Editorial

As readers will note from the journal's subtitle, we regard bioethics to be a multidisciplinary endeavour drawing upon insight and expertise from across various disciplines. This edition is a good example of different expertise being exercised on a variety of issues which fall within the bioethics fold.

The matter of women’s reproductive choice is an issue which sparks much interest and debate. In the context of the U.K., laws around elective egg freezing (EEF) have changed raising the time limit on storage of frozen eggs, sperm and embryos from 10 years to a renewable 10-year limit and up to a maximum of 55 years for everyone, regardless of medical need. Nakou picks up on this in her article and whilst affirms the steps to enhance women's choice in this area, questions whether there is something more fundamental which is being missed. Information and making an informed choice is key in effective decision making but Nakou argues that it is not just access to information which is important but the way in which information is conveyed and communicated: ‘ … although professionals may provide sufficient information to a woman, her choice can still be controlled to an extent by the inferences she makes about EEF which are drawn from limited and one-sided information.’ Nakou argues that extending the storage limit can be regarded as positive change in the name of women's empowerment in reproductive choice, but the real impact of this will not be realized unless we are clearer about what women need to know.

Where once the idea of artificial wombs could have been deemed something to leave to the domain of script writers and authors of science fiction, advances in science and technology are pointing to potential realities of this occurring, challenging us to consider the ethical and social implications posed by extracorporeal gestation of human offspring. Whilst full ectogenesis appears to remain some time from being realized, current research focuses on partial ectogenesis, where a foetus is grown in a womb, then removed and incubated. Muhsin et al contribute to this important discussion by examining the use of this technology through the lens of Islamic ethico-legal frameworks. Whilst the place of faith and religious belief in public life may be contested and debated, for many it remains a significant and important part of answering the question of what it means to be human. Statistics indicates that Islam is the world's fastest-growing religion, with almost 2 billion adherents in 2022 and in many Western countries, Muslims constitute a significant and growing minority population. Raising awareness and understanding of Islamic perspectives on novel biotechnologies such as ectogenesis is valuable as it may well influence a large number of people. By addressing this issue through an Islamic lens, the value of Muhsin et al.'s article is found not just in identifying questions and themes pertaining to Muslims but also contributing fresh perspective on the potential harms these advances might pose at the individual and societal level.

Keeping with this idea of the individual and society and our relating to one another, Iftode addresses the theme of human enhancement and specifically motivational enhancement. Traditionally, through a process of self-conditioning, involving repetition and training, we improve ourselves. But how might new forms of enhancing ourselves enable us to ‘improve’ ourselves whilst reducing the need for effort? Is this something counter intuitive? Iftode explores these themes, enriching the discussion, by questioning the fact that effort is all that matters. Equally important, is the subject's discernment and dedication to a certain goal which brings with it the ‘enhancement’. The author goes onto suggest that it is difficult to establish significant differences between the traditional technology of the self and biomedical technologies. Whilst the distinction between therapy and enhancement formed an initial starting point for the human enhancement debate, the limitations of this distinction have been widely acknowledged. Iftode's article attempts to try and move the conversation on by contributing to fresh ways of assessing enhancement technologies, mindful of both the potential harms and benefits they might afford.

Returning to the journal’s subtitle, the key focus is on multidisciplinary interactions on bioethical matters as it relates to the human body. However, this does not mean there is not space needed to dialogue with those interested in non-human matters from which we can both glean insight and perspective. Bobier, Reinhardt and Pawlowski make a valuable contribution in this regard by challenging our regard of non-human animal rights as it pertains to science practice. They argue that rather than trying to reform scientific practice to make animal research ethical, it requires a wider reimagining of science, on the grounds that practically little existing animal research would be ethical and that ethical animal research is not scalable. The article provides much to consider and reflect on in terms of how an animal rights position might be reconsidered but also causes the reader to question and evaluate the shared norms, beliefs, values, and expectations that should inform and shape the scientific enterprise. As with any good argument, there is plenty to inspire as well as provoke in the article, but it is through this process that we open ourselves up to see with fresh eyes issues that we might otherwise have been blind to.

These controversial issues are sure to raise many questions and responses are welcome either in the form of articles or readers' letters which we would be pleased to consider for publication. To this end, we welcome the letter in this edition in response to Bow's recent article (2023)