We’re looking for your short, sharp responses to two bioethics questions and a cartoon drawn by Eric Juengst. You can answer one, two, or all three with a serious or lighthearted reply. Entries are due by October 7. Read the Questions & Participate »
You can also vote on the finalists at The Hastings Center booth at ASBH, or right here at bioethicsforum.org.
The entries that receive the most votes will be published on Bioethics Forum and the authors of these responses will be entitled to a complementary individual subscription to the Hastings Center Report for one year.
The Journal of Applied Philosophy will henceforth award an annual prize of £1000 to the best article published in the year’s volume. The first award will be made in respect of Volume 28 (2011). The judgement as to the best article will be made by the editors of the journal.
Journal of Applied Philosophy provides a unique forum for philosophical research which seeks to make a constructive contribution to problems of practical concern. Open to the expression of diverse viewpoints, the journal brings critical analysis to these areas and to the identification, justification and discussion of values of universal appeal. Journal of Applied Philosophy covers a broad spectrum of issues in environment, medicine, science, policy, law, politics, economics and education.
Last week, the theoretical astrophysicist Professor Martin Rees, former president of the Royal Society and current Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, accepted the Templeton Prize. Funded by a massive endowment from the Tennessee-born billionaire Sir John Marks Templeton (1912-2008), the prize is awarded, according to its website, to ‘a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works.’
That Rees’ acceptance of the prize has caused controversy should surprise few, given the number of highly opinionated and vocal participants in the current science-religion debate. Indeed one thing Rees was undoubtedly being rewarded for was his unusually conciliatory contribution to this often hostile conversation. But those who feel their hostility to be justified, particularly on the scientific side, regret what they perceive as the conversion of Rees into Continue reading “The Debate on Martin Rees’ Templeton Prize”