Border controls and social distancing have proven effective in containing the spread of COVID-19, but the current pandemic will not end until herd immunity is achieved through the widespread use of vaccines. Given the importance of vaccines in overcoming this global health crisis, and the current imbalance between their supply and demand, ethical questions arise concerning how COVID-19 vaccines should be distributed. This article argues that the guiding objectives for the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines should be the reduction of inequality and the maximization of benefits through the use of clear and transparent criteria for vaccine prioritization. Allocating scarce medical resources such as vaccines is a long-term ethical challenge. Only an ethically sound and well-coordinated vaccine distribution plan can ensure fair access for those in need.
Japan and South Korea both have relatively high rates of research misconduct in the biomedical sciences. These two countries also share other relevant characteristics, including being latecomers to research ethics and having hierarchical cultures and competitive research environments. Given these similarities, Korea can learn from Japan’s efforts to eradicate research misconduct. In the 2010s, after experiencing several high-profile cases of misconduct, Japanese authorities implemented measures to combat research misconduct at the national level. However, these measures have so far been outweighed by other policies that aggravate excessive competition and a negative research culture in science and technology. This article argues that the key lesson for Korea from Japan’s experiences fighting research misconduct is that instead of focusing only on research ethics education and punishment, it is necessary to (a) establish a system of manpower training with secure employment in science and technology, (b) abolish the ‘winner takes all’ strategy in research funding, and (c) promote bottom-up policy-making.
In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, several countries introduced mandatory vaccination policies to increase vaccination rates. These policies were controversial because they were seen, at least by some, as coercive measures that violated individual rights and freedoms. This article examines some of the arguments that were given, both for and against, the mandatory vaccination policies that certain countries implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The four arguments for vaccine mandates that are examined concern (1) the prevention of harm to others, (2) acceptable levels of risk, (3) collective obligations, and (4) fairness in achieving essential public goods. The three arguments against vaccine mandates that are addressed concern (1) remote harms, (2) the absence of additional benefits, (3) and individual autonomy and bodily integrity. On the basis of this analysis, the article attempts to determine which specific vaccine policies, among the many that were implemented or considered, are ethically justifiable.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.