Eubios Journal of Asian andInternational Bioethics
EJAIB Vol. 29 (5) September 2019www.eubios.info

ISSN 1173-2571 (Print) ISSN 2350-3106 (Online)

Official Journal of the Asian Bioethics Association (ABA)

Copyright ©2019 Eubios Ethics Institute(All rights reserved, for commercial reproductions).

Contents

p a g eEditorial: Academic Freedom is an Essence of
Bioethical Discourse - Darryl Macer
153
Attempts by scientists to suppress discussion of
overpopulation: A California case that
backBired nicely
154- Stuart H. Hurlbert
Why denial of human overpopulation is a key barrier
to a sustainable future
166- Haydn Washington, Ian Lowe, Helen Kopnina
How research literature and media cover the role andimage of disabled people in relation toartiBicial intelligence and neuro-research
169- Rochelle Deloria, Aspen Lillywhite, Valentina Villamil& Gregor WolbringLegacies of Love, Peace and Hope New Living Book182
Editorial address, and all correspondence to:Prof. Darryl Macer, Ph.D., Hon.D.
President, American University of Sovereign Nations (AUSN)
Email: darryl@eubios.info
EJAIB adopts and complies with the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) Publication ethics and malpractice policy. All
potential authors should have read these guidelines and bysubmission of an article for publication you acknowledge thatyou have complied with this policy. Violations will be handled inproportion to the intention and seriousness of the violation.
Registered address of EJAIB: P.O. Box 16 329, Hornby,
Christchurch 8441, New Zealand

Editorial: Academic Freedom is
an Essence of Bioethical Discourse- Darryl Macer
As a Journal editor I must uphold the freedom of
expression and our social belief that this is a basic humanright. Authors have the freedom to express their ideas, aslong as they do not falsely slander another moral being.
We also demand in science that there is a rationale andevidence to be presented, and each journal has a choice
whether to be a neutral forum allowing people to publish
views that have some merit to be presented for academic
discourse, no matter what the conclusions are, as is the
position of EJAIB, in contrast to some journals that will
only publish ideas that are consistent with a particular

viewpoint. In the past three years a popular idea of false
news, fake news, and politically biased discourse has been
more evident in the print, media and social media groups.
For centuries there have been institutions that try to limit
discussion to their particular ideology, theology or
passion.
We still have these, and it is part of thecelebration of human diversity itself when we have a fullrange of positions. We respect their freedom.
Academic Freedom is only possible through a climateof open and transparent genuine discourse, using the fullrange of rational and emotional arguments that humans
have created. It is a foundation also of academic
associations, such as the Asian Bioethics Association, ofacademic institutions, and of the discipline of Bioethics.
When academic institutions attempt to stiBle freedomof dialogue it usually backBires against them creating
discontent, and the Birst extended paper in this issue of
EJAIB by Stuart H. Hurlbert, describes an ideology-driven
attack on him broadcast to the entire campus just before
he gave a seminar at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
The readers of this journal will Bind this in conBlict withthe academic integrity expected of major fora of scientiBicknowledge. The allegations against Hurlbert were linked
to bioethical issues of birth control, immigration, overpopulation, and the ecological crisis that we face as aplanet. In academic dialogue it should be completely
acceptable to ask questions about all the links between
these phenomena. In fact it is an obligation of academic
inquiry. Also, I note that as editor I gave all persons
mentioned a chance to respond in this journal.
This is clearly a topic of the hour for us as a species aspresented by a response article by Haydn Washington, Ian
Lowe, and Helen Kopnina. We have to consider seriously
the consequences of human freedom, and somegovernments have attempted by both voluntary andcoercive polices to limit the number of children each
person should leave as a moral agent on this planet. These
are also important questions for the link Finally in thisissue please see the call for the Legacies of Hope, Peaceand Love book which was launched in the Al Noor Mosquein our hometown, Christchurch, to show how Education
can overcome prejudice, despite these evils.
The third paper in this issue is by Rochelle Deloria,
Aspen Lillywhite, Valentina Villamil and Gregor Wolbring
and reports on how the academic literature and media
discuss disabled people in relation to AI and neuroresearch. It is easy to see the linkages to this theme.

154

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)

Attempts by scientists tosuppress discussion of
overpopulation: A California
case that backfired nicely- Stuart H. Hurlbert, Ph.D.1
1Department of Biology, San Diego State University,
San Diego, California, U.S.A. 92014(Mail to: 13913 Recuerdo Dr, Del Mar CA, U.S.A., 92014)

Email: hurlbert@sdsu.edu

Abstract
Distribution of literature on population issues at a
Sierra Club symposium in San Diego on marine
conservation led to an invitation to speak at the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography (SIO) in 2017. A few hours
before that talk was given, the speaker was attacked in an
email sent to the entire SIO community by a SIO faculty
member repeating a claim by the Southern Poverty Law
Center (SPLC) that the speaker belonged to an “antiimmigrant hate group.” Some students then also objectedto the speaker’s presence. Nevertheless, the talk was
positively received by the two dozen people who came,
though not by the SIO faculty member nominally in chargeof the seminar series. The UCSD administration did notallow the SIO directorate to follow through on its promise
to allow the speaker a convenient way to respond to his
attackers. He did so anyway with a document that went to1800 members of the SIO community. A Blurry of email
messages occurred within SIO; the few received by the
speaker were mostly positive. The SIO community
contributed $600 to Californians for Population
Stabilization, the organization falsely accused as being a“hate group.” One SIO faculty member concluded, “thecontroversy has resulted in a great deal more thought
about US population stabilization at SIO than if only CMBC[Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation]
students and faculty attended your talk.” Ethicallychallenged censors within the scientiBic community must
always be confronted and exposed. It doesn’t take all thatmuch to win local battles.
Key words: censorship, climate change, Scripps
Institution of Oceanography, Californians for Population
Stabilization, Southern Poverty Law Center, Jennifer
Haase, Lisa Levin, Jay Barlow
The population-environment connection has
become a taboo subject. Many young people onuniversity campuses, including Berkeley, have beentaught over the past decade that the connection
between population growth and environment is not
an acceptable subject for discussion. In many circles
it is politically incorrect to say that slowing
population growth will help to make it possible topreserve the environment for future generations.
At the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
in San Diego I have learned that the countries
whose scientists are involved in theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change havemade a tacit agreement not to talk about the

population factor because it is “too sensitive”. Think
about this … the panel is composed only of scientists,
who are purposely avoiding discussion of asigniJicant factor in their principal subject. What
has been happening? I will try to answer thisquestion.
-- Martha M. Campbell, University of California,
Berkeley, in “Why the Silence on Population?,” 2005
The recommendations for action are made in a
spirit of consensus and international cooperation,
recognizing that the formulation andimplementation of population policies is the
responsibility of each country and should take
into account the economic, social, andenvironmental diversity of conditions in eachcountry, with full respect for the various religious
and ethical values, cultural backgrounds andphilosophical convictions of its people, as well as theshared but differentiated responsibilities of all theworld’s people for a common future.
-- Preamble to “Report of the International
Conference on Population and Development,” Cairo,
1994
Introduction
In the United States discussion of national population
policies and their environmental, social and economic
consequences is strongly discouraged if not censored or
suppressed outright by many scientiBic, academic andenvironmental establishments (Grant 1994, Maher 1997,
Beck & Kolankiewicz 2000, Hurlbert 2001, 2011a,b,c,d,2012, 2016a, Meyerson 2004, Campbell 2005, 2007, 2012,
Ehrlich 2008, Hull 2011, 2018, Kolankiewicz 2011, Walker
2011, Weld 2012, Schindler et al. 2012). When suchdiscussions invade or threaten to invade the institutional
spaces these establishments control ideologically, theirself-appointed guardians and overseers react in unethicalways. Often they simply nip such discussions in the bud
without the wider community even knowing the nipping
has taken place. When that is not possible, instead of
joining the discussion, they may engage in ad hominem
attacks on the individuals or organizations initiating thediscussion.
This article exempliBies one possible way in which wellinformed contrarians with sufBicient time on their hands
can respond with positive result to attacks of the latter
sort. Many important general issues are addressed
relating to ethics, the behavior of scientists, students andtheir institutions, and the intellectual openness ofacademia in the U.S. generally. These are addressed,
however, by recounting in detail a rather complex casehistory, the tangled sequelae of a Sierra Club meeting anda talk I gave at the world famous Scripps Institution of
Oceanography (SIO) at the University of California, San
Diego, on February 28, 2017. This article departs in style
from the drier, more academic tone of most EJAIB articles
while being fully concordant with the journal’s focus on
ethics. Much of the article consists of direct quotes fromemail messages received, directly or indirectly, from SIO
faculty members, staff members and students. Aside froma few principals in the controversy, these individuals haveEubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)
been granted anonymity here. And even where there arestrong criticisms of me, I offer no individual rebuttals asnone are needed.
This is a tale with many themes. One would be
expressed most accurately by an old adage revised as, ‘Lie
down with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), get
up with egg on your face.’
Another theme is the
censoriousness of scientists.
More positive themes include how you should stick tohigh principle, and “when someone is cruel or acts like abully you don’t stoop to their level. No, our motto is: when
they go low, we go high”, as First Lady Michelle Obama
told the July 2016 Democratic National Convention she
advised her daughters. Another theme is that those who“go low” usually are paper tigers, and if you confront thempublicly you will get private messages of support in yourinbox from persons you have never met – and sometimes
even cash contributions!
A Binal theme is to be wary of stereotyping entire
organizations based on the bizarre politics or bad
behavior of their leaders. Many organizations that initiallyseem to be apolitical or politically centrist or moderate
evolve according to Conquest’s second law of politics:"Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later
becomes left-wing" (Anonymous 2008).
Conquest’s third law, as modiBied by John Moore,is: "The simplest way to explain the behavior of any
bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled
by a cabal of the enemies of the stated purpose of thatbureaucracy.” To that we might add: “….or by a cabal intent
on surreptitiously, without a membership referendum orvote, radically modifying the original stated mission of theorganization." In any case, during the typical leftward
evolution of an organization, there is an ephemeralincrease in membership political diversity. It takes a while
for the more centrist or politically moderate members tounderstand what has happened and drift away. In somecases, of course, they can’t drift away because
membership is essential to their livelihood. Professors inmany colleges and universities whose central
administrations have been taken over by ideologues of the
far left would be one example.
With that odd introduction, let us begin the tale.
Sierra Club’s West Coast Ocean Forum
This half-day symposium was held in La Jolla, California
on November 5, 2016. Lead organizer was Renée Owens,chair of the Wildlife Committee of Sierra Club San Diego
chapter and member of the SC’s National Marine Action
Team. Half a year later, she would receive the Club’s
highest award, the Silver Cup Award as “the person who
has most signiBicantly contributed to the success of theClub’s mission.” (Thomas 2014)
Promotional materials noted there would be coverage of“topics such as endangered species, climate change andoffshore oil, aquaculture, ecosystem based Bishery
management, National Ocean Policy, and tools toeffectively protect and preserve our ocean ecosystems forthe future.”
Prior to the event, I asked Renée if I could bring someliterature to distribute and if there would be tables

155

available for that. I knew Renée from back when she wasan ecology Master’s student in the Biology Department at
San Diego State University and from private discussions ofSierra Club politics over the years. Her reply was, “Sureand yes.”
The talks were excellent in substance and delivery, andsome new friends were made. With the help of Allison
McGee, wildlife enthusiast and member of the Sierra Cluband of Scientists and Environmentalists for Population
Stabilization (SEPS), we distributed about 1100 pieces ofliterature on national and global population policies andissues, censorship, and population growth as a driver ofenvironmental problems. This was accomplished mainly
via pre-assembled literature packets containing 35 items
each.
One new acquaintance who appreciated our packet was
Scripps Institution of Oceanography researcher Jay
Barlow. Within an hour of the end of the symposium, I
received the following email message from him:
“Thanks for the written material you provided at the
Sierra Club meeting today. I read through most of it
and found it to be very interesting.
It is amazing to me how many groups are afraid toeven discuss issues of population growth.
I waspractically weaned reading the Population Bomb. Sad
to see how far we haven't come.
At Scripps, there is a noon seminar sponsored mostweeks by the Center for Marine Biodiversity andConservation. If you or a member of your group wereinterested, I'd love to hear you speak there.
Currently I am the President for the Society for Marine
Mammalogy, a professional society with approximately
2000 members. We host biennial conferences that
attract 1500-2500 attendees. Speaking for myself, I'dwelcome your group [SEPS] at an exhibitor table at ourSociety meetings. If your group were interested, I'd be
happy to bring it up to our Board with myrecommendation.”
I said I’d be glad to talk at SIO, Jay passed that on to
Penny Dockry, the administrator who handledarrangements for such, a date of February 28, 2017 was
set for the talk, and I sent a title and abstract to Penny.
Penny sent out a notice to the SIO community at somepoint, and then sent, on the morning of my talk, areminder with full details, as follows. The abstract of thetalk was my own, not a put-down by Penny! Penny
included a mini-bio for me copied from the SEPS website.
Announcement of a Talk by Stuart Hurlbert
From: Dockry, Penny <pdockry@ucsd.edu>
Date: Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 8:23 AM
Subject: CMBC Brown Bag: Sustainability, Population,
Censorship, and Unholy Left-Right Alliances
To: "all-at-sio@ucsd.edu" <all-at-sio@ucsd.edu>
Cc: Stuart Hurlbert <hurlbert@mail.sdsu.edu>
Please join us:
CMBC Brown Bag -TODAY - February 28 [Center for
Marine Biodiversity and Conservation]
12:30 - 1:30
4500 Hubbs Hall[SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF
OCEANOGRAPHY]

156

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)

Sustainability, Population, Censorship, and Unholy LeftRight AlliancesThis talk will cover a number of boring, unimportant
topics that may leave you with bad feelings either aboutsome of your favorite scientiBic societies andenvironmental organizations -- or about the speaker.
However, a very good packet of literature will be provided
that could turn you into a dyspeptic and change your life.
Speaker: Stuart H. Hurlbert
Stuart H. Hurlbert is President of the Scientists andEnvironmentalists for Population Stabilization andProfessor Emeritus of Biology at San Diego State
University. His teaching and research have been primarily
in the areas of lake ecology, biostatistics, and manenvironment relations. He is a Fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, member ofseveral other scientiBic societies, and winner of the
National Academy of Sciences 2003 Award for ScientiBic
Reviewing. He encourages environmental scientists andtheir professional societies to show greater courage inaddressing U.S. population growth, its consequences, andthe urgent need to slow it down.
Penny Dockry, Operations Manager
Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation
Program for Interdisciplinary Environmental Research(PIER)
MAS-MBC, 858-822-2790, http://cmbc.ucsd.edu
Incoming from Jennifer Haase and Acolytes
Two hours before my talk a message from a stranger,
SIO geophysicist Jennifer Haase, popped up in my email
inbox. Her message was sent directly to Penny Dockry andcopied to me and the entire SIO community (ca. 2200
persons). ReBlecting ignorance and poor researchingskills, Jennifer used innuendo and a link to the Southern
Poverty Law Center to accuse me and organizations I was(and am) associated with as being “racist,” “antiimmigrant haters” and to imply my talk should beboycotted.
Jennifer also copied her message directly to Keira
Auzenne, hired in September 2016, as SIO’s “Birst everequity, diversity and inclusion coordinator” (Hook 2017).
Were they really going to roll out the big guns for a retired
professor from the minor leagues at San Diego State, I
mused? Someone with high potential for bringing“diversity” to SIO so long as he was “included”?
Though I did not discover it until later, Jennifer’s attack
excited the emotions of at least four younger members of
the SIO community, inspiring them also to broadcast
criticisms of me. Some of these were copied to me, some I
saw only later.
Jennifer’s attack got my adrenalin titer up a bit. My
primary reaction, however, was neither surprise noranger but rather only that another teachable moment wasat hand. So I hopped into my car, smiling, for the Bive-mile
drive from my house to SIO.
Here verbatim is Jennifer’s original ‘warning’ to her SIO
colleagues:“From: Haase, Jennifer S <jhaase@ucsd.edu>
Date: Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [All-at-SIO] CMBC Brown Bag: Sustainability,

Population, Censorship, and Unholy Left-Right Alliances
To: "Dockry, Penny" <pdockry@ucsd.edu>
Cc: "all-at-sio@ucsd.edu" <all-at-sio@ucsd.edu>, Stuart
Hurlbert <hurlbert@mail.sdsu.edu>, Keiara Auzenne<kauzenne@ucsd.edu>
Dear Penny,Thank you very much for the invitation to hear Mr. Hurlbert
at the CMBC Seminar. Unfortunately I will not be able toattend. I will use this opportunity to use my Jirst
amendment rights to provide a few facts to the SIO
community.
1) The website of Californians for Population Stabilization
provides this background on Stuart Hurlbert: http://
www.capsweb.org/winter-2016-2017-newsletter"Stuart Hurlbert, President of Scientists andEnvironmentalists for Population Stabilization, CAPS
member and former CAPS Board Member”
2) Californians for Population Stabilization was reported by
the Southern Poverty Law Center to be an Anti-Immigrant
hate group based in Santa Barbara California: https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map
I’d like to make a request to the administration of the
Scripps Institution of Oceanography to provide one
additional fact, if possible, and that would be the number offaculty, staff, and students that were not born in the US but
have emigrated to the US. I know quite a few personally andhold them in the highest esteem.
Among all of the seminars that are presented by outside
speakers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, there is
only a Jinite amount of time to dedicate to seminars that
may be tangentially related to our research interests, so I
choose to attend those of the highest scientiJic quality. I’mchoosing to sit this one out.
Sincerely,
Jennifer S Haase, Research Geophysicist
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA 92093-0225
jhaase@ucsd.edu, Phone: +1-858-534-8771, Fax:
+1-858-534-9833”
Normandy Beachhead Secured, Talk Given, Censor
Flushed Out
Twenty minutes later I was meeting Penny, putting out
literature packets for attendees, surveying the conference
room, and being introduced by Jay and SIO oceanographer
Lisa Levin. Haase’s attempt to keep my audience small
was at least partially successful. Only about two dozen
people showed up, whereas 2-3 times that many had
shown up when in 1996 I gave a more narrowly focused,technical talk in the same room on “The Life and Death of
the Keystone Species Concept.” Ironically, that then-aboutto-be-published talk was also found irritating by some at
SIO as it skewered a major ‘sacred cow’ of ecologists that
had been birthed at SIO in the 1960s (Hurlbert 1997)!
Penny obviously felt embarrassed for SIO at Haase’s
attack on me. I told her not to worry, but asked her if I
would be allowed to send out to the SIO community myresponse to the attack. She said that would be possible.
My audience was friendly and welcoming. With one
exception, there wasn’t a scintilla of Haase-like hostility
during or after my talk, not even an aggressive question orEubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)
comment. Of more than 1200 copies of 38 different
articles, charts, policy statements, op eds, etc. that I andAlisson McGee provided in packets on a back table, 838
were picked up by attendees for leisurely digestion. They
included 30 copies of the classic review article, “Theenvironmental movement's retreat from advocating U.S.
population stabilization (1970-1998)” (Beck and
Kolankiewicz 2000). Within a day of my talk I received
three complimentary email messages from talk attendees.
So it seemed to me to have been another successful
Johnny Appleseed operation, all the stay-at-homes
notwithstanding.
That “one exception” was of some signiBicance, however.
During conversations just before and after my talk I
learned that Lisa Levin was the ofBicial faculty advisor forthese ‘brown bag’ seminars, that she learned of my talk
only after it was scheduled, and that she was upset with
Jay and Penny for not getting her permission Birst. Andeven after I had given a talk that seemed to rile or bethought improper by no one, to judge from the Q & A
session or later comments received by email, Lisa
expressed to me her feeling that I was an inappropriate
speaker for SIO and would not have been approved by her,nor would a talk by anyone else that focused in part onpast, current and proposed national population policies
and their connections to conservation and environmental
values. She opined that overconsumption is a problem in
the U.S. but overpopulation is not.
In other words she is representative of that great massof globalist academics who are responsible for most U.S.
university graduates, even those coming out with PhDs ineconomics, political science, public health or the
agricultural or environmental sciences, knowing no more
about national and global population policies and issues
than they did when they graduated from high school. With
that record as educators, they are on thin ice wheneverthey decide to criticize the obvious inadequacies of thej o u r n a l i s t s , l a w ye r s , p o l i t i c i a n s , e c o n o m i s t s ,businesspersons, etc. churned out by their very own
institutions.
It is regrettable that Jay and Penny were castigated bysome colleagues for their “error” in bringing me as aspeaker to SIO. I understand that now speakers for thisseminar series cannot be scheduled without Birst beingvetted by Lisa for their political acceptability. George
Orwell turns over in his grave once again.
First Cavalry Contingent Arrives
On return to my ofBice I began preparing rebuttals to thecriticisms by Jennifer and her friends for latertransmission to the SIO community. There were a numberof discussions going on at SIO and UCSD that must havebeen interesting but that I was not privy to and that the
principals were tight-lipped about. I apologized to Penny
and Jay for getting them into hot water, and began
checking on the procedure for sending out a rebuttal.
I did eventually hear that Keira, SIO’s diversity, equity
and inclusivity coordinator, quizzed Penny about how the
CMBC Brown Bag seminars are scheduled and promoted.
One has to wonder who put Keira up to that and on what
grounds. I guess when “racists” are afoot, one cannot be
too careful.

157

More heartening was when Jay Binally let me know of his
behind-the scenes defense of the open discussion of ideas.
Here are his thoughtful February 29 messages to Pennyand Lisa, passed on to me on March 2. Jay gives a pretty
good summary of the main points of my talk, and that will
have to sufBice for the talk non-attendees until I am invitedback.
Hi Stuart. I agree completely that this is a valuable
teachable moment. One of my students was involved in
the email exchange and I plan to spend an hour or moregetting her to talk through her feelings. I was morealarmed than you sound to be about the viciousness of
the attack. I suspect that you have been at this longenough to have developed some pretty thick skin.
Below is a message I sent to Lisa Levin (the academic
head of CMBC) and to Penny to help them understand
why I still feel that your talk was very appropriate to
CMBC. Jay
Hi Penny, I feel badly for involving you in thiscontroversy, but want to give you some background on
why I think it is important for our students. Don't worry,
I don't plan to invite any more speakers to CMBC. Below,
I explain to Lisa why I think that this sort of talk isimportant for CMBC students. Lisa suggested that I
forward this to you. I cc'd [XXX] because she was one of
the key opponents to Stuart’s presence at SIO. Jay
Lisa, I respectfully disagree with you about theappropriateness of Stuart Hurlbert's lecture yesterday. I
think that if we want our CMBC students to be
comfortable leaving the ivory tower and to be successful
in the policy arena, they need to be able to listen to (anddebate) ideas that they fundamentally disagree with.
Unfortunately, I don't think we have done a very goodjob in this aspect of educating our students. The
response of the students to the talk by Stuart Hurlbert
illustrates this. Instead of attending, listening, anddisagreeing, they retreated into their like-minded
twittersphere of political correctness. [Ok, they usedmass emailings, but the effect is the same as twitter]. In
this space, they feel comfortable with generalizations
and name-calling-bordering-on-libel that would neveroccur in a public forum. Opinions seem to matter morethan facts (sound like any other recent forums?).
It is important to recall what was actually said by
Stuart while fresh in our memories. He re-stated thecommonly held belief that human population growth isbad for the environment (duh!). He explained at great
length how that fact has fallen off the conservation
agenda and documented that with several articles. He
went on (too long) on how the AAAS has rejectedparticipation of his group at commercial booths at their
meetings. Finally, he discussed the implication of
immigration policy on US population growth. Now that
we are demographically at ZPG (fertility rate =2),
immigration is a key component of population growth in
the US. He showed a slide with the populationconsequences of a variety of different immigration
policies. He did not, at Scripps, advocate for any
particular policy other than a consideration of the158

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)conservation impact of population growth andimmigration policy.
He did not say anything racist. He did not vilify nonwhite immigrants. Not all people who work on
immigration policy are racist, even though some clearlyare.
Just to be clear about my position, I agree with mostthings Stuart said yesterday, and I disagree with most of
the solutions proposed by his group, Scientists andEnvironmentalists for Population Stabilization. We
SHOULD consider the effect of population growth on theenvironment. A doubling of the US population in 50
years WOULD have a negative effect on theenvironment. Immigration IS a key component of
current US population growth. I think the biggest
unknown is the effect of immigration to the US (and toEurope) on the global environment. I suspect that isneutral or slightly positive.
We should be able to talk about these things. Jay
Rebuttal and Re-Education of Jennifer and Acolytes
Here verbatim is my response to Jennifer’s attack thatwent out to the SIO community. Below that I quote brief
excerpts from the original messages of her acolytes with afew comments of my own. In the 10-page document thateventually went out to the SIO community the entireties of
all the messages they sent me plus my accompanying
detailed response to each were provided.
*****
Ms. Haase is presumably an above average geophysicist
if she’s employed by SIO, but that is not incompatible withbeing completely uninformed or ideologically blinkered
on other issues, and willing to shoot from the hip on themas well.
This problem is not conBined to academics of course.
Consider this quote from a recent piece about celebrity
actors, “Hey Hollywood, Smugness Isn't a Political
Strategy” (McArdle 2017):“[C]elebrities are stupid about policy, often
breathtakingly so. On the other hand, so is everyoneelse. You want to hear some really stupid ideas about
policy? Grab a group of whip-smart Jinancial wizards,
or neurosurgeons, or nuclear physicists, and sit themdown for a nice dinner to debate some policy outside
their profession. You will Jind that they are pretty muchjust as stupid as anyone else, because policy is notabout smart. I mean, smart helps. But policy isfundamentally about domain knowledge, and thatknowledge is acquired only by spending a great deal oftime thinking about a pretty small set of problems.
Funnily enough, this is also how one gets good at
Jinance, or neurosurgery, or nuclear physics.”
Ms. Haase and I have never met. She knew nothing
about the detailed content of my talk. But she wasdetermined to let the SIO community know that itprobably would not be of “the highest scientiJic quality.”
Instead of attempting to compromise my “Birst
amendment rights”, she might have come off with less eggon-her-face if she’d listened to my talk before exercisingher “Birst amendment rights.”
Ms. Haase brought up my connection with Californians
for Population Stabilization (CAPS). But why? The

announcement of my talk did mention that I am presidentof another organization, Scientists and Environmentalists
for Population Stabilization (SEPS), but makes no mentionof CAPS. I am a member of CAPS and proudly served on its
board of directors for 12 years before starting up SEPS in
2012. The leadership of CAPS consists of some of thesmartest, most civic-minded, politically courageous
people I know. Why did Ms. Haase not also bring up the
Sierra Club to which I also belong and which also takes
positions on population issues?
The answer to these questions is blatantly clear. Ms.
Haase wants to use guilt-by-association and unsubtle
indirection to smear me as being “anti-immigrant” and a“hater.” Disappointing. A real blemish on SIO. It’s none of
Ms. Haase’s business, but large numbers of my relatives
are immigrants, the majority of my close friends are
immigrants, and I’ve helped immigrants from half a dozen
countries with their applications for entry [into the U.S].
Ms. Haase’s core error is to regard the Southern Poverty
Law Center (SPLC) as a respectable, fair-mindedorganization. While it has occasionally done worthwhile
things, in recent decades it has dedicated much of its
effort to smearing in its messages and online “research
articles” all the major U.S. population stabilization
organizations as being “racist,” “xenophobic,” “white
supremacist,” and so on. And when SPLC decides any
particular organization is proving too effective in
informing the public and in stymying bad legislation (likebills that would double immigration rates), SPLC goes forthe jugular: it puts that organization on its ofBicial list of“hate groups.” Then SPLC issues press releases andnewsletters saying the number of hate groups is growing
fast, “and by the way, please send us more money.”
Many who have taken a close look at the SPLC haveconcluded it has become a morally and intellectuallybankrupt organization. Here are a few articles that makethe case [all, and dozens more, are available on line; justgoogle the titles]:A Guide to Understanding the Tactics of the Southern
Poverty Law Center in the Immigration Debate
The Church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty
Law Center ProJits from Intolerance
The Hate List: Is America Really Being Overrun by Rightwing Militants?
Mission Creep and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s
Misguided Focus
Racial Racketeering for Fun and ProJit: The Southern
Poverty Law Center Scam
SPLC 2: The Search for More Money
The Hate Group That Incited the Middlebury Melee
Years of Turmoil and Complaints Led the Southern
Poverty Law Center to Fire Its Founder Morris Dees
Turmoil Engulfs the SPLC: A Closer Look at theUnderlying Scam of the Organization’s ‘Hate Group
Designation’
The SPLC has never articulated coherent population or
immigration policies of its own. It just wants to keep
proposals on these matters by other organizations off thetable everywhere, and no methods are too unethical for
their use.
*****
Below are the verbatim messages from the threeEubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)
graduate students and one postdoc who got stirred up.
They were victims, were upset and had some valid
concerns, albeit none relevant to my talk or qualiBications
or to the integrity of SEPS and CAPS.
Acolyte #1
Jennifer, thank you for bringing this to our attention. I
just read the SEPS website and the Californians forPopulation Stabilization website. The list of policy
recommendations, especially on the CAPS website, isalmost entirely focused on anti-immigrant policies: …
Sex education and family planning are mentioned only
brieJly on each website (e.g, 2/13 policy
recommendations on the CAPS website). These areracist, anti-immigrant organizations. I'm surprised
and disappointed that they are being given a voice andan audience at SIO.
Acolyte #2
Thank you Jennifer for bringing this up, and I lookforward to your comments being addressed ofJicially. I
am grateful for the link you provided because I am nowaware that an invited speaker at SIO associates with anorganization that clearly views French minorities in
Canada, Natives' rights to their lands, and a good
relationship with Mexico as major problems. I think I
have ofJicially been dis-invited. If anyone attends theevent, please bring up SIO's loose policies on admitting
me here.
Acolyte #3
For people attending could they also add that Mexican
and Brazilian students bring 5 years of funding fromtheir home countries’ science foundations. Nonetheless,the intellectual property of the science produced bythose students belongs to UC. This is migration offoreign-funded intellectual capital and may ease thefeeling of "migration-is-tearing-the-country-apart”.
Acolyte #4
While sustainability, natural resource utilization, andpopulation growth are serious issues, it seems
extraordinarily myopic (at best) to suggest that
reducing immigration is somehow a solution to control
world population. Recent research Jinds that countries
which have developed see large reductions in
population growth, so if anything, a viable solution is toimprove standards of living (e.g. health care,education) for more people, either by increasing
immigration or supporting development in poorer
countries. And I note that much of the apocalyptic fearmongering about population growth has its roots in
Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb", well known for thefollowing passage: “The battle to feed all of humanity isover. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will
starve to death in spite of any crash programs
embarked upon now. At this late date nothing canprevent a substantial increase in the world death
rate...” I wasn't around in the 1970s, but I don't recall
reading about this in my history texts...
My responses to these posts were civil, information-richand lengthy on the assumption these were smart people,

159

and that the responses would eventually be madeavailable to the whole SIO community. While theresponses and private conversations they generated are
not repeated here, some sense of them may be gained bythis list of articles, each suggested to one acolyte oranother (all can be found by googling the titles).
Pew Projection for U.S. Population in 2065: A Challenge
to Clinton and Trump.
Beaver Fever: The Manic Quest to Grow Canada’s
Population
The Ecological Rights of Humans
International Migration as an Obstacle to Achieving
World Stability
How Migration Hurts Poor Countries: Liberals, Take
Note – Small Developing Nations Suffer When Good
People Leave
There Is No Global Population Problem
The Environmental Movement's Retreat from
Ad vo ca t i n g U. S . Po p u l a t i o n Sta b i l i za t i o n(1970-1998): A First Draft of History
Bringing the SIO Community up to Speed
I prepared a 10-page compilation of the attacks on me
by Jennifer and others and my responses to them, titling it“Attack on a speaker by Scripps Institution of Oceanographygeophysicist and students, and the speaker’s response.” I
sent the document to SIO Director Margaret Leinen. I
asked for her permission to put it out on the SIO-wide
listserv. Both she and Penny had earlier said this would bepossible, but I did not want Penny in particular to catchany more Blak for simply being fair and open-minded. And
as I wrote to Margaret, “Overall, my response may
represent a more valuable educational contribution to the
SIO community than did my talk. And, permitted by the SIO
administration, it will be a clear sign that SIO is not indanger of becoming a West Coast version of Middlebury
College!” (Saul 2017).
But Margaret later had heard from some high level
UCSD central administrator, that “the LISTSERV is internal
and not appropriate for facilitating non-SIO individuals’communications with SIO” or even “a note on your [my]behalf.” In other words, let the attacks stand.
Apparently at some point during an email Birestorm that
I was not privy to, Margaret did send out to the SIO
community this notice about use of the listserv:“The All-at-SIO list is for messages of immediate
interest to the SIO community. The list is unmoderated
and self-regulating, but you must be a list member topost. Examples of acceptable messages include seminartime changes, notiJications of road closures, eventsaffecting SIO facilities, lost/found items, or "lights on"
warnings. All-at-SIO is not to be used for political orcollective bargaining purposes, to post items for sale, orfor housing-related messages. …If you take exception to
an All-at-SIO posting please direct your comments tothe sender only. Do not reply to the entire list.”
So on March 10 I took the matter further upstairs with amessage to the UCSD Chancellor that was copied toMargaret and read, in part, as follows:
Dr. Pradeep Khosla, Chancellor
University of California, San Diego
Dear Chancellor Khosla,

160

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)

Recently, as an invited speaker at SIO I had the""privilege" of being attacked in an email by a SIO
faculty member that went out to the whole SIO
community a couple of hours before my talk, as an antiimmigrant, hate-mongering racist. … I would like torequest that you authorize Dr. Leinen or one of her
staffers to send out my response to the all-atsio@ucsd.edu listserv. I'm told that this violates somenewly discovered regulation that the faculty member
attacking me was not held to. But I think a chancellor
can easily permit an exception, especially when it
will be so strongly in the interests of the reputationof SIO and UCSD. [bolding was in original]
Many thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely, Stuart Hurlbert
He never responded. So I turned to the SIO online
directory and with a couple of helpers over a couple ofhours obtained email addresses for about 1800 membersof the SIO community, certainly the great majority of thoseon the SIO listserv. To these I sent my response with thiscover letter:
Friends at SIO,
You may recall receiving on February 28 attacks on me
broadcast via all-at-sio@ucsd.edu by Jennifer Haase andothers. This is my response [10-page document was
attached]. It includes, verbatim, the attacking email
messages and much supplementary information. This
incident is peanuts compared to recent instances ofignorance-driven incivility, riots and attempted
censorship at other academic institutions. I was notinconvenienced in the least, my talk was well received,
no buildings were trashed and no one got beat up. Still,
ethical aspects of the incident might merit internal SIO
discussion. Not least of these would be attempts byothers to prevent me from defending myself before thesame audience that received Haase’s message.
Best regards, Stuart Hurlbert, SDSU
Unsure about how successful my direct mail operation
would be, for insurance I added to the Preface of the 10pager this plea: “Perhaps there is among you, one braveand tenured soul who will be willing to simply forward
this piece and its attachment to the whole all-at-sio list.”
At least two SIO faculty members and one student later
told me they’d tried but I think no attempt succeeded.
There was an initial problem with the spam-blocking
robots, but by sending to only one portion of the 1800
recipients at a time and by varying the subject line of theemails that I sent out, everything worked like a charm.
Among the subject lines were:“Sequelae of chance meeting at Sierra Club
Topics for ethics discussions
Compliant technocrats arise!
Population policy, no, GHG emission policy, si
Need for more diversity training
SIO hardly measures up to UCLA
Interesting doings in Hubbs 4500”
The only missing item was the PowerPoint presentationof my actual talk.
Good Returns for the Effort
From senior members of the SIO community, I got morethan a dozen positive, if mostly brief responses and asingle negative one. Below are given, without comment,
excerpts from seven of these, including the negative one:
“I just read your response with great interest. Thanks
for taking time to do that. I think it is fair to say that thecontroversy has resulted in a great deal more thought
about US population stabilization at SIO than if only
CMBC students and faculty attended your talk. Opinions
are hard to change, but thought is the Jirst step.”“Ha. Everybody is running scared - say anything and you
will be labeled one of the –ists. In a kinder and gentler
world, I would expect Haase to contact you to discuss
her actions, Jay to provide you any and all support you
need since he is your sponsor, and maybe even the
director Leinen to discuss this with you directly since thewhole mess reJlects very poorly on Scripps.”“When dealing with SIO individuals I suggest Jirst
reviewing Roger Revelle’s papers, talks, and addresseson the importance of population control as the prime
problem of the 21st century. He left UCSD and went on
the Harvard faculty focused on this issue. You will Jindthat quoting Revelle will give you weapons with more
impact than any thing you say regardless of how correct
you are.”“Sure, those of us beneJiting from the wealth and culture
those immigrants made possible may well suffer in someways from an increased global population, or an
increased population in the US or California. There arefactual reasons for this, to which you allude in yourcomplaint. Controlling immigration and keeping thepresent culture unchanged may be good for a large
group. But, with the exception of things like the US
government Jilling San Francisco with immigrants toensure taking the state, immigration is a small-group
activity of people who seek an improved life. It is Jine toadvocate controlling these people but, brother, youbetter be ready to be called anti-immigrant and, thecorrelation of wealth and race being what it is, a"racist." ““Just to let you know this business didn’t go byunheeded. Sad that the days when differing points ofview or sensitive issues were discussed in a collegial
manner seem pretty much to be of the past. I’d seen the
Haase business at the onset which heightened myinterest in attending your talk. But I missed it. If you
will send me an appropriate address, I’ll send you a Jiver
to cover the costs of the materials you mention which
had best be sent to [XXX]. [I had offered to send, for $5,
a literature packet to anyone who didn’t get one at mytalk].”“After the attacks started on all-at-sio, I wanted toattend your seminar to show my support, [but] I was
unable to attend because of a previous meeting. Thankyou for setting the record straight to everyone at SIO,
and taking the time to send an email to each one ofus. I’m disappointed, although not surprised, that you
were denied the same medium (all-at-sio) to respond. It
was also disappointing that SIO admin let the attack on
you proceed, even though all-at-sio is for non-politicalinformation about upcoming events of interest toEubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)
everyone at SIO. This is not the Jirst time that SIO has
helped and supported hate groups that further SIO’s
political agenda.” [The reference is to the SPLC].
“Thank you for your talk yesterday at SIO and for taking
a few minutes to chat at the end. As I said yesterday,
while our heated debates over climate are probably inlarge part proxy for talking about population, no one
wants to have that conversation. I think this is for two
reasons - Jirst this whole "mishegas" appears insoluble
but second and more importantly it calls up a complex
moral issue and our shift away from viewing such issues
from a community perspective to an individual
perspective can cause considerable moral confusion anduncomfortableness. It is in this confusion that an
innocent call for reviewing population as a driver inenvironmental change can be perceived as morally
ambiguous - even racist. I appreciate your willingness topush on in this issue especially given the responses you
have received. This is important work.”
I also got responses from three SIO students which led
to some productive (I think) further email conversations
with them. Here are excerpts from only their initial
responses to my mailout:“I will be the one brave and [non-] tenured [nongraduated] soul who will be willing to simply forward
this piece and its attachment to the whole all-at-sio list,
because with the use of the bcc Jield, I have no idea towhom your ideas were originally sent and I also don't
believe in censorship. How much courage did it take foryou to take on junior scientists? I stand by what mycolleagues and I said, and I welcome future discussions
with you, around a cup of coffee, where you are not in aposition of authority and in control of the dialogue.”“First, I would like to thank you for coming to present
your research at SIO. I was unable to attend your talk,for completely irrelevant reasons… I was deeply
saddened upon hearing the reaction of some of thestudents and even faculty, many of whom were of theopinion that you should not have been allowed to speakat our institution. And by "saddened" I really mean"terriJied". … I want to thank you for responding to thecriticism you have received from our colleagues, and I
am sorry that you were not given the chance to do so
directly. I admire your clarity and courage. If I weremore brave, and considerably more tenured, I would
forward your email to all-at-sio. I sincerely hopesomebody does.”“While you might be thinking of it as a scientist, there isa whole other area of study that has more insight on thesocial implications that a notion like population control
might have on communities of color andunderrepresented communities. So please education [sic]yourself on these issues because you clearly don't see theissues of power dynamics in our society…. Don't try andsilence students with your spoofed up rebuttals for being
revolutionary. You are a supporter of population control,
so let me ask you, are you willing to be the Jirst subject?”
A Fundraiser for CAPS!
Just as the furor was dying down, a welcome dose ofhumor arrived from the Southern Poverty Law Center,161

courtesy of SIO graduate student Abby Cannon. This
ended up enriching the coffers of CAPS by a good amount.
Abby did not want to argue, she just wanted to honor me,so wrote SPLC:
From: Southern Poverty Law Center<noreply@splcenter.org>
Date: Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM
Subject: A gift to the SPLC was made in your honor
To: Stuart Hurlbert <hurlbert@mail.sdsu.edu>

Dear Stuart Hurlbert,
Abby Cannon sent you an eCard! And, made a gift in yourhonor to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Remember to be an advocate for tolerance in yourcommunity. Please speak out against bigoted remarks
whenever and where you hear them. Contact us online.
We welcome your feedback.
400 Washington Ave., Montgomery AL 36104
No mention of the size of the donation. Perhaps $10-20
as she’s a student, but an honor nonetheless and one
worth reciprocating. So a week later Abby received thismessage from CAPS:
From: Jo Wideman <jo@capsweb.org>
Date: Fri, Mar 24, 2017
Subject: Congratulations!
To: "alcannon@ucsd.edu" <alcannon@ucsd.edu>
Cc: Stuart Hurlbert <hurlbert@mail.sdsu.edu>
Dear Abigail Cannon,
Stuart Hurlbert has made a gift of $200 to Californians
for Population Stabilization in honor of your Excellencein Marine Biology and Status as #1 Quick-Thinking
Jokester Among Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Graduate Students.
Remember to be an advocate for diverse perspectives inyour community. Please speak out against bigoted
remarks whenever and wherever you hear them.
We send our best wishes as you work to implement theseancient words of wisdom from your grandparents'
generation:
After two years of concentrated effort, we haveconcluded that, in the long run, no substantial
beneJits will result from further growth of the
Nation's population, rather that the gradualstabilization of our population would contributesigniJicantly to the Nation's ability to solve its
problems. We have looked for, and have not found,any convincing economic argument for continued
population growth. The health of our country does
not depend on it, nor does the vitality of businessnor the welfare of the average person.
John D. Rockefeller III, Chairman, Presidential
Commission on Population Growth and theAmerican Future, 1972
Sincerely,
Jo Wideman, Executive Director
Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS)
1129 State Street, Suite 3D
Santa Barbara, CA 93101

162

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)

When I forwarded that to several dozen of my new
acquaintances at SIO, I got a quick reply from one evenmore generous soul. That prompted me to inform
Margaret, the Chancellor and dozens of others of further
positive fallout from Abby’s initiative, via the following
message:Margaret Leinen, Director, Scripps Institution of
Oceanography
Pradeep Khosla, Chancellor, University of California,
San Diego
and others
Kudos to SIO grad student, Abby Cannon, for inspiringstrong support for population stabilization! See below.
[now above]
An SIO colleague is further supporting this effort byoffering to provide a 1 for 1 match, up to a total of$1000, for any donations to CAPS from the SIO
community. Just ask the CAPS Executive Director to
implement the "SIO match" when you make yourdonation and state that you work at SIO.
Don't be stingy!
Best regards, Stuart Hurlbert, SDSU
PS: here's a good recent article on the topic at hand fromtoday's Wall Street Journal:“The Real Immigration Debate: Who to Let In andWhy” (Krikorian 2017)
Within a few days CAPS had gotten $300 in donations
from the SIO community, which, with the match and myearlier contribution, gave it a total haul of $800.
What Might Have Been
When Renée Owens told me I could distribute
population literature to attendees at the November 2016
Sierra Club symposium, neither she nor I could haveenvisaged the chain of positive educational consequences
for SIO students, staff, faculty and administrators – andthe larger scientiBic and environmental communities -that would follow. Should Jennifer Haase get some of thecredit, too? Yes, but only credit for a grave mistake thatmight easily have gone awry and had very different,
negative consequences.
The main campus of UCSD, a community of about
40,000 students, staff and faculty members, is only about
a mile from SIO’s campus of about 2200. While denizensof SIO are mostly nose-to-the-grindstone naturalscientists of diverse sorts, the main campus is home to,inter alia, all the humanities and social sciences, including
ethnic studies and the UCSD Center for Comparative
Immigration Studies (CCIS). Much of the output of the
CCIS during the last two decades has consisted of
apologetics for mass legal immigration and massamnesties for illegal aliens. Always phrased in superscholarly language of course.
What would have happened if Jennifer had sent, orothers had forwarded, to students and faculty on the
UCSD main campus her announcement that an “antiimmigrant racist” representing a “white supremacist”
organization was going to be speaking at SIO at 12:30pm?
Especially if she’d given them a full day’s notice, not just
two hours?
I don’t yet have the iconic status of a Charles Murray(Saul 2017), Milo Yiannopoulos (Doubek 2017) or Anne
Coulter (National Review 2017). But maybe I’d have given
them a run for the money with respect to crowd size andcrowd violence. That would have been a real test for SIO
director Leinen and UCSD chancellor Khosla. Would they
have been able to quickly pour ‘oil on troubled waters’? If
not, would they have sent a bill to Jennifer for damages topeople and property? After all, drunk drivers don’t intend
to destroy property or kill or maim people either.
Not Culpable: Margaret Leinen
Margaret, the SIO director was in no way responsible forany of the silliness and misdeeds at SIO. And I don’t blame
her for obstacles put in the way of my getting a responseout to the SIO community. She was between a rock and ahard place, between some of her less civil, less informed
minions on the one hand and a stonewalling UCSD
chancellor on the other. I did not speak with her during
these travails and have never met her.
My only prior interaction with Margaret left me
impressed. SEPS has operated exhibitor booths on
population issues at the meetings of 24 different scientiBicsocieties since 2013 (Schindler et al. 2012, Hurlbert
2016). These booths have always been well received byattendees and organizers, and we have been routinely
invited back for the following year. But the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has
been rejecting booth applications from SEPS and otherpopulation-focused NGOs since 2011. When SEPS applied
for a booth at the 2016 meeting of AAAS, we included an
endorsement of our application by three dozen past or
current presidents of scientiBic societies. Margaret, thenpresident of the American Geophysical Union, signed on.
But most society presidents we invited did not have thecourage to do so. Endorsers were not endorsing any
particular positions advocated by SEPS but only sayingthat SEPS is a credible educational organization dealing
with important issues and operates under a highly
reputable board of directors and advisory board, bothconsisting primarily of scientists. But that was not
sufBicient for many timid and/or censorious society
presidents who were invited to endorse. The scientiBic
community unfortunately has thousands more of thesethan it does of Margaret Leinens.
Martha Campbell and the UN
I opened this essay with a quote from Martha Campbell(2005) and another from a UN document (POPIN 1994).
Martha is a “veteran” of UC Berkeley politics and a savvy,
worldly-wise scholar with long experience in dealing with
global population issues especially in the context of familyplanning and empowerment of women in developing
countries. She would not be at all surprised to see anothervariety of “political correctness” blossoming, hopefully
brieBly, at SIO. She is aware of the need to keep
population out of the deliberations of the multinational
IPCC. Too often, strong initiatives in the UN to deal withpopulation issues have been nipped in the bud by the
Catholic and Muslim nations that make up about half of
the UN membership. The leadership of the IPCC has to be
pragmatic if it is to be successful.
One can imagine, however, that Martha might beEubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)disdainful of the failure of the U.S. members of the IPCC,
among whom are SIO scientists, to have internal
discussions of the population factor in climate change andthe contribution of U.S. population growth to it. Is there acritical mass of scientists in SIO with the requisite politicaland moral courage to take the lead here? To venture
beyond their role as compliant, grant-hungry technocrats
might of course bring down upon them the displeasure of
the uninformed “it’s not overpopulation, it’s only
overconsumption” zealots.
As Martha also well knows, and has demonstrated inher own undertakings and writings, our institutional
failures are not grounds for inaction or despair. Until
censors like those in the AAAS, SIO and Google take overlarger portions of our society, there remain abundant
opportunities for effective individual action. For example,
while the IPCC needs to focus on its core technical mission
and the ideally apolitical, nonpartisan quality of its
output, discussion of the population growth-climatechange nexus is being fostered by many individualjournalists and academics (O’Neill et al. 2010, Stephenson
et al. 2010, Weiss 2010, Cafaro 2012, PAI 2012, Hickey etal. 2013, Campbell et al. 2014, Plautz 2014, Palfrey 2017,
Bongaarts & O’Neill 2018).
The Omitted Elephant - And its Refusal to Leave andStop Trumpeting
On the other hand, Martha might not openly be so
disdainful of the failure of U.S. scientists to engage on the
topic of U.S. population growth as a driver of climatechange.
In the body of her 2005 presentation, she adduced two
answers to the question in her title, giving a good
discussion of each. One was the hostile take-over of the1994 Cairo conference by well-funded organizations who
rejected the quoted preamble for the meeting, wanted notalk of population policy or population management or of
encouraging small families, and wanted to focus only on
matters such as women’s rights and reproductive health.
(Weld, 2012, also gives an excellent and pungent analysisof that travesty and its consequences.) The other answer
was a simplistic ‘demographic transition’ theory thatargued that it is necessary for a poor nation’s economy togreatly improve before women will get more rights andeducation and choose smaller family sizes (Potts et al.
2009, Ryerson 2012).
When Martha elaborated on her 2005 talk for a journal
article with the same title (Campbell 2007), she discussed“six identiBiable reasons” for the silence. That paper wasin turn slightly revised and updated for a chapter(Campbell 2012) in the excellent Cafaro and Crist (2012)
anthology. Some SIO and UC Berkeley colleagues may bepleased that castigating mention of their institutions has
been expurgated from these 2007 and 2012 versions.
But why did Martha omit mention of a seventh reason
for silence, the biggest ‘elephant in the living room’ and amajor cause of high U.S. greenhouse gas emissions? Thatis the fact that for some decades immigration has been the
primary driver of population growth in the U.S. as it has inmany other developed countries. In the absence of major
policy changes, the U.S. population now is projected toincrease by 116 million between 2015 and 2065, with163

post-2015 immigrants and their descendants accounting
for 88 percent of that growth (Pew Research Center 2015,
Hurlbert 2016b).
As Martha realizes, however, there is extreme hostilityon the part of both major political parties in the U.S., mostof academia (especially the hard left that dominates most
university central administrations and the ‘Arts andLetters left side’ of campus) and myopic U.S.
environmental NGOs, both to development of a national
population policy, as called for at the Cairo Conference in1994 (POPIN 1994), and, in particular, to reduced
immigration levels and population stabilization as
advocated by various U.S. national commissions (Ryerson
2012, Hurlbert 2014, 2017) and a dozen U.S. NGOs datingfrom the 1960s. Those who go against this censorious
juggernaut will be attacked, smeared, even physicallyassaulted or threatened with job loss. In a posthumously
published piece, former CAPS president and SEPS
advisory board member Diana Hull (2018) laid it on theline:“But the saddest spectacle of all is to realize the near
universal acquiescence and collaboration of population
specialists in the academic community, who claim toagree with the theory of inevitable and unstoppable U.S.
growth. Yet we also know they have every right to be
terriJied of having ruined reputations and thwarted promotions as a result of being labeled racists or nativists.
As a consequence they seek refuge in issues of global
overpopulation, rather than getting involved in this issue
at home, where they have a much better chance for success.”
Thus Martha has always been smart to hold back a bitand save her energies and political capital for confronting
the other six causes of silence. Allied battalions mostly
outside of academia will cover for her on the seventh.
The commonest mantra used to suppress discussion ofnational population policies, or even the idea of
formulating them, is ‘population is a global issue.’ This istaken, as an illogical non sequitur, to imply that individual
nations have no moral right to stabilize their own
populations if that requires restriction of immigration
Blows. The implication is patent nonsense of course, but it
does provide a pretext for cowardice in the face of difBicultand controversial national issues. In the real world, fromnational governments to average citizens in the street, adifferent and more responsible ethic holds. Garrett Hardin(1989) expressed it most succinctly:“We are not faced with a single global population
problem but, rather, with about 180 separate national
population problems. All population controls must be
applied locally; local governments are the agents best
prepared to choose local means. Means must Jit local
traditions. For one nation to attempt to impose its
ethical principles on another is to violate nationalsovereignty and endanger international peace. The only
legitimate demand that nations can make on one
another is this: "Don't try to solve your population
problem by exporting your excess people to us." Allnations should take this position, and most do.”That statement may well have been one inspiration forthe preamble to the 1994 Cairo conference. In any casethere is a bright light on the horizon. An initiative led by164

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)

Rob Harding (2018), and begun about the time I was
speaking at SIO, hopes to gather international grassroots
support to inspire the UN to develop a ‘Framework
Convention on Population Growth’ that expands on the1994 preamble as well as on the more recent ‘World
Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice’ (Ripple
et al. 2017). As of May 2018 more than 30 organizations
and hundreds of scientists from 15 countries have signed
on to the Harding initiative. Wish them well!
Conclusion
This episode ended favorably for the SIO community as
a whole and certainly for CAPS and myself. That was due,in large part, to luck. If Jennifer Haase had put out her
attack on me a few days earlier, Lisa Levin likely would
have disinvited me, simply because her less-informed
opinions on population issues differed from mine. And if
Lisa did not cancel my talk SIO might have had a riot on its
hands with all the possibilities that would have offered.
But what are the larger lessons? Ideology-driven
censorship and suppression of diverse opinion andinconvenient facts, especially on social issues, is common
in the scientiBic community, academia generally, and the
media. Much of this is carried out, overtly or covertly, by
persons who run and staff those institutions and use theirpositions to advance narrow personal agendas, conBidentof their own moral superiority. Nothing new here. But theresulting generalized ignorance and misinformation
across society on key social, environmental and economic
issues is a major cause of social and political conBlict in
the U.S.
Bias and ignorance on the part of journalists is a major,
if not the biggest, part of the problem; but where were
those journalists (and their editors and publishers)
trained….?
For those many topics and issues outside our own areasof expertise, we rely heavily on the popular media. We all
have limited time. We would like at least one goodnewspaper or one good TV news program that would
sufBice to keep us up-to-date with balanced, fearless
capsule summaries of all the major issues and accurate
factual information relating thereto. Such newspapers andnews programs do not exist. Some of the major news
outlets that mostly loudly and repeatedly proclaim theirobjectivity and balance – National Public Radio, FOX
News, CNN, and the New York Times come to mind – areoften in fact among the least balanced and objective on
many issues.
But censorship is also accomplished by persons outside
the power structures, either by threatening mob violenceor by ad hominem attacks like that by Jennifer. How many
people decided not to attend my talk because they did notwant to condone an “anti-immigrant hater” or be labeled“racist”? Perhaps quite a few, given the SIO scientist who
noted that “everybody is running scared…[lest they] belabeled one of the –ists,” and the graduate student who felt
“terriBied” at the number of SIO faculty members andstudents expressing desire to suppress my talk.
Would-be censors like Jennifer Haase should be free toexpress their opinions. But university administrators stillneed to step up to the plate. They should disallow faculty

and students bullying people into not attending talks byparticular speakers or deplatforming anyone whose
opinions the administrators Bind offensive. There is, after
all, much rhetorical output by university administratorsand professors that is found offensive by the generalpublic. Also, human population issues, including
migration, are transcendental ones of our time. University
administrators need to take the lead in pushing for
curricula that cover those issues in broader, morecomprehensive, less technocratic and less ideologicalmanners than they are covered now. Such would be
especially relevant for programs in the environmental
sciences, like those at SIO. At the moment, a “safe space”
for diverse opinion on such topics presumably still
remains unavailable there.
References
Anonymous (2008) Robert Conquest’s three laws of politics.
I s e g o r i a ( J u ly 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 ) . Ava i l a b l e a t : h t t p : / /www.isegoria.net/2008/07/robert-conquests-three-laws-ofpolitics/
Beck R, Kolankiewicz L (2000) The environmental movement's
retreat from advocating U.S. population stabilization(1970-1998): a Birst draft of history. J Policy Hist
12:123-156.
Bongaarts J, O’Neill BC (2018) Global warming policy: ispopulation left out in the cold? Science 361:650-652.
Cafaro P (2012) Climate ethics and population policy. WIREs
Clim Change 3:45-61.
Cafaro P, Crist E (eds) (2012) Life on the brink:environmentalists confront overpopulation. University ofGeorgia Press, Athens, GA.
Campbell MM (2005) Why the silence on population? Keynote
address to the Birst annual meeting of the Population andSustainability Network, London School of Hygiene andTropical Medicine, October 13, 2005. Margaret Pyke Trust,
London, United Kingdom.
Campbell MM (2007) Why the silence on population? Popul
Envir 28:237-246.
Campbell MM (2012) Why the silence on population? Chapter 4(pp. 41-55) in: Cafaro P, Crist E (eds) (2012) Life on thebrink: Environmentalists confront overpopulation.
University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
Campbell MM, Casterline J, Castillo F, Graves A, Hall TJ, May JF,
Perlman D, Potts M, Speidel JJ, Walsh J, Wehner MF, Zulu EM(2014) Population and climate change: who will the grandconvergence leave behind? Lancet 2: e253-e254. Available
at: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/langlo/
PIIS2214-109X(14)70021-X.pdf
Doubek J (2017) Breitbart editor's event canceled as protests
turn violent at UC Berkeley. The Two Way, National PublicRadio, February 2. Available at: https://www.npr.org/
sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/02/512992000/breitbarteditors-event-canceled-as-protests-turn-violent-at-ucberkeley
Editors (2017) Cowardice at Berkeley. The National Review.
April 26. Available at: https://www.nationalreview.com/
2017/04/ann-coulter-berkeley-mob-wins-threatsviolence/
Ehrlich PR (2008) Demography and policy: a view from outside
the discipline. Popul Dev Rev 34:103-113
Grant L (1994) The timid crusade. The NPG Forum, Negative
Population Growth Inc, Teaneck NJ. January 1994, 12 pp.
Hardin G (1989) There is no global population problem. The
Humanist 49(4):11-13.

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)
Harding R (2018) A proposal for a United Nations Framework
Convention on Population Growth. RewildingEarth, May 24,
2018. Available at: https://rewilding.org/a-proposal-for-aunited-nations-framework-convention-on-populationgrowth/
Hickey C, Rieder TN, Earl J (2016) Population engineering and
the Bight against climate change.
Social Theory and Practice 42:845-870.
Hook B (2017) Scripps community awarded for equity, diversity,and inclusion. News article, May 10, 1997, Scripps Instituteof Oceanography, La Jolla CA. Available at: https://
scripps.ucsd.edu/news/scripps-community-awardedequity-diversity-and-inclusion
Hull D (2011) Many environmental scientists are wayward or
cowed when faced with an irrefutable truth: too many
people destroy natural resources. Soc Contract 21(3):3-4.
Hull D (2018) Saying ‘ho-hum’ to nasty ‘three-year olds’ in theslander sandbox. Soc Contract 28(4):42-43.
Hurlbert SH (1997) Functional importance vs keystoneness:
reformulating some questions in theoretical biocenology.
Aust J Ecol 22:369-382.
Hurlbert SH (2000) The globalist copout. Soc Contract
10:193-194.
Hurlbert SH (2011a) Frontiers, immigration and political
censorship. Soc Contract 21(3):16-20.
Hurlbert SH (2011b) Wives of the Bishop of Worcester: the ESA
and global copoutism. Soc Contract 21(3):7−13
Hurlbert SH (2011c) PaciBic salmon, immigration and censors:
unreliability of the cowed technocrat. Soc Contract21(3):42−46.
Hurlbert SH (2011d) Is the AAAS oblivious to U.S.
overpopulation and its consequences? Or is it just another
censor? Soc Contract 22(1):67–71.Hurlbert SH 2012)
Population camel gets its nose into ecologists’ tent: hope ishigh that rest will follow. Soc Contract 23(1): 68-76.
Hurlbert SH (2014) Outing the 800 pound immigration reform
gorilla. Population Press, Blue Planet United, January 29,
2014. Available at: http://populationpress.org/
2014/01/29/the-immigration-reform-800-pound-gorillaby-stuart-h-hurlbert
Hurlbert SH (2016a) AAAS wields the censor’s hammer on U.S.
population issues. Californians for Population Stabilization,
CAPS Blog, February 11, 2016. Available at: http://w w w. b i o . s d s u . e d u / p u b / s t u a r t /Hurlbert2016AAASCensorsHammerCAPSBB.pdf
Hurlbert SH (2016b) Pew projection for U.S. population in 2065:
a challenge to Clinton and Trump. CAPS Blog, Californians
for Population Stabilization, September 19, 2016. Available
at: http://www.capsweb.org/blog/pew-projection-uspopulation-2065-challenge-clinton-and-trump
Hurlbert SH (2017) Three U.S. national commissions calling for
immigration reductions and U.S. population stabilization.
Californians for Population Stabilization, CAPS Blog, August
6, 2017. Available at: https://www.capsweb.org/blog/
three-us-national-commissions-calling-immigrationreductions-and-us-population-stabilization
Kolankiewicz L (2011) Environmental scientists as censors: anintroduction. Soc Contract 21(3):5.
Krikorian M (2017) The real immigration debate: who to let in
and why. Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2017. Available at:
h t t p s : / / w w w. w s j . c o m / a r t i c l e s / w h y - l i m i t immigration-1490366475
Maher TM (1997) How and why journalists avoid the
population-environment connection. Popul Envir
16:339-372.
McArdle M (2017) Hey Hollywood, smugness isn’t a politicalstrategy. Bloomberg View, January 11, 2017. Available at:https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-11/

165

hey-hollywood-smugness-isn-t-a-political-strategy
Meyerson FAB (2004) Immigration, population policy, and theSierra Club. Popul Environ 26:61–69
O’Neill BC, Dalton M, Fuchs R, Jiang L, Pachaui S, Zigova K (010)
Global demographic trends and future carbon emissions.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:17521–17526
PAI (2012) Why population matters to climate change.
Population Action International. Available at: https://pai.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/PAI-1293-ClimateChange_compressed.pdf
Plautz J (2014) The climate-change solution no one will talkabout. The Atlantic, November 1, 2014. Available at:https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/
the-climate-change-solution-no-one-will-talk-about/382197/
Palfrey S (2017) Curbing population growth and climate change.
Huffpost, March 3, 2017. Available at: https://www.hufBingtonpost.com/entry/curbing-populationg r o w t h - a n d - c l i m a t e change_us_58d06fede4b0e0d348b34710
Pew Research Center (2015) Modern immigration wave brings
59 million to U.S., driving population growth and change
through 2065. Pew Research Center, Washington DC. 127
p p . Ava i l a b l e a t : h t t p : / / w w w. p e wh i s p a n i c . o rg /2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-changethrough-2065/
POPIN (United Nations Population Information Network) (1994)
Report of the International Conference on Population andDevelopment (Cairo, 5-13 September 1994), Chapter 1:
Preamble. Available at: http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/
conference/offeng/poa.html
Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Galetti, Alamgir M, Crist E,
Mahmoud MI, Laurance WF (2017) World scientists’ warning
to humanity: a second notice. Bioscience 67:1026-1028.
Ryerson W (2012) How do we solve the population problem?
Chapter 20 (pp. 240-254) in: Cafaro P, Crist E (eds) (2012)
Life on the brink: Environmentalists confront
overpopulation. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
Saul S (2017) Dozens of Middlebury students are disciplined forCharles Murray protest. The New York Times, May 24, 2017.
Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/
middlebury-college-charles-murray-bell-curve.html
Schindler D, Weld M, Hurlbert SH (2012 American Association
for the Advancement of Silence (on national population
policies) mufBles ‘obnoxious’ Canadians too. Soc Contract22(2):11-25.
Stephenson, J, Newman K, Mayhew S (2010) Population
dynamics and climate change: what are the links? J Public
Health (Oxf) 32(2):150-156.
Thomas J (ed) (2017) Chapter celebrates award winners at
annual gala. Sierra Club San Diego Chapter newsletter,
HiSierran 76(3):2, 4. July/August/September 2017. Available
at: http://sandiegosierraclub.org/wp-content/uploads/HS/
HSJulSep17.pdf
Walker B (2011) The Sierra Club’s proBitable descent into
leftism. Soc Contract 21(3):47-49.
Weiss KR (2010) An idea to ease global warming by taming
global population. Los Angeles Times, October 12, p. B8.
Weld M (2012) Deconstructing the dangerous dogma of denial:
the feminist-environmental justice movement and its Blightfrom overpopulation. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 12:53-58.

166

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)

Why denial of humanoverpopulation is a key barrier
to a sustainable future- Haydn Washington, Ph.D.
Adjunct Lecturer, PANGEA Research Centre, School of
Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW
Australia
Email: h.washington@unsw.edu.au- Ian Lowe, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor, GrifBith University, Australia
Email: i.lowe@grifBith.edu.au- Helen Kopnina, Ph.D.
The Hague University of Applied Sciences
International Business
Johanna Westerdijkplein 75, 2521 EN Den Haag
The Netherlands
Email: h.kopnina@hhs.nl
Abstract
There is increasing evidence that humans are not living
sustainably. There are three major drivers of
unsustainability: overpopulation, overconsumption andthe growth economy. There is widespread denial about
these issues, especially about overpopulation. The ‘World
Scientists’ Warning to Humanity’ highlights the problem
of increasing human population, as do the IPCC and IPBES
reports. However, all have been largely ignored by policymakers and much of academia. The size of an ecologicallysustainable global population is considered in this article,
which then discusses the reasons why society andacademia largely ignore overpopulation. The claim that
discussing overpopulation is ‘anti-human’ is refuted. It isargued that denial of overpopulation is leading society
towards collapse, and solutions are suggested.
Key Words: Scientists’ Warning to Humanity; population;
denial; overshoot; collapse

the deep denial about overpopulation. After all, Hulme(2009) notes that if there is a ‘safe’ level of greenhousegases to avoid runaway climate change, then is there notalso a desirable world population? We discuss here thet e n d e n c y i n a c a d e m i a t o avo i d t h e t o p i c o foverpopulation. This is irrational, and not in humanity’s
best interests, nor those of the amazing diversity of life weshare this planet with. If society upheld ecocentrism andecological ethics (Curry 2011; Washington et al. 2017) it
could not support the huge ecological impacts ofoverpopulation.
Other key science documents discuss the drivers of
unsustainability. The IPCC ‘Climate Change 2014’
Synthesis report (2014, p. 5) noted: “Globally, economic
and population growth continued to be the most importantdrivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuelcombustion.”
The IPBES (2019) extinction report notes: ‘Key
indirect drivers include increased population and per
capita consumption’. The focus of this article is on
overpopulation, and the reasons for its denial, as well as
positive ways forward.
Environmental data show the unsustainability ofhuman overpopulation
Wa s h i n g t o n e t a l . ( 2 0 1 9 ) s u m m a r i s e t h eenvironmental data for human overpopulation.
Unsustainable population growth pushes the world
beyond its carrying capacity (Catton 1982). The world isBinite, and we know that human numbers are now far
larger than ever before in history (see Figure 1). Our
global population is more than 7.7 billion people. Despite
declining global Total Fertility Rates (TFRs), population
momentum is projected to cause global population to rise
to 9.8 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100 (UNDESA
2017). The idea sometimes put forward that the
population explosion is ‘over’ is clearly mistaken (asdiscussed by Campbell 2012).

Introduction
The paper in this issue of EJAIB by Stuart Hurlbert(2019) highlights the ongoing denial around population
operating within academia. We discuss this further here.
The Second World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity(Ripple et al. 2017) has now been signed by 21,000
scientists. It states:“We are jeopardizing our future by not reining in our
intense but geographically uneven material consumption
and by not perceiving continued rapid population growth
as a primary driver behind many ecological and evensocietal threats.”
This warning is based on the data of the environmental
crisis, which show that society is in ‘overshoot’, and thishas been known for decades (e.g. Catton 1982). Yet mostmembers of society, governments and much of academia,
continue to ignore or deny the impact of overpopulation,
overconsumption and the growth economy (Washington
et al. 2019). This paper argues this is worrying, especially

Figure 1 World Population growth over time (Source:
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth)
In 1968 Paul Ehrlich published ‘The Population Bomb’,
which alerted the world to the dangers of exponentiallygrowing population. He was later part of coining theentity (Ehrlich et al 1977):

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)
Environmental Impact = Population x AfBluence x
Technology
Or ‘I = PAT’. Our impact on the Earth is thus thenumber of people times their afBluence (per capita
consumption of resources) times the technology we use.
Of course historically most of the impact from pollution
and carbon emissions has come from the consumers in
the developed world (Monbiot 2009). However, thedeveloping world is rapidly catching up. If this is doneusing traditional carbon-polluting industry (as it mostly
still is), the result will be steeply accelerating global
carbon emissions, resource consumption, and increasing
pollution (Washington 2015). Gerlagh et al. (2018) notethat from 1990 to 2017 the increase in GHG emissions is
one-fourth attributable to the growth of emissions perperson, whereas three-fourths are due to population
growth.
The world is in ecological overshoot, with massive
extinction underway (IPBES 2019). Adding another 2.1
billion by 2050, and 3.5 by 2100, would cause extensive
impact, major clearing of native vegetation (to producefood), escalation of greenhouse gas production, ecosystem
collapse, and an even greater mass extinction (Crist et al.
2017). The unsustainability of the current population isclearly shown by the Global Ecological Footprint of 1.7
Earths (GFN 2019), by the Living Planet Index (WWF,2018) having declined by 60% since 1970, and by an
extinction rate at least a 1000 times above normal (MEA2005). One million species (at least) are now threatenedby extinction (IPBES 2019). Biodiversity experts such as
E.O. Wilson (2003) suggest we could lose half (or eventwo thirds, Raven et al. 2011) of the world’s species by theyear 2100. Butler (2012) notes that both climate change
and the extinction crisis are merely symptoms of
ecological overshoot by an obese humanity.
If population and afBluence were to continue toincrease as projected, by 2050 food production would
have to increase by 70% (FAO 2011). It is difBicult to see
how it is possible given the many accelerating andinterconnected environmental problems that foodproduction now faces (Brown, 2012). Production could beboosted by degrading most of our remaining natural areas
and biodiversity to increase cropland by a Bifth (Erb et al.
2009). This would cause massive negative impacts onnature (Crist et al. 2017). And yet despite all this, talking
about overpopulation remains controversial. Many
scholars write of the need for a ‘smaller ecologicalfootprint’, but as Dietz and O’Neill (2013, p. 78) point out:
‘we need smaller footprints, but we also need fewer feet’.
An ecologically-sustainable global human population?
What might be an ecologically-sustainable population
number for the Earth? It is odd that this question today
receives little discussion in academia. Biocapacity datasuggest that if we made no change at all to consumption
patterns, we could currently sustain a population of 4 to 5
billion (Engelman 2013). However, this would not work if
every one of those lived at the US standard, where theEarth could sustain a quarter of today’s population, or
1.75 billion people (Assadourian 2013). If we were to167

move to the European standard of consumption it has
been argued it would be 2 billion (WPB n.d.).
If everybody on Earth shared a modest standard ofliving, midway between the richest and the poorest, that
Bigure might be around 3 billion (PM 2010). The world isclearly already overpopulated in regard to being
ecologically-sustainable. We cannot live in ‘Harmony with
Nature’ as the UN programme argues for (http://
www.harmonywithnature.un.org/) when our numbers aredegrading the world’s life support systems and causing
ecocide – ecological genocide (Washington 2019).
Why is overpopulation such a dif\icult policy issue?
In practice, many governments actually seek to boost
their population growth by pro-child policies in order toboost their economic and political advantage (Kopnina &Washington 2016). In some countries, population growthis seen favorably, as politicians and economists assume
that a larger population stimulates economic growth(discussed in Washington et al. 2019). In the last decade,population growth has become a polarised issue insustainability discourse (Kopnina & Washington 2016),
with debates ranging from ambiguity to open hostility.
Why do governments and academia continue to ignore
this key issue? Few things seem to create suchcontroversy as suggesting we should ‘limit humannumbers’. Into it comes issues such as religion, racism,
social and ecological justice, equity, and poverty(Washington 2015; Kopnina & Washington 2016). The
problem is that questioning population growth cuts at theheart of the received wisdom of a million years of human
evolution, where ‘more’ people was always seen as being
better (Washington 2015). There is also the question ofreligious discouragement of birth control methods. Add tothat the fundamental desire of governments to have morecitizens and greater power (Washington et al. 2019).
History shows a worrying decline in discussion about
overpopulation by the UN and other government bodies(Campbell 2012). In 1994 the UN ‘Cairo’ conference
stopped talking about ‘family planning’ and instead spoke
only of ‘women’s reproductive health’ (funding for familyplanning then dropped worldwide). At that time
population control became something of a taboo word, as
it was portrayed as infringing on ‘women’s rights’ (Ibid).
There is also the key problem that the political Left – andmuch of the environment movement – have failed to face
up to overpopulation as a key issue, either ignoring it or
denying its essential importance (Crist 2012; Kopnina &Washington 2016). A silence about population isdemonstrated by several organisations. The policies
developed by the UN’s ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ donot seriously address population (Kopnina & Washington
2016). The recent Living Planet Index (WWF 2018)
emphasized the need to curb consumption, but
marginalized population. Some ‘degrowth’ advocates also
avoid or dismiss overpopulation (e.g. Kallis 2018). Derer(2018) notes there is almost a complete silence about
overpopulation, both in the media and academia.
Is talking about overpopulation anti-human?
The Discovery Institute video ‘The War on Humans’argues that any argument against population growth is168

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)

anti-human (DI 2014). They claim that anti-humanactivists want to reduce the human population by 90%
because of a hatred of humanity (as discussed in Kopnina& Washington 2016). However, no serious evidence tosupport this is presented.
Environmental scientists and scholars who point out
the danger of overpopulation do so for two key reasons.
The Birst is that this is causing ecocide and extinction oflife. The second is that the Birst reason is likely to lead tofamine and war, and the major loss of human life. Bothwould be tragedies. Hence talking about overpopulation is
not anti-human but pro-human. Population activism seeks
to avoid mega-death (both human and nonhuman).
Similarly, it wishes to avoid a situation whereinternational conBlict and war are increased. Talking about
overpopulation is thus one of the most pro-human (aswell as pro-nature) things any of us can do to reach an
ecologically (and socially) sustainable future (Lowe 2016;
Washington 2019).
Denial of overpopulation leading us towards collapse?
Diamond (2005) argued in his book ‘Collapse’ thatsocieties inevitably expand until they reach limits such as:
food, water, and mineral resources. Whether the society
then fails or survives, he said, depends on whether they
are able to adapt to the new situation. He argues that any
society can choose whether to adapt to new realities or
ignore them until it is too late to adapt. The critical issue
is whether societies are able to adapt to the new reality(in this case the data shown by the ‘Scientists’ Warning’that overpopulation and overconsumption are
fundamentally unsustainable). Diamond (2005) argues
that this question is determined by the values of thesociety.
‘Causal Layered Analysis’ supports Diamond’s theory
that societies collapse when they are unable to adapt tochanging circumstances, providing a causal explanation:
while responding by change appears a more rational
approach than marching bravely to inevitable collapse,that apparently irrational behaviour can reBlect the way
underlying metaphors prevent a concerted response(Washington et al. 2019). This is an uncomfortableconclusion for our present civilisation, since it isreasonable to conclude that our underlying myths andmetaphors are a very serious obstacle to meeting thechallenges we now face.
In regard to solutions, Birstly we need to understandour human tendency to denial, and engage in dialogue to
break this down. Through such dialogue we can thenaccept our problems - and act on them (Washington
2018). In regard to actually slowing, stabilizing andreducing global population (over time) the nine noncoercive solutions of Engelman (2016) we believe areexcellent ways forward.
Conclusion
We are faced with three major drivers of
unsustainability – overpopulation, overconsumption andthe endless growth economy. Clearly, talking about any ofthese is not easy, as society is in denial of all of them.
Nevertheless, to reach a meaningful ‘sustainability’society must seek to engage in such dialogue. The denialof human overpopulation is a major problem for bothnature and humanity. We must see and act on all the‘elephants in the room’, and that means that
overpopulation can no longer be ignored or denied.
Overpopulation and overconsumption are entwined, andneed to be solved concurrently. The ‘Scientists Warning to
Humanity’ shows that society’s current path of
overpopulation and overconsumption is fundamentallyunsustainable. Society thus needs to listen to - and act - onthis warning.
References
Assadourian, E. 2013. Re-engineering cultures to create asustainable civilization, in L. Starke (Ed.), State of the World
2013: Is Sustainability Still Possible?. Washington: Island
Press.
Brown, L. 2012. Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics ofFood Scarcity. New York: Norton.
Butler, T. 2012. Colossus versus liberty: A bloated humanity’s
assault on freedom, in P. Cafaro and E. Crist (Eds), Life on the
Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation (pp.
160-171). Georgia, US: University of Georgia Press.
Campbell, M. 2012. Why the silence on population?, in P. Cafaro
and E. Crist (Eds), Life on the Brink: Environmentalists
Confront Overpopulation (pp. 41-55). Georgia, US: Universityof Georgia Press.
Catton, W. 1982. Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary
Change. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Crist, E. 2012. Abundant Earth and the population question, in P.
Cafaro and E. Crist (Eds), Life on the Brink: Environmentalists
Confront Overpopulation (pp. 141-151). Georgia: Universityof Georgia Press.
Crist, E., Mora, C. & Engelman, R. 2017. The interaction of humanpopulation, food production, and biodiversity protection.
Science, 356, 260-264.
Curry, P. 2011. Ecological Ethics: An Introduction, Second Edition,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Derer, P. 2018. Evidence for the changing discourse on
population growth in an environmental magazine. The
Overpopulation Project, 16 Aug 2018. Retrieved fromhttps://overpopulation-project.com/evidence-for-thec h a n g i n g - d i s c o u r s e - o n - p o p u l a t i o n - g ro w t h - i n - a n environmental-magazine/.
DI 2014. ‘The War on Humans’ video. Discovery Institute.
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=RWcEYYj_-rg.
Diamond, J. 2005. Collapse: Why Societies Choose to Fail or
Succeed. New York: Viking Press.
Dietz, R. & O’Neill, D. 2013. Enough is Enough: Building a
Sustainable Economy is a World of Finite Resources. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Ehrlich, P. 1968. The Population Bomb. New York: Ballentine
Books.
Ehrlich, P., Ehrlich, A. & Holdren, J. 1977. Ecoscience: Population,
Resources, Environment. New York: WH Freeman and Co.
Engelman, R. 2013. Beyond sustainababble. In State of the World
2013: Is Sustainability Still Possible?, ed. L. Starke,
Washington: Island Press.
Engelman, R. 2016. Nine population strategies to stop short of 9billion. In A Future Beyond Growth: Towards a Steady State
Economy; H. Washington and P. Twomey, eds. New York:
Routledge.
Erb, K., Haberl, H., Krausmann, F. et al. 2009. Eating the planet:
Feeding and fueling the world sustainably, fairly andhumanely – A scoping study. Social ecology working paper
no. 116. Vienna: Institute of Social Ecology and Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)
FAO 2011. The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for
Food and Agriculture (SOLAW). Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organisation.
Gerlagh, R., Lupi, V. & Galeotti, M. 2018. Family Planning andClimate Change. CESifo Working Paper No. 7421, Munich,
Munich Society for the Promotion of Economic Research.
Retrieved from https://www.cesifo-group.de/DocDL/
cesifo1_wp7421.pdf.
GFN 2019. Country trends. Global Footprint Network. Retrieved
from http://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/countryTrends?
cn=5001&type=BCpc,EFCpc.
Hulme, M. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change:
Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hurlbert, S.H. 2019. Attempts by scientists to suppress
discussion of overpopulation: A California case that
backBired nicely. Eubios Journal of Asian and International
Bioethics 29: 154-166.
IPBES 2019. Nature’s dangerous decline ‘unprecedented’ species
extinction rates ‘accelerating’. Media release by theIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services. Retrieved from https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment.
IPCC 2014. Climate report 2014: Synthesis report. International
Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from https://a r c h ive . i p c c . c h / p d f / a s s e s s m e n t - r e p o r t / a r 5 / s y r /SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf.
Kallis, G. 2018. Degrowth. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kopnina, H. & Washington, H. 2016. Discussing why population
growth is still ignored or denied. Chinese Journal of
Population Resources and Environment, 14(2), 133-143.
Lowe, I. 2016. Population: better, not bigger. In A Future Beyond
Growth: Towards a Steady State Economy; H. Washington and
P. Twomey, eds. New York: Routledge.
MEA 2005. Living Beyond our Means: Natural Assets and Human
Wellbeing, Statement from the Board, Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP).
Retrievedfromhttps://
w w w. m i l l e n n i u m a s s e s s m e n t . o r g / d o c u m e n t s /document.429.aspx.pdf.
Monbiot, G. 2009. The population myth. Retrieved from http://
www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/29/the-populationmyth/.
PM 2010. Capacity population. Population Matters leaBlet in2010, now no longer on their website https://
populationmatters.org/.
Raven, P., Chase, J. & Pires, J. 2011. Introduction to special issue
on biodiversity. American Journal of Botany, 98, 333-335.
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C. Newsome, T. et al. 2017. World Scientists’Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice. Bioscience, 67(12),1026–1028. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125.
UNDESA 2017. World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in
2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100. United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html.
Washington, H. 2015. Demystifying sustainability: Towards real
solutions. London: Routledge.
Washington, H. 2018. Denial – the key barrier to solving climatechange.
In D.A. DellaSala and M.I. Goldstein, eds.
Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene. UK: Elsevier.
Washington, H. 2019. What can I do to Help Heal theEnvironmental Crisis? London: Routledge (published October2019).
Washington, H., Taylor, B., Kopnina, H., Cryer, P. & Piccolo J. 2017.
Why ecocentrism is the key pathway to sustainability. The
Ecological Citizen, 1: 35-41.

169

Washington, H., Lowe, I. and Kopnina, H. 2019. Why do society
and academia ignore the ‘Scientists’ Warning to Humanity’on population? Journal of Futures Studies, In Press. See:
https://jfsdigital.org/why-do-society-and-academia-ignorethe-scientists-warning-to-humanity-on-population/.
Wilson, E.O. 2003. The Future of Life. New York: Vintage Books.
WPB (no date) Current population is three times the sustainablelevel. World Population Balance. Retrieved from https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable.
WWF 2018. Living Planet Report - 2018: Aiming higher. World
Wide Fund for Nature, M.Grooten, and R.E.A. Almond, (Eds).
Gland, Switzerland: WWF.

How research literature andmedia cover the role andimage of disabled people inrelation to artificial
intelligence and neuroresearch- Rochelle Deloria,1,3, Aspen Lillywhite1,2,, Valentina1
Villamil,,2; and Gregor Wolbring,2,4
1 Authors contributed equally to the study
2 Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies,
Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming
School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada3 Bachelor of Health Sciences, Cumming School of
Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
4 Corresponding author: Community Rehabilitation andDisability Studies, Department of Community Health
Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University ofCalgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, T2N4N1, Calgary,Alberta, Canada
Email: gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca
Abstract
Disabled people are impacted by ArtiBicial Intelligence(AI) including Machine Learning (ML) linked neuro andbrain based scientiBic and technological advancements(from now on called AI/Neuro for short). How disabled
people are portrayed and what role is linked to disabled
people in AI/Neuro discourses impacts how AI/Neuro are
advanced in relation to disabled people. A content analysis
was performed on 786 academic abstracts obtained from
Scopus and the 70 databases of EBSCO-HOST, 208
Canadian newspaper articles and 286 tweets. Within theacademic literature, Canadian newspapers and tweets
covered, the main portrayal of disabled people was a
medical or deBiciency one, and the main roles of disabled
people evident were the ones of being a medical/
therapeutic user and medical focused research participantof AI/Neuro advancements. The following roles were notpresent: “victim” of AI/Neuro advancements; “educator”,
advocate”, or “knowledge producers” on the social andother implications of AI/Neuro, and “stakeholder”. No role
was linked to AI/Neuro governance, ethics and policy
discourses. The limited scope of roles of disabled people

170

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)

in the AI/Neuro literature covered and the medicallyslated portrayal of disabled people revealed decreases theutility of how AI/Neuro advancements are discussed,
especially the AI/Neuro ethics and governance discourses.
Keywords: disabled people; people with disabilities;
artiBicial intelligence; AI; machine learning;
neurotechnology; neuroscience; neuroengineering;newspapers; Twitter; academic literature; governance;
ethics; role narrative; portrayal; imagery; identity
Introduction
ArtiBicial Intelligence (AI) including machine learning(ML) and neuro scientiBic and technological advancements
increasingly intersect (Hassabis et al., 2017; Bell, 1999;
Lee, 2016; Cavazza et al., 2017; Buttazzo, 2001; de Garis,
2007; Catherwood et al., 2016; Meeuws et al., 2017; Wu
and Feng, 2018; Garden and Winickoff, 2018). Disabled
people are impacted by how AI/Neuro1 products andprocesses are advanced.
An extensive body of literature on the potential
implications and governance of advancements exists for
AI (Floridi et al., 2018; Asilomar and AI conference
participants, 2017; IEEE, 2018; The IEEE Global Initiativeon Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, 2018;
Participants in the Forum on the Socially Responsible
Development of AI, 2017; Partnership on AI, 2018;
European Group on Ethics in Science and New
Technologies, 2018) and neuro (Roskies, 2002; Farah,
2005; Levy, 2008; Stahnisch, 2015). Furthermore, theethics and governance of AI and Neuro discussions
increasingly intersect (Yuste et al., 2017; Aicardi et al.,2018a; Aicardi et al., 2018b; Ienca, 2018; Burwell et al.,2017). Disabled people have a stake in and are impacted
by how the ethics and governance of AI/Neuroadvancements are discussed.
Disabled people can potentially be assigned multiple
roles in AI/Neuro discourses such as therapeutic orrecreational user, research subject (medical and social
aspects), educator, designer of AI/Neuro products orprocesses and AI/Neuro researcher. It could also entail
the role of expert and advocate for themselves and others
in relation to AI/Neuro products and processes, which
could include being contributor of knowledge and views
to neuroethics and neurogovernance discourses.
Disabled people can also be portrayed in different
ways, for example medical focus, deBiciency focus,
negative focus, neutral focus, positive focus, or social
issues focus.
The objective of this study was to investigate the roleassigned to and the portrayal of disabled people inrelation to AI/Neuro coverage in academic literature,
Canadian newspapers, and Twitter tweets.
Background
AI/Neuro and Disabled People
Disabled people are impacted by AI/Neuro driven
advancements in many ways. For example, a) as potential
users of AI/Neuro advanced products and processes, b) by

the changing societal parameters caused by societal use of
AI/Neuro enabled products and processes, c) by products
and processes that employ AI/Neuro being able tooutperform humans in a given task, and d) by how
autonomous behavior of AI enabled Neuro products andprocesses play themselves out. Within the coverage of AI/
Neuro, disabled people can hold multiple roles. The rolethat an individual holds is often linked to one’s identity(Fox and Ward, 2006; Caldwell, 2009; Longmore, 1985)
whereby the identity is often also linked to the imagery
evident by the words used to portray the person. The
identity one has of oneself or others attribute to oneself
inBluences expectations of the role of that person withinsociety (Longmore, 1985). This is one factor that caninBluence how a problem is deBined and what solution issought (Wolbring, 2004) and “shapes public opinion andpolicy preferences” (Hart and Nisbet, 2012: 704). The
terms “disabled people” and “people with disabilities” forexample are often used to depict the social group of
disabled people (Barnes, 1999; Miles and Singal, 2010;
Chataika et al., 2012) and the social issues they face,whereby the term “patient” is often used to focus on the
medical aspect of the person including the disabled
patient.
Governance of AI/Neuro
Numerous countries have AI strategies (Ding, 2018;
Dutton, 2018), many of which explicitly cover ethics andgovernance issues (Canadian Institute for Advanced
Research (CIFAR), 2018). Guidelines not linked to a given
country also exist such as The Ethical Framework for a
Good AI Society (Floridi et al., 2018), the Asilomar AI
Principles (Asilomar and AI conference participants,2017), the IEEE Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous andIntelligent Systems documents (IEEE, 2018; The IEEE
Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent
Systems, 2018), the Montreal Declaration for a Responsible
Development of ArtiJicial Intelligence (Participants in the
Forum on the Socially Responsible Development of AI,
2017), the Partnership on AI Tenets (Partnership on AI,
2018) and the European Group on Ethics in Science and
New Technologies statement on artiJicial intelligence,robotics and ‘autonomous’ systems (European Group on
Ethics in Science and New Technologies, 2018).
The Bield of neuroethics investigates ethical, social andlegal issues raised by neuro-advancements (Roskies,
2002; Farah, 2005; Levy, 2008; Stahnisch, 2015). Some
ethical issues engaged with are personal identity,
autonomy, and privacy (Hanrahan, 2015) safety, coercion,
distributive justice, and authenticity (Sherlock, 2009).
Issues mentioned under neurotechnology governanceinclude enhancement versus therapy, consciousness,cognitive liberty, autonomy, and privacy, human identity,
dual-use, hype and false claims, education, distributive
justice, access and democratic governance (Garden andWinickoff, 2018).
In regard to the linkage between AI and Neuro, it isstated that the four ethical priorities for

1 We use AI/Neuro as a short way to indicate advancements that cover neurotechnologies, neuro-engineering, neuroscience, andbrain based advancements in conjunc=on with AI which includes ar=ﬁciall intelligence and machine learning.

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)neurotechnologies and AI should be the privacy, identity,
agency and equality of people (Yuste et al., 2017). An
OECD report highlights unique ethical, legal and social
issues that arise with the perceived special status of thebrain and AI systems (Garden and Winickoff, 2018). As tobrain computer interfaces, to just give one AI/Neuroapplication, the following concerns were identiBied:“personhood, stigma, autonomy, privacy, research ethics,
safety, responsibility, and justice” (Burwell et al., 2017: 1).
Disabled people are impacted by how AI/Neuroadvances are governed and the role narrative and imagery
of disabled people within AI/Neuro advancements andtheir governance.
Public and stakeholder engagement is one focus of AI
governance (Wilkinson et al., 2011; Stahl and Wright,
2018; Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR),
2018; Boyd and Wilson, 2018; McKelvey, 2018) and neuro
discourses (Garden and Winickoff, 2018; Morein-Zamir
and Sahakian, 2010; Illes et al., 2005). It is noted that
disabled people face numerous barriers in being
knowledge producers; they also face barriers in being
heard within various stakeholder engagements andgovernance discourses in a meaningful way (Diep, 2017).
Given the importance of role narratives and imagery of
the person, the objective of this study was to investigate
the role narrative around and imagery of the disabled
person within the AI/Neuro focused coverage of three
inBluential sources of literature: academic articles,
newspaper articles and Twitter tweets.
Methods
Study Design:
The objective of this study was to ascertain the roleassigned to and portrayal of disabled people in theacademic literature, Canadian newspapers and Twitter
tweets engaging with AI/Neuro advancements. The
questions answered in the study were: a) What words areused to describe disabled people? b) What roles of
disabled people are evident in the AI/Neuro discourses?
c) What neuro-applications cover disabled people within
the AI/Neuro discourse?
A scoping review approach was chosen to answer the
research questions. Scoping studies “map rapidly the key
concepts underpinning a research area” (Arksey and
O'Malley, 2005: 21) (Anderson et al., 2008; Levac et al.,2010), in order to identify the extent of research
conducted on a given topic (Grant and Booth, 2009; Daviset al., 2009; Njelesani et al., 2012) and the current
understanding of a given topic (Anderson et al., 2008).
This study followed in a modiBied way the stages outlinedby (Arksey and O'Malley, 2005): identifying the review’s
research question, identifying databases to search,generating inclusion/exclusion criteria, recording thedescriptive quantitative results, selecting literature basedon descriptive quantitative results for manifest and latentcoding of qualitative data, and reporting Bindings ofqualitative analysis.
As to newspapers, framing is one way to perform anewspaper analysis (Entman, 1991, 1993). We
investigated how the AI/neuro coverage in thenewspapers framed the role and imagery of disabled
people.

171

Data Sources:
The academic databases EBSCO-Host (an umbrella
database that includes over 70 other databases itself) andScopus, which incorporates the full Medline databasecollection, were searched using their complete time
ranges. They were chosen because they contain many
articles covering a wide array of topics of relevance to thestudy ranging from medical, technical to social topics. The
two databases contained over 4.8 Million articles
published by journals that contain the terms ‘AI” OR“artiBicial intelligence” OR “machine learning” OR “IEEE”
OR “brain” in the journal title and include journals
focusing on the ethics and societal aspects of AI and neuro
such as the journals “neuroethics” and “AI and Society”
and the proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI,
Ethics, and Society.
For the academic literature the focus was on abstractsof academic articles (Burwell et al., 2017) to ensure more
relevant hits. An additional inclusion criterion used was
the inclusion of only scholarly peer reviewed journals in
EBSCO-All, while reviews, peer reviewed articles,
conference papers, and editorials were searched in
Scopus.
300 Canadian Newspapers covering all regions ofCanada from the ProQuest database CanadianNewsstream for its complete time range from 1980August 2018 were searched. The Canadian newspapers
were chosen as a source of data because a) the
government of Canada’s 2017 AI strategy includes as one
focus the investigation of the impact of AI on society,which could be discussed in the newspapers, b) Canada
has a developed neuroethics academic community that
could contribute to the newspaper coverage and c) over
75% of Canadians still read newspapers (News Media
Canada, 2015, 2017) and as such are inBluenced by what
they read.
Tweets from Twitter.com from the start of Twitter
until August 17, 2018 were searched, as Twitter is seen as
highly effective in its message propagation (Ye and Wu,
2010; Kim and Chandler, 2018; Zannettou et al., 2018).
Data Collection:
An explicit search strategy was employed to obtain thedata (Davis et al., 2009). For the newspapers and tweets,the full text was focused on due to the non-availability of
abstracts. For the academic literature abstracts weresearched.
Search strategy (September 4, 2018) to obtain academic
abstracts and full text of newspaper articles (Figure 1):
Strategy 1, Step 1: The presence of the terms “AI”, OR“machine learning” OR “artiBicial intelligence”.
Strategy 1, Step 2: Within the Step 1 results, thepresence of the root terms “disab*” OR “impair*” wassearched for to cover various terms depicting disabled
people.
Strategy 1, Step 3a: Within the Step 2 results thepresence of the root term “neuro*” OR 50 neuro-terms(see Table 1) chosen based on earlier research performedby the authors was searched for.
.

172

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)

Figure 1: Flow chart of the selection of academic abstracts and full text newspaper articles for qualitative analysis

Table 1: Frequency of mentioning of neurotechnologies
Neurotechnologies

Frequency ofmentioning inneuro /50NT
relatedacademic
abstracts

Frequency ofmentioning in
Brain related
academic
abstracts

Frequency of
relevantmentioning inneuro/50NT
relatednewspaper
articlesFrequency of Frequency of
relevantmentioning in
mentioning in tweets
Brain related
newspaper
articles

1. MRI or fMRI

79

86

0

0

4

2. Neuroimaging

66

53

1

0

2

3. brain computer

34

28

0

3

12

4. Robot

17

13

0

0

14

5. Virtual reality

11

4

0

0

0

6. Human computer interaction

8

0

0

0

0

7. Cochlear implant*

7

0

0

0

0

8. Neuroprostheses

6

5

0

0

0

9. Brain stimulation

5

4

1

0

1

10. Brain machine

5

3

1

0

3

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)173

11. Transcranial magnetic
stimulation

4

0

0

0

0

12. Enhancement

3

3

0

0

0

13. Assistive technology

3

1

0

0

0

14. Deep brain stimulation

2

2

0

0

0

15. Neurofeedback

2

3

0

0

0

16. Nerve stimulation

2

0

1

17. Neuroinformatics

2

7

0

0

0

18. ArtiBicial brain

1

1

0

0

0

19. Neurostimulation

1

0

1

0

0

20. electrocorticography

1

2

0

0

0

21. Facial electromyography

1

1

0

0

0

22. Intracranialelectroencephalography

1

0

0

0

0

23. Cognitive Enhancement

1

1

1

0

0

24. Neuropage

1

0

0

0

0

25. Brain driven car

1

3

0

0

0

26. Brain controlled car

0

0

0

0

36

27. Exoskeleton

1

1

1

1

0

28. EEG

0

2

0

0

0

29. brain-mobile-cloud interface(BMCI)

0

1

0

0

0

30. Fuzzy cognitive map

0

1

0

0

0

31. Transcranial direct current
stimulation

0

0

0

0

0

32. Neuromodulation

0

0

0

0

0

33. God Helmet

0

0

0

0

0

34. Nootropic*

0

0

0

0

0

35. Subvocal

0

0

0

0

0

36. Deep mind

0

0

0

0

0

37. Cranial electrotherapy
stimulation

0

0

0

0

0

38. Ear-EEG

0

0

0

0

0

39. Hemoencephalography

0

0

0

0

0

40. Whole brain emulation

0

0

0

0

0

41. Pulsed electromagnetic Bield
therapy

0

0

0

0

0

42. Responsive neurostimulation 0

0

0

0

0

43. Sacral nerve stimulation

0

0

0

0

0

44. Speech technolog*

0

0

0

0

0

45. Spinal cord stimulator

0

0

0

0

0

0

174

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)46. Cortical modem

0

0

0

0

0

47. Hippocampus prosthesis

0

0

0

0

0

48. ArtiBicial hippocampus

0

0

0

0

0

49. Optogenetics

0

1

0

0

0

50. Bionic eye

0

0

1

1

0

51. Direct acoustic corticalimplant

0

0

0

0

0

52. Exocortex

0

0

0

0

0

53. Collaborative cognitive
simulations

0

0

0

0

0

54. Brain-to-text

0

0

0

0

0

55. Brain to speech

0

0

0

0

0

56. Speech BCI

0

0

0

0

0

57. Neuralink

0

0

0

0

0

58. Darpa Ram senor

0

0

0

0

0

59. Prosthetic memory device

0

0

1

0

0

60. Muse headband

0

0

0

0

0

61. THync mood altering
headset

0

0

0

0

0

62. Neurochip

0

0

0

0

0

63. Neuroenhanc*

0

0

1

0

0

64. Moral enhancement

0

0

0

0

0

65. ArtiBicial Voice Synthesizer

0

0

1

0

0

After elimination of duplicates, 462 abstracts ofacademic articles and 40 full text newspaper articles
were downloaded for content analysis.
Strategy 1, Step 3b: : Within the Step 2 results thepresence of the root term “brain*” was searched for.
This search strategy obtained 324 unique academic
abstracts and 168 full text newspaper articles whichwere also downloaded
For Twitter, the search engine on the twitter.com
webpage was searched March 28, 2019 (Figure 2).
Step 1: for the presence of “AI” OR “machine learning”
OR “artiBicial intelligence”
Step 2: for the presence of “disabled” OR “disability”
OR “disabilities” OR “impaired” OR “impairment”.
Step 3a: for the presence of “neuro” (n=11) OR“neurotechnologies” OR “neurotechnology” (n=0) OR“neuroscience” (n=85)
Step 3b: for the presence of “brain” (n=190)
Additional obtained data: We downloaded on March
28, 2019 in Scopus all 73 abstracts from the AIES 2018 Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI,
Ethics, and Society. Not one abstract contained the terms“disab*” or “impair*” and therefore no new content for

academic abstracts beyond outlined in Figure 1 wasadded to the data analysed.
Data Analysis:
To answer the research questions, a) a descriptive
quantitative analysis approach and b) a thematic
qualitative content approach (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005;
Edling and Mooney Simmie, 2017) were employed. In
this study, manifest coding was used to generate codes
based on keywords (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992) such as
the words used to describe disabled people or words
reBlecting neurotechnologies. This includes the 50
neuroterms that were part of the search strategies andother words reBlecting AI linked neurotechnologies
found by reading the data downloaded. Once a word was
identiBied a frequency of presence of that given word was
generated. Latent coding (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) wasused to generate codes reBlecting roles of disabled people
evident in the content. Every time the same role was
identiBied the same code was added and at the end thefrequency of presence of each code was recorded. All
authors performed the manifest and latent coding. No
difference in results were found between authors
performing the manifest coding tasks.

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)
Figure 2: Flow chart of the selection of tweets for
qualitative analysis

175

of the searches. Furthermore, the methods description
gives all required information for others to decide
whether they want to apply the keyword searches onother data sources such as grey literature, the AI/Neuroliterature in other languages, or whether they want toperform different but related keyword searches.
Results
The result section is devided in four parts. Part 1 covers
the neuroapplications mentioned in thre academic
literature, newspapers and twitter tweets; part 2 covers
the role and portrayal of disabled people in academic
abstracts downloaded; ; part 3 covers the role andportrayal of disabled people in the full text newspaper
articles downloaded; ; part 4 covers
the role andportrayal of disabled people in the twitter tweets
downloaded;
Part 1: Neuroapplications mentioned in the literature
coveredFirstly, the frequency of neurotechnologies present in theacademic and newspaper data downloaded was
ascertained. As to newspaper articles, AI/Neuro content
was often not mentioned in relation to disabled people
and as such we list only incidents where theneurotechnologies are engaged with in relation todisabled people (Refer to Table 1).
Part 2: Academic Literature:
Within this section we report on the Bindings related to
the roles linked to disabled people and the portrayal of
disabled people.
Portrayal of disabled people
Table 2: Frequency of terms linked to the medical/body
deBiciency portrayal of disabled people in academic
abstracts:

Furthermore, very few differences existed between
authors in identifying roles of disabled people evident in
the content read. The few differences were discussed by
the authors and resolved. The authors used the Memoand coding functions within ATLAS.Ti 8™ a qualitative
content analysis software so that the views of eachauthor were easy to follow.
Limitation:
The Bindings cannot be generalized to the wholeacademic literature, media, or newspapers in Canada orfrom other countries. The Bindings, however, allow for
conclusions to be made within the parameters of thesearches. For the study, 50 neuroterms beyond thegeneric terms “neuro*” and “brain*”, “AI”, “artiBicial
intelligence” and “machine learning” and speciBic terms
depicting disabled people were selected for the searches.
The search terms do not cover all possible neuro linked
terms or all terms that might lead to AI content or all
terms depicting disabled people. The Bindings, however,allow for conclusions to be made within the parameters

Term

Frequency ofmentioning inneuro/50NT
related academic
abstracts

Frequency ofmentioning in
brain related
academic
abstracts

Patient

898

875

Alzheimer

315

487

Dementia

155

233

Parkinson

52

73

Schizophrenia

52

171

Traumatic Brain
Injury

13

38

176

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)

Table 3: Frequency of terms linked to the use of the term
impairment illustrating the medical/body deBiciency
portrayal in academic abstracts:

Table 4: Frequency of terms linked to “disabled” or “withdisabilities” or “disability” and some other terms
covering disabled people in academic abstracts:

Frequency ofmentioning inneuro/50NT
related academic
abstracts

Frequency ofmentioning in
brain related
academic
abstracts

Term

Frequency ofmentioning inneuro/50NT
related academic
abstracts

Frequency ofmentioning in
brain related
academic
abstracts

Cognitive
impairment

256

225

Autism

63

63

ADHD

26

6

Motor impairment

20

17

Disabled people

12

22

Hearing
impairment/
impaired13

9intellectual
disability

11

1

Memoryimpairment

11

9

disabled subject*

65disabled person

35

Neurologicalimpairment

10

4

Learning disability

145

neurocognitive
impairment

learning disabled

1

17

6

5

functional
impairment

people withdisabilities

1

7

5

5

physicallydisabled

1

4

disabled
population

1

1

cognitive disability

11mentally disabled

10deaf humans

10

athletes withdisabilities

10

the disabled

043

neurodiver*

0

0

Term

attentional oremotional
impairment

4

speech or mental
or brain
impairment2

psychiatric or
learning or social
or brain or
executive or visual
impairment

1

Visual impairment

0

4

1

1

6

Role of disabled people
As to the role of disab* and impair* related user groups
the data presented in Table 5 was found in the academic
abstracts.
Part 3 Newspaper articles:
Neuro/50NT related newspaper articles
Of the forty newspaper articles downloaded only n=10
articles had relevant content (Canada NewsWire, 2007;
National Post, 2014; Wadhwa, 2016; Canada NewsWire,
2017; Evenson, 2002; Smialek, 2012; Canada NewsWire,
2016; Canadian NewsWire, 2017; Spence, 2017).
Within these ten articles, n=5 used the term “impair*”to deBine the person and n=4 used the term patient. The
terms “the disabled”, “permanently disabled”, “physicallydisability”, and “physical handicaps” were used once
whereby the term “disab*” implied “impair*”.
Not once were the phrases “disabled people” or“people with disabilities” used.

Within these ten articles, the role of disabled people
was framed as therapeutic users (n=7 times), changing
abilities linked to the body and non-therapeutic users(n=3 times) and providing companionship and services
to “assist people in all stages of life” (Canada NewsWire,
2007). Only one article covering the late physicist
Stephen Hawking, and his warning on the disastrous
consequences of full AI indicates the role of a disabled
person as an expert (National Post, 2014).
Brain related newspaper articles
Of the n=168 articles downloaded, only n=5 wererelevant articles that allowed to answer the researchquestions (Struzik, 1998; Stonehouse, 2002; M. Fox,
2008; Smialek, 2012; Canada NewsWire, 2018). In manycases, the term brain was not used in conjunction withneuroadvancements, and if it was, artiBicial intelligenceterms were either not linked to the content or thecoverage did not include disabled people. Of the Bive
relevant articles the Birst article used the term disabledEubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)177

and covered brainwaves and BCI as a way to control theenvironment (Struzik, 1998).

Research subject/
Tester

50

Table 5: Frequency of role of user group

Social topic related
research subject

20Being Bixed

10Social topic related
research subject

1

0

Medical animal modelof autism

1

0

Role

Frequency ofmentioning inneuro/50NT
relatedacademic
abstracts

Frequency ofmentioning in
brain related
academic
abstracts

Groups linked to impairment
Research on
impairment covering
diagnostics/
prediction/
classiBication but noactive role as group orindividual

132

108

Medical research on
impairment not
involving humans often
animal research

25

21

User of device

17

8

Research subject inmedical research

1220

Co-designer/designerof device

1

1

Philosophical paper
covering in parts thegroup to make anargument

02

Disability as part of term such as intellectual disability
Disability but Medical
research focus but noactive role as group orindividual

23

21

20 (mostly on
disability of MS
patients)

12

Research subject nonmedical research

20Research on social
aspect of disability not
involving people

20Research subject on
usability of device

10

All medical research,
research subject

Role of disabled people/people with disabilities

User

20

8 (indicatesdisabled people
as users but noactive role)

Medical topic related
research subject
including diagnosis

16

0

A second article used the term “severely disabled” andalso covered BCI to improve the quality of life of “thedisabled” (Stonehouse, 2002). The same article raised
the question of non-therapeutic enhancement statingthat he “…agrees that it will be possible -- at least intheory -- for the human brain and computers to link on awide scale, that the technology will grow beyond helping
people with disabilities” (Stonehouse, 2002). A third
article reported on a research study where a computer
was trained to “read” people's minds by looking at scansof their brains as they think about speciBic words, which
the article indicates might help in the future withlearning disability (M. Fox, 2008). A fourth article
covered vision impaired people and looked at animal
research indicating the potential for better visual
prosthetics (Smialek, 2012). The Binal article simply
indicated “Cognetivity’s Integrated Cognitive Assessment
tool that uses AI and ML techniques to help detect theearliest signs of impairment by testing the performanceof large areas of the brain, potentially allowing early
diagnosis of dementia” (Canada NewsWire, 2018).
Part 4: Twitter tweets
In twitter a total of 286 tweets were found, of which 96
were linked to neuroterms and 190 to the term “brain”.
75 tweets were false positives and the majority of theremaining tweets covered disabled people within atherapeutic and/or deBiciency context. Brain controlledcars and brain computer interface enabled speech were
the two main applications mentioned.
“Helps” as a term was used three times in conjunction
with a non-medical/therapeutic mentioning of disabled
people; for example, “Next-generation wheelchairs could
incorporate #brain-controlled robotic arms and rentable
add-on motors in order to help people with #disabilities
more easily carry out daily tasks or get around acity”(Web Surfer [@WebSurfology], 2019). One tweet
simply highlighted an ability added that was lost (gª|¡Þ€ªµ [@galipeau], 2016). “Empower people withdisabilities” was used once as a phrase in relation to theuse of BCI (Marcello Ienca [@MarcelloIenca], 2018). One
tweet rewording the main message of a wired article
stated that “CEO @satyanadella thinks its possible toeliminate bias from #AI, expects advances in brainmachine interfacing to open up new possibilities for thedisabled”(AutomationNews [@NewsAutomation], 2018).
Another tweet indicated that not allowing for AI based
services that for example allow people with hearing andspeech disabilities to make phonecalls is ableist (Dana178

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)Fried [@leftoblique], 2018). One tweet responding to thehead of Microsoft and another in general agreed thatbrain computer interfaces should be used to help
disabled people but questions the use for healthy peopleor the military (R.E.A.L Human Rights[@realhumanrights], 2018; Richard Green[@RichardGreenFX], 2018). One tweet sees a bias in AI
against neurodiverse people (nv/White Book Agency[@whitebookagency], 2019).
Discussion
Only 786 academic abstracts, 16 relevant newspaper
articles and 286 tweets were found. For neuroterms thenewspapers only covered 12 (mostly once), and theacademic abstracts contained 31 neuroterms with only
10 being present in 10 or more abstracts (Table 1). The
portrayal of disabled people was predominantly
medically grounded, or implied deBiciency (Table 2-4,
newspaper and twitter section). The roles of medical
users and subjects for medical research were the mostprevalent ones for disabled people. Being a victim (being
negatively impacted by) or being an advocate fordisabled people in AI/Neuro discourses including ethics
and governance discourses, and the role of educator
were absent (Table 5, newspaper and twitter section).
Given the ethical and social issues and goals identiBied in
AI/Neuro governance/ethics literature, the Bindings
suggest a gap that needs to be Billed. In the remainder ofthe section the Bindings are discussed through the lens ofsome key AI policy documents and concerns mentioned
in AI/Neuro covering academic articles.
The Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society an
initiative by the AI4People Europe’s Birst Global forum on
AI ethics was launched at the European Parliament in
February 2018 (Floridi et al., 2018). The premise of the
ethical framework document is that the question is notwhether AI impacts society but “by whom, how, where,
and when “positive or negative impact will befelt” (Floridi et al., 2018: 2). The question is very likely
generating the wrong answers in relation to disabled
people given the narrow role and imagery narrativearound disabled people found in the study. It is essentialthat disabled people are present in their role of being
negatively impacted by AI/Neuroadvancements (victim),
expert, educator, knowledge producer and advocate fordisabled people not just as a medical consumer and that
disabled people are portrayed beyond the medical anddeBiciency imagery. According to the AI4People ScientiBic
Committee, there are four main opportunities for societythat AI offers for humans to Blourish: “who we canbecome (autonomous self-realization); what we can do(human agency); what we can achieve (individual andsocietal capabilities); and how we can interact with eachother and the world (societal cohesion)” (Floridi et al.,
2018: 3). How these opportunities are Billed with content
in relation to disabled people depends on the role andportrayal of disabled people in the AI/Neuro discourses,
and the study Bindings suggest that the content will berather one sided and miss many aspects. For example
according to the AI4People ScientiBic Committee, the risk
is not the obsolescence of old skills and the expectationof new ones, but the pace of the change (Floridi et al.,2018).
Given that one has already a problem to obtain a job
as a disabled person (Bureau of Labor Statistics UnitedStates Department of Labor, 2018; Wolbring, 2016), theobsolescence of their skills is an important aspect.
However, this aspect might have been missed by the
AI4People ScientiBic Committee because of the one-sided
role and portrayal of disabled people revealed by thestudy. According to AI4People ScientiBic Committee,“Human intelligence augmented by AI could Bind new
solutions to old and new problems, from a fairer or more
efBicient distribution of resources to a more sustainableapproach to consumption” (Floridi et al., 2018: 5). For
the fairer to happen to disabled people, they must be on
the radar and be present to make sure they do not face
problems under the ‘efBicient’ argument. The AI4People
ScientiBic Committee states that “global problems
increasingly have high degrees of coordination
complexity, meaning that they can be tackled
successfully only if all stakeholders co-design and coown the solutions and cooperate to bring them
about” (Floridi et al., 2018: 6). However, when, to what
extent and linked to what role and imagery are disabled
people seen as stakeholders? According to the AI4People
ScientiBic Committee “ethics enables organizations tot a ke a dva n t a g e o f t h e s o c i a l va l u e t h a t A I
enables” (Floridi et al., 2018: 7). However, which social
values will AI enable and how do disabled people Bit?
According to the IEEE document, respect for humanrights as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities is an important goal ofautonomous and intelligence systems (The IEEE Global
Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent
Systems, 2018). indicating that the role narrative andportrayal around disabled people that this study
revealed has to change.
Justice is mentioned in many documents linked to AI
governance (Floridi et al., 2018; Participants in the
Forum on the Socially Responsible Development of AI,
2017; Asilomar and AI conference participants, 2017;
European Group on Ethics in Science and New
Technologies, 2018; The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethicsof Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, 2018),
neurotechnology governance (Garden and Winickoff,2018) and AI/Neuro products such as brain computerinterfaces (Burwell et al., 2017).
However, how can justice be engaged with in relation
to disabled people given the role narrative and portrayal
found in the study? Justice aspects discussed in relation
to patients and medical interventions are different fromjustice issues linked to a social impact on disabled
people.
Solidarity mentioned by (European Group on Ethics
in Science and New Technologies, 2018; The IEEE Global
Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent
Systems, 2018) and equity or equality by (EuropeanGroup on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, 2018;
The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous andIntelligent Systems, 2018; Partnership on AI, 2018;
Garden and Winickoff, 2018; Yuste et al., 2017) alsoEubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)
demand a differentiated engagement with disabled
people beyond the role and portrayal found in the study.
Identity of the person is a topic discussed widely(Yuste et al., 2017; Burwell et al., 2017; Garden andWinickoff, 2018; Floridi et al., 2018; The IEEE Global
Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent
Systems, 2018)(European Group on Ethics in Science and
New Technologies, 2018). The question arising fordisabled people is who programs AI with which identityof disabled people in mind, or in the AI self-learningmode which identity does the AI entity attach to disabled
people given that the debate is still ongoing around theidentity of disable people (Wolbring and Djebrouni,2018). The Bindings of this study suggest that if AI
technologies use the literature covered in this study for
its learning, one can expect the AI entity will obtain abiased, one sided understanding of the identity ofdisabled people.
Furthermore, in order to deal with other concerns
mentioned around AI/Neuro such as privacy, identity,
agency equality, morality, cognitive control and capacity
f o r c o n s e n t p e r s o n h o o d , s t i g m a , a u t o n o my,responsibility, and justice (Yuste et al., 2017; Garden andWinickoff, 2018; Burwell et al., 2017), a more diverserole narrative and portrayal of disabled people is needed.
Stakeholder/public engagement is discussed in many
AI and Neuro ethics/governance documents. It is seen as
important to ascertain the values that societies wants toincorporate into AI development and governance(European Group on Ethics in Science and New
Technologies, 2018). It is also important for AI
advancements to promote critical thinking, informed
participation in public life, cooperation and democratic
debate (Participants in the Forum on the Socially
Responsible Development of AI, 2017). However, theBindings of this study suggest that AI advancements
increase the participation barriers disabled people face
(Diep, 2017) of which their medical imagery is one(Wolbring et al., 2013). It is doubtful that suchengagements and proposed societal values reBlect theviews of the diversity of disabled people and promotes
critical thinking in relation to how AI/Neuro impacts
disabled people. For that to happen a more diverse
narrative around disabled people role and imagery has
to be present.
Conclusion and Future Research
The Bindings of this study indicate a limited role
narrative and limited scope of portrayal of disabled
people within the literature covered. The literature
covered favored the role of disabled people as passive
therapeutic recipients of AI/Neuro advancements and a
medical portrayal of disabled people. Many other roles ofand portrayals of disabled people were missed, which
disempowers disabled people.
Sherwin, a leading ethicist, concluded that “we[ethicists] lack the appropriate intellectual tools forpromoting deep moral change in our society” (Sherwin,
2011: 80). The Bindings of this study suggest that theliterature covered did not indicate a deep moral change
needed in how AI/Neuro advancements deal with179

disabled people and the literature did not cover disabled
people as agents of moral change.
More research on role and portrayal of disabled
people is warranted to answer questions such as: Whyare certain roles and portrayals missing from thenarrative in relation to disabled people?
Given that role narratives and portrayals are also
important for other social groups, the role narratives andportrayal of other groups in AI/Neuro discourses such as
health professionals, women, and indigenous people
could also be investigated. Finally, one could investigate
whether there are differences in role narratives based on
culture, geographical location, and other parameters.
Funding
Government of Canada, Canadian Institutes of HealthResearch, Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health andAddiction ERN 155204 in cooperation with ERA-NET
NEURON JTC 2017
References
Aicardi, C., Fothergill, B. T., Rainey, S., Stahl, B. C., & Harris, E.
(2018a). Accompanying technology development in the
Human Brain Project: From foresight to ethics
management. Futures, 102(September), 114-124.
Aicardi, C., Reinsborough, M., & Rose, N. (2018b). The
integrated ethics and society programme of the Human
Brain Project: reBlecting on an ongoing experience. Journalof Responsible Innovation, 5(1), 13-37.
Anderson, S., Allen, P., Peckham, S., & Goodwin, N. (2008).
Asking the right questions: scoping studies in thecommissioning of research on the organisation and deliveryof health services. Health Research Policy and Systems, 6(1),7, doi:10.1186/1478-4505-6-7.
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a
methodological framework. International journal of social
research methodology, 8(1), 19-32.
Asilomar and AI conference participants (2017). Asilomar AI
Principles Principles developed in conjunction with the2017 Asilomar conference. https://futureoBlife.org/aiprinciples/?cn-reloaded=1. Accessed 13 April 2019.
AutomationNews [@NewsAutomation]. (2018, Oct ,17).@Microsoft CEO @satyanadella thinks its possible toeliminate bias from #AI, expects advances in brain-machineinterfacing to open up new possibilities for the disabled.
#inclusivity #FutureOfWork #RacingWithMachines@WIRED. [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/
NewsAutomation/status/1052485367398424576.
Accessed 13 April 2019.
Barnes, C. (1999). Disability Studies: new or not so new
directions? Disability & Society, 14(4), 577-580.
Bell, A. J. (1999). Levels and loops: the future of artiBicial
intelligence and neuroscience. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences,354(1392), 2013-2020.
Boyd, M., & Wilson, N. (2018). Rapid developments in ArtiBicial
Intelligence: how might the New Zealand government
respond? Policy Quarterly, 13(4), 36-43.
Bureau of Labor Statistics United States Department of Labor(2018). Persons with a Disability: Labor ForceC h a ra c t e r i s t i c s S u m m a r y. h t t p : / / w w w. b l s . g ov /news.release/empsit.t06.htm. Accessed 13 April 2019.
Burwell, S., Sample, M., & Racine, E. (2017). Ethical aspects ofbrain computer interfaces: a scoping review. [Report]. BMC
medical ethics, 18.

180

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)

Buttazzo, G. (2001). ArtiBicial consciousness: Utopia or realp o s s i b i l i t y ? [ A r t i c l e ] . Co m p u t e r, 3 4 ( 7 ) , 2 4 - 3 0 ,doi:10.1109/2.933500.
Caldwell, C. (2009). Identity, self-awareness, and selfdeception: Ethical implications for leaders andorganizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(3), 393-406.
Canada NewsWire Media Advisory - International companies toexhibit latest technologies and services for an aging
population, persons with disability and their caregivers.
(2007, Jun 16). Canada NewsWire, p. 1.
Canada NewsWire Bionik Laboratories Enters into Merger
Agreement to Acquire Interactive Motion Technologies, Inc.
(IMT). (2016, Mar 07). Canada NewsWire.
Canada NewsWire Bionik Laboratories Reaches Milestone with
Shipment of 250th Interactive Robotic Therapy System for
Patient Rehabilitation. (2017, Apr 25). Canada NewsWire.
Canada NewsWire Cognetivity Neurosciences Wins Prestigious
AXA 'Health Tech & You' Award for Innovation in the Early
Diagnosis of Dementia. (2018, May 16). Canada NewsWire.
Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) (2018). AI &Society. https://www.cifar.ca/ai/ai-society. Accessed 13
April 2019.
Canadian NewsWire Bionik Laboratories Corp. Completes
Integration of Amazon Echo into its ARKE(TM) Exoskeleton.
(2017, Aug. 8 ). Canada NewsWire.
Catherwood, P., Finlay, D., & McLaughlin, J. (2016). Intelligent
Subcutaneous Body Area Networks: Anticipating
Implantable Devices. [Article]. IEEE Technology and Society
Magazine, 35(3), 73-80, doi:10.1109/MTS.2016.2593219.
Cavazza, M., Aranyi, G., & Charles, F. (2017). BCI control ofheuristic search algorithms. [Article]. Frontiers in
Neuroinformatics, 11(January), Article 6, doi:10.3389/
fninf.2017.00006.
Chataika, T., Mckenzie, J. A., Swart, E., & Lyner-Cleophas, M.
(2012). Access to education in Africa: Responding to theUnited Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. Disability & Society, 27(3), 385-398.
Dana Fried [@leftoblique]. (2018, May, 10).Galaxy brain: AI
assistant allows people with hearing and speech disabilities
to use services that require making phone calls, so
dismissing the service out of hand is ableist [Tweet].
Retrieved from https://twitter.com/leftoblique/status/
994785690109071360. Accessed 13 April 2019.
Davis, K., Drey, N., & Gould, D. (2009). What are scoping
studies? A review of the nursing literature. International
Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(10), 1386-1400.
de Garis, H. (2007). ArtiBicial Brains. Cognitive Technologies(Vol. 8, pp. 159-174).
Diep, L. (2017). Anticipatory Governance, Anticipatory Advocacy,
Knowledge Brokering, and the State of Disabled People's
Rights Advocacy in Canada: Perspectives of Two Canadian
Cross-Disability Rights Organizations. University of Calgary,
University repository https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/
handle/11023/4051/ucalgary_2017_diep_lucy.pdf ?
sequence=3&isAllowed=y. Accessed 13 April 2019.
Ding, J. (2018). Deciphering China’s AI Dream. https://w w w. B h i . o x . a c . u k / w p - c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s /Deciphering_Chinas_AI-Dream.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2019.
Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: method,
applications, and issues. Health care for womeninternational,
13(3),
313-321,
doi:10.1080/07399339209516006.
Dutton, T. (2018). An Overview of National AI Strategies.
https://medium.com/politics-ai/an-overview-of-nationalai-strategies-2a70ec6edfd. Accessed 13 April 2019.
Edling, S., & Mooney Simmie, G. (2017). Democracy andemancipation in teacher education: A summative content
analysis of teacher educators' democratic assignment

expressed in policies for Teacher Education in Sweden and
Ireland between 2000-2010. Citizenship, Social andEconomics Education, 17(1), 20-34.
Entman, R. M. (1991). Symposium Framing US Coverage ofInternational News: contrasts in narratives of the KAL and
Iran Air incidents. Journal of communication, 41(4), 6-27.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clariBication of afractured paradigm. Journal of communication, 43(4), 51-58.
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies(2018). Statement on ArtiBicial Intelligence, Robotics and‘Autonomous’ Systems. https://ec.europa.eu/research/ege/
pdf/ege_ai_statement_2018.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2019.
Evenson, B. Scientists challenge theory of mind's eye: Different
parts of brain used to process real and imagined images.
(2002, Mar 29). National Post, p. A13.
Farah, M. J. (2005). Neuroethics: the practical and thephilosophical. Trends in cognitive sciences, 9(1), 34-40.
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P.,
Virginia Dignum, et al. (2018). An Ethical Framework for a
Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, andRecommendations. Mind and Maschine, in press.
Fox, M. Computer 'reads' minds for study of how brain works;
Results could lead to better learning-disability treatments.
(2008, May 30). The Vancouver Sun.
Fox, N., & Ward, K. (2006). Health identities: from expert
patient to resisting consumer. Health:, 10(4), 461-479.
gª|¡Þ€ªµ [@galipeau]. (2016, Feb, 12).Disabled violinist makesmusic - Birst time in 27 years using #brain signals http://
techworm.net/2016/02/disabl … #iot4good #ai. [Tweet].
Retrieved from https://twitter.com/galipeau/status/
698087135841116161. Accessed 13 April 2019.
Garden, H., & Winickoff, D. (2018). Issues in neurotechnology
governance. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/
paper/c3256cc6-en. Accessed 13 April 2019.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: ananalysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.
Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108.
Hanrahan, D. (2015). Neuroenhancement, Ethics, & Future of
Disability Law. Health Law Outlook, 8(1), 1-17.
Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang Effects in Science
Communication: How Motivated Reasoning and Identity
Cues Amplify Opinion Polarization About Climate
Mitigation Policies. [Article]. Communication research,
39(6), 701-723, doi:10.1177/0093650211416646.
Hassabis, D., Kumaran, D., SummerBield, C., & Botvinick, M.
(2017). Neuroscience-inspired artiBicial intelligence.
Neuron, 95(2), 245-258.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches toqualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res, 15,
doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.
IEEE (2018). Ethics in Action The IEEE Global Initiative on
Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, Ethically
Aligned Design. https://ethicsinaction.ieee.org/. Accessed
13 April 2019.
Ienca, M. (2018). Democratizing cognitive technology: aproactive approach. Ethics and Information
Te c h n o l o g y ( O n l i n e B i r s t ) , 1 - 1 4 , d o i : 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 /s10676-018-9453-9.
Illes, J., Blakemore, C., Hansson, M. G., Hensch, T. K., Leshner, A.,
Maestre, G., et al. (2005). International perspectives on
engaging the public in neuroethics. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 6(12), 977.
Kim, Y., & Chandler, J. D. (2018). How social community andsocial publishing inBluence new product lauch: The case oftwitter during the playstation 4 and XBOX One launches
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 26(1-2), 144-157.

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)
Lee, J. (2016). Brain-computer interfaces and dualism: aproblem of brain, mind, and body. [Article]. AI & Society,31(1), 29-40, doi:10.1007/s00146-014-0545-8.
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping
studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation
Science, 5(1), article 69, doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69.
Levy, N. (2008). Introducing neuroethics. Neuroethics, 1(1), 1-8.
Longmore, P. K. (1985). A note on language and the social
identity of disabled people. American Behavioral Scientist,
28(3), 419-423.
Marcello Ienca [@MarcelloIenca]. (2018, Jan, 4).Not sure
"ArtiBicial intelligence turns brain activity into speech" is themost appropriate headl ine but here is a nice@sciencemagazine summary of ongoing research on #AIpowered #BCI to empower people with disabilities.
[ Tw e e t ] . R e t r i e v e d f r o m h t t p s : / / t w i t t e r. c o m /MarcelloIenca/status/1081226846442803200. Accessed
13 April 2019.
McKelvey, F. (2018). Next Steps for Canadian AI Governance:
ReBlections on Student Symposium on AI and Human
Rights. http://www.amo-oma.ca/en/2018/05/10/nextsteps-for-canadian-ai-governance-reBlections-on-studentsymposium-on-ai-and-human-rights/. Accessed 13 April
2019.
Meeuws, M., Pascoal, D., Bermejo, I., Artaso, M., De Ceulaer, G., &Govaerts, P. J. (2017). Computer-assisted CI Bitting: Is thelearning capacity of the intelligent agent FOX beneBicial for
speech understanding? [Article]. Cochlear Implants
International,
18(4),
198-206,
doi:10.1080/14670100.2017.1325093.
Miles, S., & Singal, N. (2010). The Education for All and inclusive
education debate: conBlict, contradiction or opportunity?
International journal of inclusive education, 14(1), 1-15.
Morein-Zamir, S., & Sahakian, B. J. (2010). Neuroethics andpublic engagement training needed for neuroscientists.
Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(2), 49-51.
National Post AI could be end of humans: Hawkings; Warning
rests on AI becoming self-aware. (2014, Dec 04). National
Post.
News Media Canada (2015). FAQ. https://nmc-mic.ca/aboutnewspapers/faq/. Accessed 13 April 2019.
News Media Canada (2017). Snapshot 2016 Daily Newspapers.
https://nmc-mic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/
Snapshot-Fact-Sheet-2016-for-Daily-Newspapers-3.pdf.
Accessed 13 April 2019.
Njelesani, J., Cameron, D., & Polatajko, H. J. (2012). Occupationfor-development: Expanding the boundaries ofoccupational science into the international development
agenda. Journal of Occupational Science, 19(1), 36-43.
nv/White Book Agency [@whitebookagency]. (2019, Feb,
3).Possibly biased ones even cause we're still working outthat whole AI thing... cause not enough women, people ofcolor, LGBTQIA, people with disabilities, people of various.
[ o n l i n e ] . R e t r i e ve d f r o m h t t p s : / / t w i t t e r. c o m /whitebookagency/status/1092238992412680193.
Accessed 13 April 2019.
Participants in the Forum on the Socially Responsible
Development of AI (2017). Montreal Declaration for a
Responsible Development of ArtiBicial Intelligence. https://www.montrealdeclaration-responsibleai.com/thedeclaration. Accessed 13 April 2019.
P a r t n e r s h i p o n A I ( 2 0 1 8 ) . Te n e t s . h t t p s : / /www.partnershiponai.org/tenets/. Accessed 13 April 2019.
R.E.A.L Human Rights [@realhumanrights]. (2018, Oct,9).Where will #Transhumanism goals end? Of course, allpeople support tools to HELP disabled, but when goalchange to "enhance" #human beings with connections to#ArtiBicialIntelligence #AI? Like #DARPA interest in

181"#brain- #computer" interface of "healthy"? [Tweet].
Retrieved from https://twitter.com/realhumanrights/
status/1052011286890975232. Accessed 13 April 2019.
Richard Green [@RichardGreenFX]. (2018, Sep, 23).Braincomputer interfaces have so many productivity and qualityof life beneBits, especially for the disabled. But the military
should be banned from using them. Same with AI. [Tweet].
Retrieved from https://twitter.com/RichardGreenFX/
status/1043837533384318976. Accessed 13 April 2019.
Roskies, A. (2002). Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron,35(1), 21-23.
Sherlock, T. Enhancing the mechanism of memory; Ethics ofcognitive enhancement discussed at Third Age Learning at
Kwantlen. (2009, Feb 27). Richmond News, p. 16.
Sherwin, S. (2011). Looking Backwards, Looking Forward:
Hope for Bioethics’ Next Twenty Five Years. Bioethics, 25(2),75-82.
Smialek, J. Blind mice see after scientists crack retinal code;
Study that mimicked signals between eyes and brain may
lead to solutions for vision-impaired people. (2012, Aug
14). The Vancouver Sun.
Spence, R. What Canada can learn from Israel's entrepreneurial
ethos; We must leverage our gifts and overcome the'chutzpah gap', Rick Spence writes. (2017, Nov 21). The
Vancouver Sun.
Stahl, B. C., & Wright, D. (2018). Ethics and Privacy in AI and Big
Data: Implementing Responsible Research and Innovation.
IEEE Security & Privacy, 16(3), 26-33.
Stahnisch, F. W. (2015). History of Neuroscience and
Neuroethics: Introduction. In Handbook of Neuroethics (pp.
461-466): Springer.
Stonehouse, D. The cyborg evolution: Kevin Warwick's
experiments with implanting chips to talk to computers
isn't as far-fetched as one might think. (2002, Mar 28). The
Ottawa Citizen, p. F2.
Struzik, E. It's the thought that counts; New technology may
some day allow disabled to operate a computer using only
brainwaves. (1998, Jan 27). Edmonton Journal, p. A1 /FRONT.
The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous andIntelligent Systems, T. I. G. I. (2018). Ethically Aligned
Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with
Autonomous and Intelligent Systems (A/IS) http://
standards.ieee.org/develop/indconn/ec/ead_v2.pdf.
Accessed 13 April 2019.
Wadhwa, V. Six new rules that will govern the future. (2016,
Nov 17). Prince George Citizen.
Web Surfer [@WebSurfology]. (2019, Mar, 27).Next-generation
wheelchairs could incorporate #brain-controlled roboticarms and rentable add-on motors in order to help people
with #disabilities more easily carry out daily tasks or getaround a city. [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/
WebSurfology/status/1110879963329318912. Accessed
13 April 2019.
Wilkinson, C., Bultitude, K., & Dawson, E. (2011). “Oh yes,robots! People like robots; the robot people should dosomething”: perspectives and prospects in public
engagement with robotics. Science communication, 33(3),367-397.
Wolbring, G. (2004). Solutions follow perception: Nano-BioInfo-Cogno-technology (NBIC) and the concept of health,
medicine, disability and disease. Alberta Health Law Review,
12(3), 41-47.
Wolbring, G. (2016). Employment, disabled people and robots:
What is the narrative in the academic literature andCanadian newspapers? . Societies, 6(2), Article 15.

182

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)

Wolbring, G., & Djebrouni, M. (2018). Motivated Reasoning andDisabled People. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Equality
and Diversity, 4(2), no page number.
Wolbring, G., Mackay, R., Rybchinski, T., & Noga, J. (2013).
Disabled People and the Post-2015 Development Goal
Agenda through a Disability Studies Lens Sustainability,
5(10), 4152-4182.
Wu, Y.-c., & Feng, J.-w. (2018). Development and application ofartiBicial neural network. Wireless PersonalCommunications, 102(2), 1645-1656.
Ye, S., & Wu, S. F. (2010). Measuring message propagation andsocial inBluence on Twitter. com. In Bolc L., Makowski M., &W. A. (Eds.), Social Informatics. SocInfo 2010. Lecture Notes
in Computer Science (Vol. 6430, pp. 216-231). Berlin:
Springer.
Yuste, R., Goering, S., Bi, G., Carmena, J. M., Carter, A., Fins, J. J., etal. (2017). Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and
AI. Nature News, 551(7679), 159.
Zannettou, S., CaulBield, T., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M.,
Stringhini, G., & Blackburn, J. (2018). Disinformation
Warfare: Understanding State-Sponsored Trolls on Twitter
and Their InBluence on the Web. https://arxiv.org/abs/
1801.09288. Accessed 13 April 2019.

Legacies of Love, Peace andHope: How Education canovercome Hatred and Divide.
https://www.eubios.info/legacies_of_love_peace_and_hope

We welcome persons and collaborators tocontribute papers to this Living Book that was
launched on 28 September 2019 in Al Noor
Mosque, Christchurch, New Zealand. This book is

in memory of the victims of the terrorist attack
against worshippers in Mosques in thehometown of Eubios Ethics Institute,
Christchurch, New Zealand on 15 March 2019.
This book is dedicated to all victims of violenceof every form, and all angels of mercy, however
and whenever expressed. Sadly over time there
have been terrorist murders in all three citiesof our Institute.
May peace be with us all, and may we all bevehicles of peace and love. The latest version ofthis book is available to download on:
h t t p s : / / w w w . e u b i o s . i n f o /legacies_of_love_peace_and_hope

Further paper are welcome to the editor, Dr.
Darryl Macer, Email: darryl@eubios.info

Table of Contents

Preface - Darryl Macer
15 March 2019: What Was I Thinking Then?
Farid Ahmed
Legacies of Love from Christchurch
Darryl Macer
A Role for Individuals
Anwar Nasim and David R. Franz

The tagged dove: lies, hints and prevention
Manuel Lozano Rodríguez
Christchurch Massacre: Watershed Lost?
Maxu Masood
Metaphilosophy and Intercultural Dialogue on
Bioethics Richard Evanoff
An Inappropriate Silence? Andrew Bosworth
Communication in the Face of Terrorism: Messages
that Aggravate or Heal Ali Kassay
Education against hate and racism to AfricanAmericans: Social consequences of choice ofliterature and movies for teachers
Lara López-Hernáez
Value-Based Education To Overcome Hatred &Divide Ravichandran Moorthy
A secondary school personal, social, health andeconomic (PSHE) pilot study project on racism,
xenophobia and extremism Alex Waller
Ability expectation & ableism governance: An
essential aspect of a culture of peace
Gregor Wolbring
The Democratic and Moral DeBicit of the Philippine
Educational System Rogelio P. BayodHow Education Can Overcome Hatred and Divide
Issa Abyad
Education as a Means to Freedom
Rhyddhi Chakraborty
The Power of Education Lalitha Murali
Embodied Contemplative Pedagogy (ECP): Beyond
Mindfulness and 21st Century Skills (Insights from
Yoga and Tai Chi) Daniel Mishori“The Lost Generation” in the Middle Eastern andNorth African (MENA) Countries: The Ethics ofthe Failure to Educate Iraqi and Syrian RefugeeChildren in Turkey
Lana al-Shareeda Le Blanc
Is nurturing the ethics of love and peace possible?
Ayoub Abu Dayyeh
Love of Nature in Dialogue Building Irina Pollard
The Ethics of the U.S. Invasion of Iraq During Gulf
War ll (GWll) Leonard H. Le Blanc III
Istanbul Communiqué on Looking Beyond Disaster2019 (LBD10)
Volunteerism as a means towards a more
responsible society Ketan Mor
Avenues to Global Peace and Harmony
John E. LaMuth
Naming the Unnameable: new words for death after
Auschwitz and Hiroshima
Raffaele Mantegazza
The Ethics of Justice in Liberal Theory
Christopher Ryan Maboloc
Bioethics and the promotion of a healthy mind, souland body Ananya Tritipthumrongchok
Forgiveness is the extreme form of love and hate
Dhastagir Sultan Sheriff
Religious tolerance, bioethics: Hindus, Muslims &Christians living together in India Aruna Sivakami
Religions, Cultural Harmony and Peace from the
Perspective of Swami Vivekananda
Jaysankar Lal Shaw

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)
Letters from St. Stephen’s International School from
Students
The Power of Youth to Interconnect: Conference of
the Birds
Cambridge High School, Amman,
JordanBrain Memory-coding can inBluence brain healthand society Osama Rajhkan
What more is to be said? When women and children
are among the dead? Sirwan Mohamadi
Commander’s Compassion Hasan Erbay

For forthcoming conferences see:www.eubios.info
Email to Darryl@eubios.info.
EJAIB Editor:
Darryl Macer (Chair, Accredited Universi=es of Sovereign
Na=ons)
Associate Editor:
Nader Ghotbi (Ritsumeikan Asia Paciﬁc University, APU))

183

Editorial Board: Akira Akabayashi (Japan), Sahin Aksoy(Turkey), Martha Marcela Rodriguez-Alanis (Mexico),Angeles Tan Alora (Philippines), Atsushi Asai (Japan),
Alireza Bagheri (Iran), Gerhold Becker (Germany),
Rhyddhi Chakraborty (India/UK), Shamima Lasker(Bangladesh), Minakshi Bhardwaj (UK), Chris=an Byk(IALES; France), Ken Daniels (New Zealand), Ole Doering(Germany), Amarbayasgalan Dorjderem (Mongolia),
Hasan Erbay (Turkey), Soraj Hongladarom (Thailand),Dena Hsin (Taiwan), Rihito Kimura (Japan), Abby Lippman(Canada), Umar Jenie (Indonesia), Nobuko Yasuhara
Macer (Japan), Masahiro Morioka (Japan), Anwar Nasim(Pakistan), Jing-Bao Nie (China, New Zealand), Pinit
Ratanakul (Thailand), Qiu Ren Zong (China), Hyakudai
Sakamoto (Japan), Sang-yong Song (Republic of Korea),
Takao Takahashi (Japan), Noritoshi Tanida (Japan),
Ananya Tri=pthumrongchok (Thailand), Yanguang Wang
(China), Daniel Wikler (USA), Jeong Ro Yoon (Republic ofKorea).

ASIAN BIOETHICS ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP 2019/2020& 2019/2020 subscription to Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics (EJAIB)____ I wish to pay my annual membership fees of Asian Bioethics Association (ABA), and receivethe 2019/2020 (Circle which one or both) issues of Eubios Journal of Asian and International
Bioethics (EJAIB) (The Official Journal).
____ Regular Price Per Year: US$100 Euro 80 ¥12000 (=Credit card price NZ$150)____ I wish to make a reduced contribution of____ I wish to register as a member of Asian Bioethics Association, but am not in the position to
pay a fee. I understand that I should be satisfied with Internet access to Eubios Journal of Asianand International Bioethics (EJAIB) <http://eubios.info/EJAIB.htm>.
____ I wish to also make a donation to Eubios Ethics Institute of____ Exchange subscription with journal, newsletter, etc. (Name____________________________ )____ I agree / ____ do not agree to my name being listed on the ABA www site
List Research Interests to be included:
All renewals either in person or via E-mail with your address* (you can simply email the necessary
information, it is not necessary to use this renewal form; or include current address label)
To: E-mail: asianbioethics@yahoo.co.nz
Please charge my VISA / MASTERCARD card (circle) for NZ$________
Account #Expiry Date
Signature
Name:
Mailing address:
E-mail:Web site: <http://eubios.info/ABA.htm>

184

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 29 (September 2019)

Eubios Ethics Institute Publications (Books sent by SAL post, Journal by Airmail - Price included)
Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics (Annual subscription)

NZ$100

Shaping Genes: Ethics, Law and Science of Using Genetic Technology in Medicine and Agriculture
by Darryl Macer, Oct. 1990, 421pp.
NZ$50
Equitable Patent Protection in the Developing World
by William Lesser, May 1991, 150pp.
NZ$40
Attitudes to Genetic Engineering: Japanese and International Comparisons (Bilingual)by Darryl Macer, May 1992 330pp.
NZ$40
Human Genome Research & Society
Eds: Norio Fujiki & Darryl R.J. Macer July 1992
ISBN 0-908897-03-0 (English), 230pp. ISBN 0-908897-04-9 (Japanese), 240pp.
NZ$40
Intractable Neurological Disorders, Human Genome Research and Society Eds: N. Fujiki & D. Macer
Feb. 1994 ISBN 0-908897-06-5 (English), 320pp. ISBN 0-908897-07-3 (Japanese), 340pp.
NZ$40
Bioethics for the People by the People by Darryl Macer,... May 1994 ISBN 0-908897-05-7, 460pp.
NZ$50
Bioethics in High Schools in Australia, Japan and New Zealand, by D.Macer, Y.Asada,
M.Tsuzuki, S.Akiyama, & N.Y.Macer March 1996, ISBN 0-908897-08-1, 200pp.(A4)
NZ$50
Protection of the Human Genome and Scientific Responsibility (English and Japanese Bilingual)
Editors: Michio Okamoto, Norio Fujiki & D.R.J. Macer, April 1996, ISBN 0-908897-09-X, 210pp.
NZ$40
Bioethics in India Eds: Jayapaul Azariah, Hilda Azariah & Darryl R.J. Macer
June 1998 ISBN 0-908897-10-3, (includes 115 papers) 403 pp. (Printed in India)
NZ$60
Bioethics is Love of Life: An alternative textbook by Darryl Macer, July 1998 ISBN 0-908897-13-8,
152pp. (Note 2nd edition published on iTunes Store as an iBook in 2015)
NZ$40
Bioethics in Asia Eds: Norio Fujiki & Darryl R.J. Macer, (includes 118 papers from Nov.1997
conferences, ABC’97 Kobe and Fukui Satellite) June 1998 ISBN 0-908897-12-X, 478 pp.
October 1999 ISBN 0-908897-14-6 (Japanese), 320pp.
NZ$50
Ethical Challenges as we approach the end of the Human Genome Project
Editor: Darryl Macer, April 2000 ISBN 0-908897-15-4, 124pp.
NZ$40
Bioethics Education in Japanese High Schools (in Japanese only)
Editor: Darryl MacerApril 2000 ISBN 0-908897-16-2, 112pp.
NZ$40
Bioethics and the Impact of Human Genome Research in the 21st Century
Eds: Norio Fujiki, Masakatsu Sudo, & D.R.J. Macer March 2001 (English and Japanese bilingual, 350pp).NZ$50
Bioethics in Asia in the 21st Century
Eds: Song Sang-yong, Koo Young-Mo & Darryl R.J. Macer
August 2003 ISBN 0-908897-19-7, 450pp.
NZ$50
Challenges for Bioethics from Asia Ed: Darryl R.J. Macer
November 2004 ISBN 0-908897-22-7 656 pp.
NZ$70
A Cross Cultural Introduction to Bioethics, Editor: Darryl Macer 2006, 300pp. (A4)
NZ$50
(Note 2nd edition published on iTunes Store as an iBook in 2015)
Bioethics in Iran, Editor: Alireza Bagheri, 2014. ISBN 978-0-908897-25-4 262 pp.
NZ$50
Bioscience Ethics Education Curriculum for Pre-Schoolers to Elementary Age Children,
Irina Pollard and Amara Zintgraff,. 2017 ISBN 978-0-908897-28-5, 60pp. (A4)
NZ$50
Getting Along: The Wild, Wacky World of Human Relationship, Laura R. Ramnarace 2017
ISBN 978-0-908897-29-2, 73pp. (A4)
NZ$50
Diabetes: A Reader, Rajib Biswas, 978-0-908897-30-8 (A4) 2017
Education, Happiness, Mindfulness and Colonization: Reflections from Time with San Carlos
Apache Nation, Lara López Hernáez &Darryl R.J. Macer, 2018 978-0-908897-31-5, 90pp. (A4)
NZ$50
Environmental Ethics Education 2018 ISBN 978-0-908897-32-2 134pp. (A4)
Philosophy and Practice of Bioethics across and between Cultures, Takahashi, Takao; Ghotbi,
Nader & Macer, Darryl R.J. , eds, 2019 978-0-908897-33-9 266pp. (B4)
NZ$50
Cybofree: Posthuman Bioethics for a Sustainable Humanity V.R. Manoj 2019 978-0-908897-34-6 . 109pp.NZ$50
Legacies of Love, Peace and Hope: How Education can overcome Hatred and Divide D.R>J. Macer, ed.,ISBN 978-0-908897-35-3 288pp.
NZ$60
The Books can be downloaded for free online at www.eubios.info
Please charge my VISA / MASTERCARD card for NZ$:
Account #Expiry Date
Signature
Name:
Date (D/M/Y)
Mailing address:
Email:
Research Interests (for Network)
Email this order page/details to asianbioethics@yahoo.co.nz