Exact symmetry and symmetry-breaking phenomena play a key role in providing a better understanding of the physics of many-particle systems, from quarks and atomic nuclei, to molecules and galaxies. In atomic nuclei, exact and dominant symmetries such as rotational invariance, parity, and charge independence have been clearly established. However, even when these symmetries are taken into account, the structure of nuclei remains illusive and only partially understood, with no additional symmetries immediately evident from the underlying nucleon-nucleon interaction. Here, we show through ab initio large-scale nuclear structure calculations that the special nature of the strong nuclear force determines additional highly regular patterns in nuclei that can be tied to an emergent approximate symmetry. We find that this symmetry is remarkably ubiquitous, regardless of its particular strong interaction heritage, and mathematically tracks with a symplectic group. Specifically, we show for light to intermediate-mass nuclei that the structure of a nucleus, together with its low-energy excitations, respects symplectic symmetry at about 70-80% level, unveiling the predominance of only a few equilibrium shapes, deformed or not, with associated vibrations and rotations. This establishes the symplectic symmetry as a remarkably good symmetry of the strong nuclear force, in the low-energy regime. This may have important implications to studies, e.g., in astrophysics and neutrino physics that rely on nuclear structure information, especially where experimental measurements are incomplete or not available. A very important practical advantage is that this new symmetry can be utilized to dramatically reduce computational resources required in ab initio large-scale nuclear structure modeling. This, in turn, can be used to pioneer predictions, e.g., for short-lived isotopes along various nucleosynthesis pathways. arXiv:1810.05757v1 [nucl-th]

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Bioethicists function in an environment in which their peers--healthcare executives, lawyers, nurses, physicians--assert the integrity of their fields through codes of professional ethics. Is it time for bioethics to assert its integrity by developing a code of ethics? Answering in the affirmative, this paper lays out a case by reviewing the historical nature and function of professional codes of ethics. Arguing that professional codes are aggregative enterprises growing in response to a field's historical experiences, it asserts that bioethics now needs to assert its integrity and independence and has already developed a body of formal statements that could be aggregated to create a comprehensive code of ethics for bioethics. A Draft Model Aggregated Code of Ethics for Bioethicists is offered in the hope that analysis and criticism of this draft code will promote further discussion of the nature and content of a code of ethics for bioethicists.

function is the objective. The more difficult cases wait, regardless of the seriousness of their need.Theologian Paul Ramsey pointed out some years ago that military or disaster triage has a clear objective: to save the most salvageable so that they can contribute to the common goodÂ-which, in battle, is victory; in earth-quake or fire, is public safety. The common good provides the criterion for selection. According to Jonsen, then, the practice Larrey dubbed "triage" was a utilitarian allocation scheme designed to save the most salvageable patients in order to provide for the common good. Standard treatments of the subject substantially agree with the Engelhardt-Jonsen-Ramsey account.Cementing this view of triage in the minds of most scholars is the wellknown and vivid first-hand account of penicillin triage during World War II penned by Dr. Henry Beecher:When the wonders of penicillin were new, but recognized, and the supply heartbreakingly meager, a small shipment finally arrived in North Africa during World War II. The hospital beds were overflowing with wounded men. Many had been wounded in battles; many also had been wounded in brothels. Which group would get the penicillin? By all that is just, it would go to the heroes who had risked their lives, who were still in jeopardy, and some of whom were dying. They did not receive it, nor should they have; it was given to those infected in brothels. Before indignation takes over, let us examine the situation.First, there were desperate shortages of manpower at the front. Second, those with broken bodies and broken bones would not be swiftly restored to the battle line, even with penicillin, whereas those with venereal disease, on being

An independent panel of experts, convened by the American Medical Association (AMA) Institute for Ethics, analyzed the roots of the racial divide within American medical organizations. In this, the first of a 2-part report, we describe 2 watershed moments that helped institutionalize the racial divide. The first occurred in the 1870s, when 2 medical societies from Washington, DC, sent rival delegations to the AMA's national meetings: an all-white delegation from a medical society that the US courts and Congress had formally censured for discriminating against black physicians; and an integrated delegation from a medical society led by physicians from Howard University. Through parliamentary maneuvers and variable enforcement of credentialing standards, the integrated delegation was twice excluded from the AMA's meetings, while the all-white society's delegations were admitted. AMA leaders then voted to devolve the power to select delegates to state societies, thereby accepting segregation in constituent societies and forcing African American physicians to create their own, separate organizations. A second watershed involved AMA-promoted educational reforms, including the 1910 Flexner report. Straightforwardly applied, the report's population-based criterion for determining the need for phySicians would have recommended increased training of African American physicians to serve the approximately 9 million African Americans in the segregated south. Instead, the report recommended closing all but 2 African American medical schools, helping to cement in place an African American educational system that was separate, unequal, and destined to be insufficient to the needs of African Americans nationwide.

Bioethics and human rights were conceived in the aftermath of the Holocaust, when moral outrage reenergized the outmoded concepts of “medical ethics” and “natural rights,” renaming them “bioethics,” and “human rights” to give them new purpose. Originally, the principles of bioethics were a means for protecting human rights, but through a historical accident, bioethical principles came to be considered as fundamental. In this paper I reflect on the parallel development and accidental divorce of bioethics and human rights to urge their reconciliation.