| Title |
Human dignity and the creation of human–nonhuman chimeras
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11019-015-9644-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
César Palacios-González |
| Abstract |
In this work I present a detailed critique of the dignity-related arguments that have been advanced against the creation of human-nonhuman chimeras that could possess human-like mental capacities. My main claim is that the arguments so far advanced are incapable of grounding a principled objection against the creation of such creatures. I conclude that these arguments have one, or more, of the following problems: (a) they confuse the ethical assessment of the creation of chimeras with the ethical assessment of how such creatures would be treated in specific contexts (e.g. in the laboratory), (b) they misrepresent how a being could be treated solely as means towards others' ends, |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 40% |
| France | 1 | 7% |
| Mexico | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 93% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 4 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 22% |
| Unknown | 18 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,759,971
of 25,382,035 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#48
of 621 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,984
of 278,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,035 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 621 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.