Although research findings have always been subject to abuse, scientific advances and recent events have increased concern about the perils of some biomedical knowledge. The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) addresses this potential in its guidelines for physician–researchers (PRs). The guidelines do not advance many novel ideas or provide substantive guidance for PRs. Advocacy for professionalism, weighing costs and benefits, and balanced oversight are uncontroversial and have been proposed before. The difficult task is to define what they require, and here the guidelines are vague. We discuss critically two issues that deserve careful attention.Authors contributed equally to this work. The views expressed herein are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Public Health Service, or the Department of Health and Human Services.

In a short rejoinder, I thank Macklin and Benatar for their very helpful and thought-provoking comments and at the same time, I want to provide some additional information, which might be of interest to Macklin and our readers.

These CQ Sources were compiled by Bette Anton.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to feature editor Kenneth V. Iserson care of CQ. If you do not like the editorial comments, this will give you an opportunity to respond in the letters section. Your input is desired and anticipated.

In their paper “Members First: The Ethics of Donating Organs and Tissues to Groups,” Timothy Murphy and Robert Veatch question the ethical underpinnings of LifeSharers, a grass-roots effort to increase the supply of organs by giving organ donors preferred access to organs.

“Dissecting Bioethics,” edited by Tuija Takala and Matti Häyry, welcomes contributions on the conceptual and theoretical dimensions of bioethics.

The section is dedicated to the idea that words defined by bioethicists and others should not be allowed to imprison people's actual concerns, emotions, and thoughts. Papers that expose the many meanings of a concept, describe the different readings of a moral doctrine, or provide an alternative angle to seemingly self-evident issues are therefore particularly appreciated.

The themes covered in the section so far include dignity, naturalness, public interest, community, disability, autonomy, parity of reasoning, symbolic appeals, and toleration.

All submitted papers are peer reviewed. To submit a paper or to discuss a suitable topic, contact Tuija Takala at [email protected].Many thanks to Professor Raanan Gillon and Professor Dariusz Galasiński for their helpful comments on my earlier ideas on deception, and to an anonymous reviewer for the useful suggestions on the first draft.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to feature editor Kenneth V. Iserson care of CQ. If you do not like the editorial comments, this will give you an opportunity to respond in the letters section. Your input is desired and anticipated.