The next session of the London Bioethics Colloquium is coming up on Monday – we’re excited to have Arnon Keren with us, who is currently visiting King’s Philosophy department.
5 December 2016, 16:00-17:30
King’s College London, Strand Campus, Somerset House East Wing, SW1.18 (Moot Court)
Arnon Keren (University of Haifa / King’s College London): Autonomy, ignorance and informed consent
We look forward to seeing hopefully many of you!
All the best
Annette and James
London Bioethics Colloquium 2016-17
All welcome, no need to register.
6 February 2017, 16:00-17:30
King’s College London, Strand Campus, Somerset House East Wing, SW1.17 (Ante Room)
Garrett Brown (University of Sheffield): An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: Global health justice and the new global health emergency financing facilities’
6 March 2016, 16:00-17:30
University College London, location TBC
Emily McTernan (University College London): title TBC
Other talks or events of interest
16 January 2017, 11:30-13:30, Department of Global Health & Social Medicine, King’s College London: Digital Specters: The Life Journeys of Biodata Commodities
Speaker: Dr Mary Ebeling
The rise of the “databased society” creates conditions where health information about our lives often is extracted directly from our bodies to inhabit distributed databases without our knowledge or consent. Within these servers, our information lays dormant, awaiting the application of data-mining algorithms to infuse new life into “dead” matter, and transform our information into the currency of the data industry: biodata commodities. I trace the “life journey” of the biodata commodity–from its birth, death and resurrection as a new digital life-form.
26-27 January 2017, Department of Global Health & Social Medicine, King’s College London: Measuring Global Health – An International Workshop on the Political, Social and Ethical Aspects of Metrics and Quantification in Global Health
Metrics and quantification – from epidemiological surveillance to cost-effectiveness calculations – have become ubiquitous in the field of global health of late. A collaboration between King’s College London, McGill University and Queen Mary University, this workshop will bring epidemiologists and global health practitioners together with social scientists and historians to discuss the political, social and ethical aspects of this recent development. It will explore the political discourses, institutional forms and statistical techniques that make these metrics possible. It will also examine what numerical evidence has more traction and what remains unaccounted for and why. And, it will look at how metrics transform the way global health advocacy, politics and management is done.
Participation to the workshop is free, but places are limited and prior registration is necessary. If interested, please email Dr. David Reubi (firstname.lastname@example.org).
http://criticalglobalhealth.org/category/workshops/. Please feel free to share this information throughout your own networks.
26 January 2017, 17:00-18:30, Philosophy & Medicine, King’s College London: What’s wrong with pragmatic clinical trials?
Lecture: Nancy Cartwright, Department of Philosophy, University of Durham (Work with Sarah Wieten)
In principle nothing is wrong with pragmatic trials: trials that ‘seek to determine the effectiveness of an intervention in a real-world setting to inform clinical decision making’ (Roland and Torgerson, 1998). In aid of this, pragmatic trials eliminate some of the exclusion conditions that are usual in what are labelled ‘ideal’ or ‘explanatory’ trials. The trouble comes with the concepts of ‘effectiveness’ and ‘external validity’. Positive results in well-conducted trials, whether ideal or pragmatic, show only that the treatment has worked for some members of the population enrolled in the trial. They cannot establish that it works in general nor what other factors help or hinder. Similarly, a pragmatic trial can establish that the treatment worked in the particular ‘real world’ setting – the one in which it was conducted, not that it works in ‘real world clinical practice’. Nor can they tell us what, if anything, is causally relevant in those settings. What can they do then? We shall argue that pragmatic trial results can be used in just the same way as ‘explanatory’ trial results: in tandem with a great deal of other evidence and theory, especial ‘midrange’ theory, to build credible local claims about how specific populations – or possibly even a specific individual – in specific places and circumstances may respond.