New WHO Report Calls for Stronger Ethics Oversight of AI-Related Health Research (World Health Organization)
BY WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming health research. It has accelerated scientific discovery and improved outcomes. However, without proper ethical safeguards and oversight, AI could introduce new dilemmas and risks that threaten public trust, equity, and human rights.
AI is already transforming the health sector. AI has improved how data is analyzed, research is conducted, and new technologies are developed and evaluated. The report warns that current ethics oversight may not be equipped to fully address AI-related risks, including privacy, transparency, bias, accountability, and fairness.
The report identifies three categories of AI-related health research: health research using AI data; research using AI tools and technologies; and health research on AI tools and technologies. The report also explores how to strengthen ethical oversight at each stage of research, from study design and ethics review to publication.
Research ethics committees (RECs) will continue to play a central role in protecting research participants. Still, with AI’s rapid expansion and continual evolution, RECs will require the assistance of other professionals across a variety of disciplines, such as funders, scientific journals, data governance bodies, professional societies, and regulatory agencies, to promote responsible and ethical AI-related health research and address systemic challenges associated with AI. Dr. Alain Labrique, Director of the Department of Data, Digital Health Analytics and Artificial Intelligence, states, “As AI technologies continue to evolve rapidly, we need oversight mechanisms that are agile, evidence-based and capable of ensuring that innovation remains safe, trustworthy and beneficial for all”.
Consumers Want to Make Ethical Choices– Without Having to Work Hard for Them (Newsweek)
BY AMY BROWNE
Americans are becoming more aware of, and concerned about, where their food comes from. Some consumers are more selective with the brands they choose and are more conscious of their own habits.
A 2025 survey by Talker Research of 2,000 Americans found that, each year, the average American experiences 48 days of “eco guilt,” worrying they could be doing more, including seeking out companies that prioritize sustainability.
General Mills, a multinational food manufacturer, has begun adapting to what today’s eco-conscious consumers want and care about. Jay Watson, senior director of sustainability at the company, stated, “At General Mills, we’ve been on our sustainability journey for more than a decade…. Our goal is to build a more resilient food system.” Watson further explains that General Mills’ Code of Conduct establishes expectations for human rights, health and safety, the environment, and business ethics.
To uphold their Code of Conduct, General Mills works with farmers and agricultural experts to advance regenerative agriculture, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and design environmentally friendly packaging. To meet the needs of busy consumers who cannot always align their purchases with their ethical values, General Mills makes minor adjustments to food products consumers already know. Agriculture presents unique problems that directly affect our planet and livelihoods; consumers are beginning to apply their ethical values to their purchasing habits, particularly in environmental justice and sustainability, to move towards a more resilient planet.
Huge Majorities of Americans Favor Ethics Reforms for Elected Officials (Baptist News)
BY MARK WINGFIELD
Large majorities of Americans favor ethics reforms for members of Congress and Supreme Court justices, according to new data from the Public Religion Research Institute.
The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) surveyed groups of Americans with different political party affiliations to gather their opinions on issues involving Supreme Court justices and elected officials. They asked about Supreme Court justices’ term limits, whether they use their political power to financially benefit themselves or their families, gerrymandering, and whether they should be allowed to buy or sell stocks while in office.
The study found that 74% said Supreme Court justices should have term limits, including 88% of Democrats, 74% of independents, and 66% of Republicans. Only 7% of Americans believe it should be legal for elected officials to use their public office to financially benefit themselves or family members, while the vast majority (88%) believe this should be illegal in all or most cases. Nearly three-fourths (71%) believe it should be illegal in all cases. The issue of elected officials using their public office to benefit themselves financially or family members is bipartisan; both Democrats and Republicans strongly oppose elected officials using public office for financial gain.
Another bipartisan agreement from the survey is that most people (both Democrats and Republicans) strongly agree that gerrymandering should be illegal. 83% say it should be illegal, including 58% who believe it should be illegal in all cases. Only 15% of Americans say elected officials should be allowed to buy or sell individual stocks while in office. In comparison, 80% say it should be illegal, including 54% who believe it should be illegal in all cases. Again, there is bipartisan support for such limitations, with 79% of Republicans, 84% of Democrats, and 83% of independents agreeing
From Deleting Disease to Designer Babies: Expert Weighs in on the Ethics of Gene Editing (University of Rochester Medicine)
BY SUSANNE PALLO
With major strides in gene-editing technologies, there have been significant efforts to treat disease, but this raises major ethical questions.
Gene editing technologies are a major scientific advancement with new potential to treat diseases, but they still pose risks of unpredictable events. Despite these risks, some private companies are looking beyond disease treatment and want to use gene editing to design embryos with desirable traits.
Bioethicist Lainie Friedman Ross, MD, PhD, the chair and Mark and Lois Taubman Distinguished Professor of Health Humanities and Bioethics at University of Rochester Medicine, says, “The promises of gene editing are vast, but there are many potential risks. We have a responsibility…to ensure that we’re doing this in an ethically and scientifically sound way.”
Private in vitro fertilization companies in the U.S. have already begun genetically screening embryos for desirable traits like height and intelligence, with the marketing idea of “having your best baby.” These claims are ethically questionable, raising concerns that these companies are openly pursuing embryonic gene editing.
While researchers driving technology development are partially accountable, the real issue is the lack of international regulatory oversight and patchy national policies. U.S., legislation doesn’t provide sufficient federally funded research involving human embryos, thus giving private industry free rein and leading research driven by commercial interests to outpace our basic biological research agenda. Lainie Friedman Ross calls for global standards and regulation to guide the responsible use of gene editing technologies.
Australian Fashion Ethical Practices Stalling, Baptist World Aid Report Finds (ABC News & Headlines)
BY LIANA WALKER
Baptist World Aid’s Ethical Fashion Report analyses 500 brands across 48 different measures, including governance, supply-chain tracing, supplier relationships, worker empowerment and environmental sustainability. Its most recent report found that brands scored an average of 31.5 points out of 100, with only a 0.2 percent increase since 2024.
Since its establishment in 2013, the Baptist World Aid’s Ethical Fashion report has shown that fashion companies are getting better at setting policies and outlining their commitments to ethical practice. Still, they fall short in implementing those policies to drive positive change for workers.
Despite vast price differences, the report found luxury and premium brands scored an average of 38.6, whereas fast fashion brands scored an average of 37.91. Despite major price differences, luxury and premium brands scored only marginally better than fast fashion brands. 38% of brands used sustainable fibers, but the overall rise in fiber production, particularly petroleum-based synthetics, outpaced any environmental benefits of the materials used.
To improve fashion ethics and the industry’s performance, Baptist World Aid ethical fashion lead Katherine Halliday said, “What we need to move to now is building in due diligence to that Modern Slavery Act that is requiring action rather than just requiring reporting,”. Governments and consumers should take responsibility for driving and promoting improvements, as businesses and the industry at large may not have the will or desire to change. Consumers can pressure businesses; they do so through their spending. Consumers can refuse or boycott companies and brands that don’t meet their ethical and moral standards by not purchasing from brands that produce unethically.
For more ‘Ethics in the News’ and to keep updated with the latest posts, please consider subscribing to the The Ethics and Society Blog today!
