Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) represent a significant global health challenge, requiring distinct prevention and control strategies. Public health efforts have concentrated on regulating three primary risk factors: tobacco and nicotine products, unhealthy foods and beverages, and alcohol. While the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) stands as a legally binding international treaty, similar international legal efforts for alcohol and unhealthy foods have never gained significant traction. Consequently, global governance of NCD risk factors largely relies on soft law instruments, including WHO strategies, UN resolutions, and cross-sectoral initiatives that set political goals and technical standards. The article argues for the potential of a human rights-based approach to enhance global NCD regulation, emphasizing legal capacity building and managing industry influence. Future efforts should leverage regional and local governance, and ensure robust legislative frameworks to overcome the limitations of current international law and effectively address NCD risk factors.

The federal government has a long history of trying to find the right balance in supporting scientific and medical research while protecting the public and other researchers from potential harms. To date, this balance has been generally calibrated differently across contexts – including in clinical care, human subjects research, and research integrity. New challenges continue to face this disparate model of regulation, including novel Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools. Because of potential increases in unintentional fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism using GenAI – and challenges establishing both these errors and intentionality in retrospect – this article argues that we should instead move toward a system that sets accepted community standards for the use of GenAI in research as prospective requirements.

In Massachusetts, a proposed bill would reduce the sentence of those incarcerated who become living donors of either organs or bone marrow. We outline two concerns with such a proposal, which relate directly to the content of the proposal (as opposed to broader debates about payment for organs and validity of consent obtained from the incarcerated). The first of these concerns is about equality of opportunity. The proposal provides the opportunity for a sentence reduction for some but not for others – and the distribution of these opportunities reflects circumstances largely beyond the control of the incarcerated. The second concern is that the proposal may conflict with why we punish in the first place. The proposal is at odds with the non-consequentialist general deterrence defended by Tadros, retributivism, and communicative theories of punishment. Among the theories examined, only the purely consequentialist version of general deterrence might find the practice palatable. The upshot of the latter observation is that the proposal presupposes the truth of a purely consequentialist theory of punishment and sets aside others.

Multiple factors aligning in 2025 implicate challenges to vaccines as a primary public health intervention. Anti-vaccine proponents seek to recast immunization policies in promotion of perceived individual liberties. Recalibrating national vaccine approaches, however, runs counter to long-standing public health laws and policies grounded in a core truth: safe and effective vaccines save lives.

Trust in the validity of published work is of fundamental importance to scientists. Confirmation of validity is more readily attained than addressing the question of whether fraud was involved. Suggestions are made for key stakeholders - institutions and companies, journals, and funders as to how they might enhance trust in science, both by accelerating the assessment of data validity and by segregating that effort from investigation of allegations of fraud.

Global health law has now emerged as an area of specialisation for students interested in global problems concerning health due largely, if not principally, to the inspiring lifelong scholarly work of Professor Lawrence Gostin. A growing number of universities in the world have established programs on global health law in which they address questions of equity and solidarity in addressing public health issues and emergencies, global and national preparedness for pandemics and other health related emergencies, international health regulations, and the intersection between health and human rights, to mention a few. We can expect that as global health threats and inequalities in access to health continue to rise, interest in global health law as a field of legal research and education will continue to grow.

This article discusses the prospects and pitfalls of a legally binding pandemic agreement under the auspices of the World Health Organization, currently under negotiation in Geneva. Such an agreement could foster a rules-based pandemic prevention, preparedness and response as a reaction to the failures by states during the COVID-19 pandemic, including a lack of effective coordination for sharing all kinds of data and the global inequity in the distribution of medical goods fueled by vaccine nationalism. Achieving these goals, however, will depend upon a meaningful engagement by delegations negotiating the agreement, a legally sound formulation of its provisions, and overcoming the currently pervasive emergency-bias in this field of global health law. Thus, as advocated by Lawrence Gostin in his seminal treatise on Global Health Law ten years ago, the pandemic agreement could help realize the transformative potential of law for facing one of the greatest health threats to humanity.

This article explores two questions: (1) whether portable MRI research might escape regulatory oversight altogether under existing U.S. privacy and research ethical frameworks, leaving research participants without adequate protections, and (2) whether existing regulatory frameworks, when they do apply, can guard society’s broader interest in ensuring that portable MRI research pursues socially beneficial, ethically sound aims that minimize the potential for externalities affecting nonparticipating individuals and groups, who might be stigmatized or otherwise harmed even if they decline participation in the research.

In this article, we examine the relationship between the World Health Organization International Health Regulations (IHR) and human rights and its implications for IHR reform, considering the evolution of human rights in the 2005 IHR, the role of human rights in IHR reforms and the implications of these reforms in key domains including equity and solidarity, medical countermeasures, core capacities, travel restrictions, vaccine certificates, social measures, accountability, and financing.

Portable MRI for neuroimaging research in remote field settings can reach populations previously excluded from research, including communities underrepresented in current brain neuroscience databases and marginalized in health care. However, research conducted far from a medical institution and potentially in populations facing barriers to health care access raises the question of how to manage incidental findings (IFs) that may warrant clinical workup. Researchers should not withhold information about IFs from historically excluded and underserved population when members consent to receive it, and instead should facilitate access to information and a pathway to clinical care.

In a new era of regulatory oversight, the US Supreme Court upended traditional Chevron deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous Congressional provisions in Loper in June 2024. Federal courts were instructed to make their own assessments of statutory authorities amid an onslaught of public health agency challenges surfacing nationally. Even so, SCOTUS may be eyeing further limits on agency powers despite clear and substantial repercussions for the health of the nation.

The paucity of existing baseline data for understanding neurologic health and the effects of injury on people from Indigenous populations is causally related to the limited representation of communities in neuroimaging research to date. In this paper, we explore ways to change this trend in the context of portable MRI, where portability has opened up imaging to communities that have been neglected or inaccessible in the past. We discuss pathways to engage local leadership, foster the participation of communities for this unprecedented opportunity, and empower field-based researchers to bring the holistic worldview embraced by Indigenous communities to neuroimaging research.

The introduction of portable MRI (pMRI) has the potential to directly impact dementia research and ultimately clinical care. In this paper, we explore two ethical challenges facing the introduction of pMRI in dementia research. The first is the need to ensure that pMRI enhances rather than undermines efforts aimed at improving ethnoracial representation in dementia research. The second is the need to implement pMRI in dementia research in a dementia-friendly way that attends to the social context and lived experience of people with dementia.

This article delves into the legal developments, bioethical nuances, and societal perspectives surrounding posthumous sperm use, particularly in the context of soldiers falling during their service. It analyzes the Israeli example during The Swords of Iron War, where the bioethical dilemma is decided based on national solidarity, beyond the “clean” bioethical-legal discussion.

This pilot study is the first formal exploration of the concept of “Organizational Professionalism” (OP) among health system leaders in high-performing healthcare organizations. Semi-structured key informant interviews with 23 leaders from 8 healthcare organizations that were recipients of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) or Baldrige-based state quality award programs explored conceptualization, operationalization, and measurement of OP. Further exploration and understanding of OP in healthcare organizations has the potential to establish and sustain professional and ethical organizational cultures that bolster trust through the sound implementation of laws, policies, and procedures to support the delivery of high-quality patient care.

Portable MRI (pMRI) technology, which promises to transform brain imaging research by facilitating scanning in new geographic areas and the participation of new, diverse populations, raises many ethical, legal, and societal issues (ELSI). To understand this emerging pMRI ELSI landscape, we surveyed expert stakeholder views on ELSI challenges and solutions associated with pMRI research.

To help academic and non-profit investigators interested in drug repurposing navigate regulatory approval processes, we compared pathways for repurposed drugs to obtain approval at EMA, UK MHRA, and the US FDA. Though we found no pathways specifically for repurposed drugs, pathways to market are available in all repurposing scenarios.

A proposed state administrative rule would have required medical ethicists to approve certain aspects of gender-affirming care. The authors argue the proposed rule lacked appropriate justification compared to other instances of state-mandated ethics oversight and would undermine trust, raise practical challenges, and send harmful messages to society, patients, and providers.

People of low socioeconomic status (SES) are often underrepresented in biomedical research. The importance of demographically diverse research samples is widely recognized, especially given socioeconomic disparities in health, but have been challenging to achieve. One barrier to research participation by low SES individuals is their distance from research centers and the difficulty of traveling. This article examines the promise of portable magnetic resonance imaging (pMRI) for enrolling participants of diverse SES in structural neuroimaging studies, and anticipates some of the challenges, practical and ethical, that may arise in the course of such research.

Highly portable and accessible MRI technology will allow researchers to conduct field-based MRI research in community settings. Previous guidance for researchers working with fixed MRI does not address the novel ethical, legal, and societal issues (ELSI) of portable MRI (pMRI). Our interdisciplinary Working Group (WG) previously identified 15 core ELSI challenges associated with pMRI research and recommended solutions. In this article, we distill those detailed recommendations into a Portable MRI Research ELSI Checklist that offers practical operational guidance for researchers contemplating using this technology.