[FG] Elger Bernice

Monitoring the welfare of animals is an essential part of animal research, both for scientific and ethical reasons. To support this, artificial intelligence (AI) and automated monitoring systems, particularly home cage monitoring technologies (HCMTs), are increasingly being developed and implemented in animal research. Such systems enable the continuous, non-invasive, and objective monitoring of laboratory animals, offering potential benefits for reproducibility, scientific validity, and animal welfare.

Despite their growing adoption, the ethical implications of these technologies remain largely unexplored. HCMTs are often framed as 3Rs (Replace, Reduce, Refine) approaches, yet broader ethical dimensions, including the implications of AI-supported decision-making for professionals, human-animal relationships, transparency, accountability, and oversight, remain insufficiently addressed.

The ETHICAGE project investigates the ethics of automated welfare monitoring in animal research, combining normative analysis with qualitative empirical investigation of animal research professionals’ perspectives. By integrating normative and empirical insights, ETHICAGE aims to inform the ethical implementation of HCMTs and AI in animal research, support animal welfare, and contribute to scientific rigor.

Loneliness has emerged as a pressing public‑health concern, especially highlighted by the COVID‑19 pandemic. Its association with adverse health outcomes and its impact on a fulfilled, flourishing life render it an ethically relevant issue. The unprecedented social impact of pandemic measures during Covid-19 raises ethical questions about the role of loneliness in public health measures in future health emergencies. This doctoral thesis investigates loneliness from both empirical and normative perspectives, focusing on adolescents and young adults worldwide, Swiss residents who experienced loneliness during the pandemic, and the stakeholders who provided social support to them. It further inquires into the ethical implications of loneliness in the clinical setting beyond pandemic crises.

The empirical component comprises three parts: (1) a systematic review of qualitative research on pandemic‑related loneliness among youths, employing JBI meta‑aggregation to synthesize findings; (2) focus groups with Swiss professionals from the German and French-speaking parts of the country providing formal social support, exploring their experiences and views on mitigating loneliness; and (3) semi‑structured interviews with individuals who lived through the pandemic in Switzerland, capturing personal narratives of loneliness and isolation.

Building on Martha Nussbaum’s ‘Capabilities approach’—particularly her notion of affiliation—the first part of the normative analysis interrogates the ethical justification for incorporating the capability of affiliation into pandemic public‑health deliberations. The second normative part addresses loneliness in the clinical setting. It examines possible moral approaches for health care professionals regarding this issue, building on the capabilities approach and extending it to the concrete clinical encounter.

The dissertation aims to integrate empirical findings into normative analysis to build ethical recommendations for future pandemics suitable for the Swiss context and beyond. Qualitative data on Swiss residents’ loneliness experiences during Covid-19 are missing, and there is a lack of ethical analysis on the relevance of affiliation in public health planning. Embedded in the ‘National Research Program 80: Covid-19 in Society’ from the Swiss National Science Foundation, this dissertation intends to make a unique contribution to the current scientific discussion on pandemic planning, highlighting gaps in existing pandemic preparedness frameworks, which largely overlook affiliation, and providing high-quality first-hand insights from the Swiss context.  

What is the research project about?

The project MORALMAP examines how people talk about new plant breeding technologies (NBTs) such as gene editing on social media. It will analyse posts and comments to see which moral ideas – for example fairness, care for the vulnerable or respect for nature and tradition – shape people’s views. It will then test different ways of explaining NBTs that connect with these moral concerns. To-gether with farmers, NGOs, industry and authorities, it will develop practical communication guidelines that help people discuss NBTs more openly and constructively.

Why is the research project important?

NBTs could help crops cope with climate change, pests and diseases, but their success depends on public trust. There are ethical questions about these technologies that the public are rightly concerned about. However, at present public discussions are often tense and fragmented, making it hard to weigh risks and benefits calmly. By mapping the moral “fault lines” in these debates and co-designing new messages, MORALMAP aims to support more informed public choices, strengthen dialogue be-tween science and society, and contribute to socially responsible innovation in plant breeding.

In most countries, including Switzerland, all non-human animal-based experiments are submitted to animal experimentation oversight bodies to evaluate their scientific relevance relative to animal welfare concerns (harm-benefit analysis) and decide whether they should proceed. Within the framework of the harm-benefit analysis (HBA), animal research may thus be justified by legitimate interests of society, in particular, human medical and healthcare advancement. However, patients, who are generally cited as the end beneficiaries of biomedical research using animals, have had little say in animal research ethics, policy, regulation, and the licensing of animal research projects. This project aims to understand and ethically analyse the current decision-making process and decision criteria of the HBA. It also aims to identify legitimate decision criteria from a diverse stakeholder perspective, including people affected by health conditions. Finally, it aims to explore patient and public involvement (PPI) as a notion in animal research endeavours to clarify the decision criteria. The project uses mixed methods: first, a comprehensive analysis of the literature to understand and analyse the current decision-making process, followed by the use of a combination of quantitative and qualitative (online surveys with qualitative components and focus groups) methodologies to collect novel data from diverse stakeholders (scientists, patients, students, the general public and members of oversight bodies) in Swiss society. Since limited openness about animal research evaluation is believed to undermine public trust, this research will create awareness by bringing the discussion about animal research to Swiss society. In effect, clarifying decision criteria by involving diverse groups of stakeholders will increase public trust in the regulation and evaluation of animal research. Finally, exploring the aspects of patients’ involvement in oversight bodies will push the boundaries of PPI in preclinical research and contribute to the public debate about the legitimacy of animal research, paving the way for more societally acceptable and agreeable policies regarding animal experimentation.

New plant breeding technologies (NBTs) such as genome editing enable more efficient and flexible innovations in agriculture and food production than conventional breeding methods. Therefore, they can potentially contribute to global food security and improve public health and environmental sustainability. However, NBTs are currently covered by the Swiss moratorium on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The regulation of NBTs is difficult due to the low societal and political acceptance of GMOs and their ethical and social impacts. These issues need to be addressed to overcome polarization and enable a conscious public and political debate.

This project aims to provide an ethical assessment of the social and societal impacts of NBTs. We will combine ethical analysis with empirical analysis of public debates and stakeholder perceptions, with a focus on the social acceptance of NBTs in Switzerland. The results of the research project will help to analyze the nature and possible reasons for the low societal acceptance of GMOs in Switzerland and its implications for the regulation of NBTs in Switzerland and the European Union.

Background and rationale:

Despite their potential for more sustainable global food production and growing evidence on their security, New Plant Breeding Technologies (NBTs) are currently strictly regulated in Switzerland and the European Union. They fall under the regulations for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), whose use is currently forbidden in Switzerland and burdened by complicated administrative processes in the EU. Scientists have been voicing their dissatisfaction with these legislations.

Objectives and aims:

Few studies have assessed regulations of GMOs from a perspective that combines international law with an empirical bioethics approach. This project addresses this gap by combining a legal part on the international law dimension of GMO regulations with an empirical part that explores attitudes of two major stakeholder groups: lawyers and plant scientists from Switzerland and from countries with more permissive regulations. We will compare attitudes of both stakeholder groups and of Swiss and international interviewees to understand how they balance involved interests. A normative legal and ethics analysis will be carried out by the project team to integrate and balance health, environmental and sustainability concerns and to propose a new framework for evaluating GMO regulations in Swiss law that integrates under-researched aspects of international law.

Methods:

Traditional legal and ethical desk top research methods will be used to conduct a legal and ethical assessment of the regulations of NBTs, integrating Swiss law and international law and its relevance for Switzerland, as well as internationally. We will combine a legal analysis of international laws and standards relevant to the plant breeding and food industry with a qualitative stakeholder interview study.

We will carry out 60-80 individual interviews combining four cohorts of 15-20 interviewees: Swiss law scholars, international law scholars, Swiss plant scientists, and international scientists (international means here: from countries that have more permissive regulations). In addition, 4 Focus Groups (FG), each bringing together 6-10 participants, will be carried out. All FG will be composed of participants from all four cohorts.

In a final part, we will triangulate the results from all previous parts: we will compare the balancing of interests carried out by the interviewed persons with a legal and ethical balancing of interests. These findings will serve as a "de lege feranda" approach, in order to make policy recommendations. The latter will be discussed with a larger group of Swiss and international stakeholders to broaden the debate by raising awareness of relevant international law applicable in Switzerland, as well as of approaches from the international countries included in the empirical interview part.

Expected results and impact in the field:

The international focus of this study will fill a gap concerning legal research, as the implications of different parts of international law (WTO, UN etc.) for the discussion in Switzerland are not fully clear at present. The empirical part will be a way to explore differences in the knowledge and use of available facts and evidence, as well in the balancing of interests of two stakeholder groups that play a major role for the development of new legal regulations. Project results will make larger Swiss stakeholder groups aware of the role of international law and of attitudes in non-European countries and inform recommendations on how to regulate NBTs in Switzerland in line with existing international (trade and environment) law ratified by Switzerland.

EQUIMED investigates sex and gender inequalities in implantable medical devices. Through interviews and multidisciplinary research, it aims to improve equity in medical technology.

Despite technological advancements, medical devices do not function the same way for men and women, with women experiencing more adverse effects. Implantable devices are particularly affected by sex and gender biases. EQUIMED studies this issue in Switzerland, the UK, and Germany by analyzing data, interviewing experts and patients, and evaluating ethical policies. Its goal is to make these devices safer and more effective for everyone.

EQUIMED seeks to understand and reduce these inequalities by exploring why women and gender minorities face higher risks and what factors contribute to these disparities. Its research will support the development of fairer solutions for implantable medical devices, such as pacemakers and neural implants, while also setting new ethical standards in medical technology.

By addressing biases in research, design, and regulation, EQUIMED aims to improve the safety of medical devices for all. The project will provide evidence-based recommendations to help policymakers, manufacturers, and healthcare professionals create more inclusive technologies. Collaboration between regulators, industry, and healthcare providers is essential to ensuring safer and fairer medical devices for everyone.