -safety -support/ hd -testing . html). 32. Levine R. The case against reopening schools: a teacher's perspective. July 14, 2020 (https://docs . google . com/ document/ d/ 1IAQndRjnya96JZOwf4HgPBBk -RwOCrtO1efSkgPIiUc/ edit). 33. Camera L. Report: no way to reopen schools safely without federal bailout. U.S. News & World Report. June 8, 2020 (https:// www . usnews . com/ news/ education -news/ articles/ 2020 -06 -08/ report -schools -need -a -federal -bailout -in -order -to -reopen).

No abstract

Develops a liberal political theory of children's education provision. It argues that all children have a right to an autonomy‐promoting education, and that this right is best satisfied through a state‐regulated ‘detached school’ that aims to help children develop their capacities for autonomy. Parents have the privilege to direct their children's upbringing in substantial and pervasive ways, but they do not have the right to prevent their children from developing the capacity for autonomy. There are nonetheless ways to encourage parental involvement and permit school choice. Although political liberals suggest that autonomy is too divisive of an aim, and that liberal schools should simply promote civic virtue, political liberalism and political liberal education are shown to be both theoretically and empirically inferior to weakly perfectionist liberalism and liberal education. Correctly conceived, autonomy‐promoting education contributes to the development of civic virtue, nurtures children's capacities for cultural coherence as well as for choice, and promotes equality.

No abstract

In this article, Meira Levinson presents a case study of school personnel who must decide whether to expel a fourteen-year-old student for bringing marijuana onto campus. She uses the case to explore a class of ethical dilemmas in which educators are obligated to take action that fulfills the demands of justice but under conditions in which no just action is possible because of contextual and school-based injustices. She argues that under such circumstances, educators suffer moral injury, the trauma of perpetrating significant moral wrong against others despite one's wholehearted desire and responsibility to do otherwise. Educators often try to avoid moral injury by engaging in loyal subversion, using their voice to protest systemic injustices, or exiting the school setting altogether. No approach, however, enables educators adequately to fulfill their obligation to enact justice and hence to escape moral injury. Society hence owes educators moral repair—most importantly, by restructuring educational and other social systems so as to mitigate injustice. Levinson concludes that case studies of dilemmas of educational justice, like the case study with which she begins the article, may enable philosophers, educators, and members of the general public to engage in collective, phronetic reflection. This process may further reduce moral injury and enhance educators' capacities to enact justice in schools.

This paper proposes an ethical framework for evaluating biosafety risks of gain-of-function (GOF) experiments that create novel strains of influenza expected to be virulent and transmissible in humans, so-called potential pandemic pathogens (PPP). Such research raises ethical concerns because of the risk that accidental release from a laboratory could lead to extensive or even global spread of a virulent pathogen. Biomedical research ethics has focused largely on human subjects research, while biosafety concerns about accidental infections, seen largely as a problem of occupational health, have been ignored. GOF/PPP research is an example of a small but important class of research where biosafety risks threaten public health, well beyond the small number of persons conducting the research. We argue that bioethical principles that ordinarily apply only to human subjects research should also apply to research that threatens public health, even if, as in GOF/PPP studies, the research involves no human subjects. Specifically we highlight the Nuremberg Code’s requirements of “fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods,” and proportionality of risk and humanitarian benefit, as broad ethical principles that recur in later documents on research ethics and should also apply to certain types of research not involving human subjects. We address several potential objections to this view, and conclude with recommendations for bringing these ethical considerations into policy development.

Abstract:Educational standards, assessments, and accountability systems are of immense political moment around the world. But there is no developed theory exploring the role that these systems should play within a democratic polity in particular. Well-designed standards are public goods, supported by assessment and accountability mechanisms. They have the potential to serve democratic goods in particular, such as transparency, equality, and public discourse. Their very potential to advance systemic democratic goods, however, signals a level of reach and power that threatens the achievement of these same democratic values along other dimensions. This is especially evident in the contemporary United States. Adults' democratically legitimate control over education within a democracy may well undercut children's legitimate claims to receiving an education that equips them for democracy. Because education for democracy should trump education within democracy-and because evidence from the United States demonstrates the risks standards, assessments, and accountability systems can pose to democracies in general when they become too powerful-such systems should play only a limited role in democratic education reform that selects, trains, and provides on-going support to civically engaged and thoughtful educators. Under such circumstances, they may promote a virtuous circle that builds 1 I am grateful to many interlocutors for their critiques of various earlier versions of this paper, and/or advice on particular issues. These include:

No abstract