CAPE Lecture / WS
HOME > CAPE Lecture・WS > CAPE Lecture 2014

CAPEレクチャー(2014年度)

CAPEでは、世界中から多数の研究者を迎え、定期的にレクチャーを開いています。応用哲学・専門職倫理に関する最新の研究動向を紹介し、意見交換することを目的に企画されました。また、CAPEレクチャーは、CAPEワークショップともに、外部に公開しています。CAPEは研究者間の国際交流と共同研究、そして人材育成を推進してゆきます。

第60回(2015/03/17)

Speaker: Refeng Tang 唐熱風(中国社会科学院)
タイトル:  Knowledge, Belief, and Justification
日時: 2015年3月17日 16時~
場所: 京都大学文学研究科 第八講義室 (総合2号館地下)
※関連イベントとして、3月19日(木)に日本大学でも唐先生の講演が行われます。
詳細はこちらご覧ください。

第59回(2015/03/18)

Date: March 18, 2015
Time: 15:00-18:00
Place: Kyoto University Faculty of Letters, Seminar Room #3
Guest Speakers:
1. Professor Richard Huxtable (Bristol University):
Assisted Dying in the UK: Will It? Should It?
2. Professor Ruud ter Meulen (Bristol University):
Should we take pharmacological drugs to improve our cognitive functioning?
About the risks and benefits of cognitive enhancement.

Professor Richard Huxtable
Title:Assisted Dying in the UK: Will It? Should It?
Abstract:Although it is traditionally averse to (physician) assisted dying, English law is currently re-assessing its approach, and there is the possibility that the law might change to allow the practice. Whether the law should change is, of course, a significant ethical question. In this presentation, I initially outline the current legal position with regards to assisted dying i.e. assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia. Four key court rulings are described, which indicate that the law is gradually relaxing. Various Parliamentarians now think that assisted dying (in some form) should be permitted, and, having indicated some of the legal models that exist worldwide, I describe a proposal that is currently being debated in the UK. From here we move to the crucial question: should assisted dying be allowed? Here I trace the different ethical arguments offered in support of, and opposition to, such proposals, and I close with some reflections on whether – perhaps unexpectedly – it might be appropriate and possible to achieve a compromise on this difficult question.

Professor Ruud ter Meulen
Title:Should we take pharmacological drugs to improve our cognitive functioning?
About the risks and benefits of cognitive enhancement.
Abstract:There has been a recent excitement among some neuroscientists and bioethicists about the possibility of using drugs and other technologies to enhance cognition in healthy individuals. This excitement arises from recent advances in neuroscientific technologies such as drugs that increase alertness and wakefulness in healthy individuals or technologies that can stimulate activity in different parts of the brain-either via the scalp or via electrodes in the brain. All of these technologies raise the possibility of producing cognitive and affective improvements in otherwise healthy individuals. This development has been described using the term ‘cognitive enhancement’, meaning an improvement of the cognitive and intellectual capacities of the brain. This possibility raises important questions: What is meant by ‘improvement’ or, more specifically ‘improvement of the brain’? Does it mean merely improvements that result in better college grades or better work performance, or does it mean improvements that result in more wellbeing and happiness in individuals’ personal lives? How can taking a drug improve these functions especially in healthy individuals free from clinical disorders?
This presentation will deal with some of these ethical questions. It will start with an overview of the various technologies to improve cognitive functioning, particularly psychopharmacological or psychotropic drugs (sometimes called ‘smart drugs’) like Modafinil and Aderall or Ritalin. I will continue with a presentation of some of the scientific evidence about the effects of these drugs and their possible side-effects, like addiction. After the discussion of the benefits and risks, I will deal with the (alleged) use among college students and academics. I will finish with a discussion of more fundamental ethical concerns like the threat to authenticity, the possible coercive effects of ‘smart drugs’, and the increase competitive behavior that might result from their use. I will finish with the presentation of some ethical questions for further discussion.

第58回(2015/3/12)

Prof. Hajime Hoji 講演会
3月12日 1時~6時
場所 文学研究科地下大会議室
Title: Language Faculty Science
Abstract: I will try to present the essentials of my forthcoming book
Language Faculty Science (Cambridge University Press). The book
explores how we can aspire to accumulate knowledge about the language
faculty in line with Feynman’s ‘The test of all knowledge is
experiment’. The two pillars of the proposed methodology for language
faculty science are the internalist approach advocated by Chomsky and
what Feynman calls the ‘Guess-Compute-Compare’ method. Taking the
internalist approach, the book is concerned with the I-language of an
individual speaker. Adopting the Guess-Compute-Compare method, it aims
at deducing definite predictions and comparing them with experimental
results. It offers a conceptual articulation of how we deduce definite
predictions about the judgments of an individual speaker on the basis
of universal and language-particular hypotheses and how we obtain
experimental results precisely in accordance with such predictions. In
pursuit of rigorous testability and reproducibility, the experimental
demonstration in the book is supplemented by an accompanying website
which provides the details of all the experiments discussed in the
book.Ppt will be in English and the lecture will be in Japanese.

第57回(2015/02/19)

Sherrilyn Roush (King’s College London)
タイトル:Closure and the Growth of Error
場所:京都大学吉田キャンパス総合研究棟2号館(下記の建物34)総合2号館第9講義室
http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ja/access/downlodemap/documents/2014/main-j.pdf
日時:2015年02月19日(木)16:00 – 18:00
Abstract: One reason to care about whether knowledge is closed under
known implication is that if it is not then valid deduction allows the
growth of potential error. But then whether closure failure should be
worrying depends on how fast error grows with every step of deduction,
which is a quantitative question. If knowledge is probabilistic
tracking then we can express this quantitative question, and derive
upper bounds on the growth of error over steps of reasoning. I show
that under a natural condition the growth is slow enough to make sense
of the possibility of learning things indirectly by inference, and
that the condition sheds new light on the distinction between standard
examples where we have closure failure and where we apparently do not.

第56回(2014/12/04)

Prof. Alan Baker (Swarthmore College)
タイトル:Games, Meta-Games, and Emergence
場所:京都大学吉田キャンパス総合研究棟2号館(下記の建物34)1階第10演習室
http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ja/access/downlodemap/documents/2014/main-j.pdf
日時:2014年12月4日(木)18:00 – 19:30
Abstract:The concept of emergence has been applied by philosophers to cases in which a whole system has properties that are qualitatively different from its parts, for example the flocking behavior of large groups of birds, or the consciousness of large groups of neurons. The concept of emergence has also been applied to cases in which novelty arises in a system at some later time. In this talk, I focus on this second concept of emergence and in particular how constraints function in systems to create new possibilities. Using formal games as a template, I investigate how the iteration of simple, mutually interacting rules can lead to surprisingly complex emergent behavior.

第55回(2014/12/03)

Dr. Andreas Kapsner (University of Muenchen)
タイトル:The Proper Logical Treatment of True-and-False Statements
場所:京都大学吉田キャンパス総合研究棟2号館(下記の建物34)1階第10演習室
http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ja/access/downlodemap/documents/2014/main-j.pdf
日時:2014年12月3日(水)18:00 – 19:30
Abstract:Statements that are both true and false, also known as truth value gluts, have proved useful in many areas of philosophy. They promise solutions for semantic and other paradoxa, offer news ways to conceptualize vagueness, change and information, and they help in the analysis of puzzling views of Buddhist and other Asian philosophers. There are even mathematical indispensbility arguments in favour of them.
In this talk, I want to explore the following idea: In view of these successful applications, truth value gluts should be allowed in the semantics of logical systems, as they are in many non-classical systems. However, unlike what is standard in such systems, these gluts should be treated as undesignated values. I shall give my reasons for taking this to be a view worth exploring and discuss its effects on such topics as dialetheism, paraconsistency and relevance logic.

第54回(2014/12/02)

Otávio Bueno氏 (University of Miami)
タイトル:Epistemic Structural Realism: Some Troubles
場所: 文学部新館地下大会議室
日時:2014年12月2日(火)15:30-17:00
アブストラクトはこちら

第53回(2014/11/27)

講演1

Alessandro Salice, Center for Subjectivity Research, University of
Copenhagen
講演タイトル:Collective Commitments: Instrumental vs Communal
場所:文学部1階会議室
日時:11月27日18:00~19:10
Abstract:This talk tackles the notion of collective commitment. One influential view about collective commitments maintains that these commitments come only in one kind: if you and I are committed to a goal so that my commitment is conditional on yours and yours is conditional on mine, then there is a collective commitment at place. In the present paper, I intend to resist this view and to defend the claim that collective commitments ome in, at least, two different forms.
The first occurs when two or more individuals decide to join their forces based on instrumental considerations. If I intend to reach a goal by means of a specific strategy in which you figure as a contributor and if you intend to reach the same goal by means of a strategy in which I figure as a contributor, then each of us has a
‘strategic’ commitment to reach that goal.
A different kind of collective commitment (call this a ‘communal’ or a ‘we-’ commitment) is created when a we-group (i.e., a group with a social identity or a we-perspective) is committed to a given goal. In contrast to the first scenario, where the goal is distributively shared, here the goal is collectively shared. Once the we-group
commits to the goal, individual commitments arise for all the persons involved in virtue of the fact that they belong to the we-group at stake, i.e., that they are members of this we-group.
After distinguishing, describing and elucidating these two kinds of commitments in the first part of the talk, in its second and last part some conclusions for social ontology and the theory of collective intentionality will be drawn.
講演2

John Michael, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary
講演タイトル(共著者):A Minimal Approach to Commitment (co-authored with Günther Knoblich & Natalie Sebanz)
場所:文学部1階会議室(講演1と同じ)
日時:11月27日19:20~20:30
Abstract:This paper sets out a theoretical framework for understanding interpersonal commitment. We begin by formulating three desiderata: to identify the motivational factors that lead agents to honor commitments and which thereby make commitments credible, to pick out the cognitive mechanisms and situational factors that lead agents to sense that implicit commitments are in place, and to illuminate the onto- and phylogenetic origins of commitment. In order to satisfy these three desiderata, we conceptualize a broad category of phenomena of which commitment in the strict sense is a special case, and introduce the term ‘minimal commitment’ to designate this broad category.

第52回(2014/10/17)

Prof.Matthias Schirn(Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy (LMU))
タイトル: Frege’s philosophy of geometry
場所:京都大学文学部校舎第3演習室
日時:10月17日18時~
Abstract:My talk is in five sections. I begin with introductory remarks. In the second section, I cast a glance at Frege’s early views on geometry and arithmetic, while in the third I comment on the relationship between Frege’s and Kant’s views of geometrical knowledge. In the fourth section, I examine, in a critical way, Frege’s remarks on space, spatial intuition, and geometrical axioms in a key passage of The Foundations of Arithmetic (1884, §26). I conclude with critical remarks on the topic “Frege and non-Euclidean geometry” and a short overall assessment of Frege’s philosophy of geometry.

第51回(2014/10/14)

Prof. Ruth Kastner(University of Maryland)
タイトル:The Transactional Interpretation, the Growing Universe, and Free Will
場所:京都大学文学研究科第七講義室
日時:2014年10月14日 16:30-18:00
講演者について:Ruth Kastner 先生は量子力学の哲学、とりわけ近年注目される交流解釈(transaction interpretation)を専門としています。 The Transaction Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility (Cambridge University Press, 2013) という著書があります。
Speaker: Ruth Kastner (University of Maryland)
Title: The Transactional Interpretation, the Growing Universe, and Free Will
Place: Lecture Room 7, Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University
Date: October 14, 2014, 16:30-18:00ABSTRACT:
It is often supposed that physics rules out free will. However, this assumption is not necessary. In this talk, I introduce the latest version of the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which involves a dynamic growing universe. In the transactional world, time has a natural direction because the future is open, consisting of dynamic possibilities. This, in turn, allows for genuine volition to enter the domain of action in which change occurs: that is, the present moment.

第50回(2014/9/30)

Prof. Samuel C. Wheeler III (University of Connecticut, USA)
タイトル:Relative Essentialism: How Davidson, Aristotle and Kripke are all partly right
場所:京都大学文学部校舎、第3演習室
(地図の8番の建物です。http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en/access/campus/main.htm
日時:2014年9月30日(火)、16:30-18:00
講演者について:Samuel C. Wheeler III氏は、コネティカット大学哲学科の教授。専門は、言語哲学、形而上学、倫理学、古代哲学など。詳しくは以下のウェブページを参照してください。
https://uconn.academia.edu/SamuelWheeler
http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/davidson-and-derrida/
CAPE Lecture“Relative Essentialism: How Davidson, Aristotle and Kripke are all partly right”
Samuel C. Wheeler III (University Connecticut, USA)
Time: 16:30-18:00 September 30th (Tuesday) 2014
Venue: Seminar Room 3, Faculty of Letters Main Bldg., Kyoto UniversityAbstract:
Donald Davidson said nothing about modality. However, by his principle that nearly universally held beliefs are largely true, he is implicitly committed to accepting modal truths. Those modal truths must be de re, that is, about the entities, not conceptual. Given his externalism about truth-conditions, the truth of a sentence such as “A cow is necessarily an animal” cannot depend on contents of the concept cow, but rather on what “is a cow” is actually true of.Davidson also thought that sameness is always relative to a predicate. This seems to deny the point of view of essentialist accounts of de re necessity, such as those of Kripke and Aristotle, which depend on there being a single entity, with an essence, underlying all descriptions of what is in a location. In Aristotle’s terms, there is at most one substance at a given location.This paper develops an account of de re necessities that allows of a plurality of articulations into kinds of objects. I call the account “relative essentialism.”The fundamental idea of relative essentialism is that the articulation of the world into beings and properties is a requirement of thought that we impose, not an intrinsic articulation of reality. The idea is akin to Kant’s ideas. Just as for Kant that experience must be spatio-temporal is a feature of us, and not the world, so the articulation of the world into beings and properties is a requirement of thought, rather than an intrinsic feature of reality. We must think in terms of properties and objects in order to make inferences which depend on sub-sentential structure. There are therefore multiple different articulations we make, all of which are ontologically on a par and all of which articulate reality into real beings.For each entity-constituting predicate in an articulation, there are de re necessities about those posited objects. Thus for instance, the Battle of Stalingrad could have involved one fewer soldiers, but the space-time worm coinciding with that battle would be a different worm without that component.I argue that Davidson ought to accept a number of views that he either never said anything about or which he denied in print. I argue that he should accept that mental events, while having the same causes and effects, are different from the coinciding physical events. I argue that there are true de re modal truths about many kinds of objects.

第49回(2014/9/1)

Prof. Saranindranath Tagore (National University of Singapore)
タイトル:On the Concept of World Philosophy
場所:京都大学文学部校舎、1階会議室
日時:2014年9月1日(月)14:00‐16:00

第48回(2014/7/23)

Prof. Masahiro Yamada (Claremont Graduate University)
タイトル:Against Conditionalization
場所:未定
日時:2014年7月23日(水)16:00 〜17:30
アブストラクト:
The Bayesian approach to probability theory holds that mathematical probablity theory suitably interpreted gives us a powerful tool for understanding reasoning under uncertainty. This talk’s primary focus is on a particular version of this Bayesian approach that I will call ‘Laplacean’. On this view, standard probability theory as handed down to us by Laplace gives us a complete account of reasoning under uncertainty. In particular, one must conditionalize in updating one’s beliefs: the updated degree of credence for A given new evidence B is given by the conditional probability of A given B. A powerful argument in favor of the Laplacean view is given by a mathematical result known as Cox’s Theorem which proves that one can accepts some seemingly unproblematic assumptions about an idealized reasoner if and only if one also accepts that standard probability theory is the only possible account of reasoning under uncertainty. I argue that one of the assumptions, which I call the Dependence Thesis, must be rejected. This means that the Laplacean view and in particular its view on how to update in the face of new evidence must be rejected, too. I will end with some diagnostic remarks and some suggestions for future directions for the general Bayesian approach.

第47回(2014/7/22)

Tamra Lysaght (Senior Research Fellow : Science and Technology in Society Cluster Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore)
タイトル:At what risk? The duties of physicians in public emergencies.
場所:京都大学文学部校舎、大会議室(地下1階)
日時:7月22日16:30-18:00
アブストラクト:
Major disasters are public emergencies that tend to demand significant medical resources and expertise. These demands may be greatest in situations where medical professionals are unable to access their workplace or are unwilling to remain in an affected area. This situation may result in hospital facilities being understaffed and unable to cope with the influx of patients requiring assistance. While physicians who work outside the affected area may wish to offer their assistance, the lack of reliable information and uncertainty that often follows a disaster can make it difficult to assess whether it is safe enough to enter an affected area to provide medical assistance. These challenges are compounded when the immediate risks are unknown but the need for medical care may be critical.
In this essay, we discuss the legal and moral obligations of physicians to provide medical care to patients affected by disasters. As doctors may have existing fiduciary duties towards patients under their care, and specialist training may be required to diagnose and treat those affected by the emergency, physicians may be legally and ethically required to remain in or around disaster zones despite the risks of harm to themselves. To help understand these duties, we consider two scenarios: 1) where a physician works in or near a disaster zone, 2) where a physician works away from the disaster zone. Specifically, we consider these obligations within the context of Japan and the partial meltdown of the Diiachi Nuclear Power Plant that followed the Great East Japan Earthquake in March 2010. We find that while physicians in Japan do not necessarily have legal obligations to assist in public emergencies, they may be ethically required to do so. We conclude with suggestions for future inquiries to better understand and articulate the ethical justifications that underpin these obligations.

第46回(2014/7/17)

Dr. Ricki Bliss (University of Otago)
タイトル:Dependent Entities and Ultimate Explanations’
場所:未定
日時:2014年7月17日(木)18:00 〜19:30
アブストラクト:
We are so often told that there is, or has to be, something fundamental. But why is this? One way of reconstructing arguments from vicious infinite regress to the existence of something fundamental requires the inclusion of an assumption that stipulates that what we wish to explain is why there are any dependent entities whatsoever; along with the inclusion of another assumption that stipulates that no dependent entity is up to this explanatory task. The success of this argument relies crucially, and mistakenly, on the idea that the terms `dependent fact’ and `dependent thing’ behave like terms such as `flamingo’. I argue that the terms `dependent fact’ and `dependent thing’ are, in fact, dummy sortals and that ultimate existence questions framed in terms of them are semantically defective. The kinds of questions we can ask about dependent entities can be answered perfectly well in terms of other dependent entities. Dependent entities explain everything for which we could reasonably hope to have an explanation.

第45回(2014/7/16)

Prof. Koji Tanaka (University of Auckland)
タイトル:Empirical Arguments for Paraconsistency
場所:未定
日時:2014年7月16日(水)18:00 〜19:30
アブストラクト:
The late Robert Meyer and Graham Priest have (independently) presented the following line of arguments for the invalidity of the classical inference ex contradiction quodlibet (A, ~A |= B for any A and B): according to classical logic anything follows from a contradiction, but it would be ludicrous to reason, and we just wouldn’t reason, to an arbitrary claim from a contradiction; therefore, the classical inference is wrong. Their arguments rely on empirical methodology for determining validity/invalidity of logical principles. In this paper, I will examine their empirical arguments and defend their empirical methodology. I will demonstrate that logical principles can be thought to be an empirical matter.

第44回(2014/7/15)

Prof. Bronwyn Finnigan (Australian National University)
タイトル:Knowing-how and the practical mode of presenting a proposition
場所:未定
日時:2014年7月15日(火)18:00 〜19:30
アブストラクト:
Stanley and Williamson (2001) challenge Ryle’s view that knowing how can be defined in terms of knowing that. They argue that Ryle inadequately establishes his view and they provide an alternative account, according to which ascriptions of know-how are always ascriptions of propositional knowledge. A condition for the latter is that the relevant propositional knowledge be entertained under a ‘practical mode of presentation’. In this paper, I will critically engage this notion. Ryle’s proper target, I shall argue, concerns whether the exercise of know-how in intelligent actions can be sufficiently analysed in terms of knowing-that. Stanley and Williamson’s notion of a ‘practical mode of presentation’ is, however, intended to denote the fact of a causal relation between the relevant propositional knowledge and the actions in which it is instantiated. While this may well provide an acceptable semantics of know-how ascriptions, I will challenge the idea that their assumed notion of propositional content can explain intelligent action. I will conclude by raising some general issues about the intersection of semantic theories of meaning with action theoretic philosophies of mind.

第43回(2014/7/2)

David Hilbert (University of Illinois at Chicago)
Perceivers, circumstances, seeing color
7月2日水曜日に京都大学大学院文学研究科・文学部にてDavid Hilbert教授が講演を行います。Hilbert教授はアメリカのUniversity of Illinois at Chicago哲学科の教授であり、色の哲学、知覚の哲学、近世哲学史(G. Berkeley)の研究をなさっております。
場所:10演(総合2号館1階)
時間:18:00-20:00
Abstract: The fact that perceived color varies with both the circumstances of perception and with the characteristics of the perceiver is often thought to have important consequences for the ontology of color. The precise nature of these consequences is a disputed matter but nearly all agree that the ontological consequences of variability in perceived color are important. All such arguments, however, rely on substantial and controversial assumptions about perception and ontology. Consequently, it is possible to evade the force of these arguments by denying the perceptual and metaphysical assumptions implicit in the argument. In other words, these arguments primarily serve to highlight disagreements about perception in general and metaphysics in general and are only secondarily of significance for color. Facts about perceptual variation should take their place among the many interesting facts about color and color perception that any theory of color should account for and lose the special significance they have had in recent discussions of color.

第42回(2014/6/25)

Prof. Yumiko INUKAI (University of Massachusetts, Boston)
The Self as an Aggregate?: Hume and Nagarjuna on the Self
日時:2014年6月25日(水)18:00-19:30
場所:京都大学文学部校舎、1階会議室
Abstract: The fact that perceived color varies with both the circumstances of perception and with the characteristics of the perceiver is often thought to have important consequences for the ontology of color. The precise nature of these consequences is a disputed matter but nearly all agree that the ontological consequences of variability in perceived color are important. All such arguments, however, rely on substantial and controversial assumptions about perception and ontology. Consequently, it is possible to evade the force of these arguments by denying the perceptual and metaphysical assumptions implicit in the argument. In other words, these arguments primarily serve to highlight disagreements about perception in general and metaphysics in general and are only secondarily of significance for color. Facts about perceptual variation should take their place among the many interesting facts about color and color perception that any theory of color should account for and lose the special significance they have had in recent discussions of color.

第41回(2014/5/20)

アンドリュー・ピッカリング(エクセター大学)
Different Worlds: Cybernetics as a Nonmodern Paradigm

第40回(2014/4/30)

Ruud ter Meulen (Professor of Ethics in Medicine, Bristol University)
How decent is a ‘decent’ minimum of health care?

第39回(2014/4/7-10)

Jay Garfield (National University of Singapore)
Buddhist Epistemology
Buddhist Logic and Philosophy of Language

第38回(2014/4/2)

Peter Shiu-Hwa Tsu (National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan)
Reason Holism, Individuation and Embeddedness
CAPEについて
ご挨拶
ミッション
応用哲学・倫理学
学内連携
国内連携
国際連携
関連する過去の活動
メンバー
水谷 雅彦
芦名 定道
出口 康夫
伊勢田 哲治
児玉 聡
海田 大輔
大塚 淳
研究員
教務補佐員
運営委員会
CAPE Lecture・WS
CAPEレクチャー
CAPEワークショップ・
シンポジウム等
プロジェクト
生命倫理
環境倫理
情報倫理
研究倫理
実験哲学
ロボット哲学
宇宙倫理
分析アジア哲学
動物倫理
ビジネス倫理
教育・アウトリーチ
教育活動
入門書紹介
メディア
臨床倫理学入門コース
研究倫理学入門コース
出版物
出版プロジェクト
研究業績
page
生命倫理のひろば投稿

<生命倫理のひろばでのルール>

  • 読みやすさを考えて、文字数は400 字以内におさめてください(最大800 字まで)。
  • 投稿の際には「ニックネーム」を指定できます。
  • 質問やコメントの掲載までに1 週間前後かかる場合があります。
  • 一度に多数の投稿をいただいても掲載できない場合があります。
  • 「生命倫理のひろば」の主旨にそぐわないコメントや以下の内容を含むものは掲載できません。

     ● 営利目的の情報 ● 不必要な個人情報 ● 人を不快にさせるような記述

 ※ 読みやすさの観点等から、コメントおよび質問の文言をこちらで修正することがございますので、
   予めご了承ください。

回答者一覧

児玉 聡 ( 京都大学・文学研究科、倫理一般)
佐藤 恵子 ( 京都大学・医学部附属病院、生命倫理)
鈴木 美香 ( 京都大学・iPS 細胞研究所、研究倫理)
長尾 式子 ( 神戸大学・保健学研究科、看護倫理)

生命倫理のひろば 質問・コメント入力フォーム

※印は、入力必須の項目です。(お名前、ニックネームは、いずれか必須となります)
お名前
ニックネーム

※投稿の署名欄には「ニックネーム」を表示します。
「ニックネーム」の記入がない場合は、投稿の署名欄に「お名前」を表示します。
E-mail

※コメントの掲載についてご連絡する場合がございますので、メールアドレスは必ずご記入ください。

タイトル
コメント
ありがとうございました。ご入力が完了しましたら、【確認】をチェックして投稿ください。
上記内容を確認しました 確認

×